@BYU_Convert: "Utah hates people who are gay. That's all there is to
it."Concur that it is sometimes difficult to read a few of these
emotional posts directed at fellow citizens. An unfortunate common theme among
the detractors is that, clearly, celestial indoctrination is a significant
component behind the animus, anyone denying this is simply being intellectually
dishonest.Those promoting dogma-driven laws clearly misunderstand
the intent behind the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless, SCOTUS actually settled this entire issue last summer with the
Windsor decision. This is why a whole raft of states have recently
thrown out their marriage discrimination laws, including Oklahoma, Kentucky,
Virginia and Louisiana. It is why Nevada has decided to no longer defend the
Utah's leadership and government just doesn't want people of the LGBT
community to have any rights period. Republicans in Utah are clear that the
only rights that they want gays to have are the rights to live and breath and
maybe eat food, but to heck with anything else regarding housing, employment,
hospital care, etc. Utah hates people who are gay. That's all there is to
it. If you are gay in Utah, you have no future here. Nothing anyone does or
says will ever change that absolute and eternal fact about the nature of Utah
and the religious stranglehold the residents are under. Unless you are
straight, then you might as well get your handcarts together and sojourn to a
place where you can actually be treated as a human being. I hear there's
plenty of wide open spaces in Northern Canada that are uninhabited.
Oh and as far as this matter goes, It sounds like they were warned, and told
what they would be charged of, so they deserved it, just like any other group
would deserve to be arrested whether minority, majority, popular, unpopular,
As Far as I am concerned, the Federal Constitution will prevail, and the state
will (and should) be able to marry (or civil-unionize)(made up word) everyone
equally. This way everyone gets equality in the lawThe Churches can marry
whoever they want. This way the church can grant "salvation" or
blessings to those that deserve it based off of their religions standards.
Marriage in the church can be legally binding in the state, but does not give
any extra benefits.If any of you have a problem with this, let me know,
and I will watch for comments, and try to explain what I mean, or you might
convince me to change my mind. (Probably not, but who knows)
Every time I see that guys name I instantly think brokeback mountain. Thanks
H-wood.The quest for more equal has not yet come to an end.
It's been rather magical but I don't see gandalf anywhere.
To "USU-Logan" so what you are saying is that it is ok to discriminate,
as long as it is only against the less desireables.My post only
pointed out how they experience discrimination. The question is why do you want
to discriminate against them?
I am GENERALLY a support of LGBT rights. But in doing things like this they do
themselves more harm than good. They demand rights but refuse to give rights.
The gentleman having an APPOINTMENT with the Govenor was denied his right to
attend that meeting because these protesters deemed their rights to override
his. What gives them that privilege? what makes them and their cause superior
to his? can we say NOTHING. they had NO right to prevent him from his meeting.
if you want to protest, do so. but in protesting don'e
interfere with the rights of others to conduct their own business. all it does
is hurt your cause in the eyes of those who may be sympathetic to you. I
applaud the protest. I agree you have that right. but you do NOT have the
right to abridge my comings and goings so arrest them and give them jail time.
@RedShirt"The problem is that if you say that you can't
discriminate based on sexual orientation, what about pedafiles, ex-cons, drug
addicts, young adults, crazy people, and so forth? Will you discriminate against
them in any way?"-------Are you equating gay people
to pedafiles, ex-cons, drug addicts, crazy people? and you still wonder why Utah
needs a non-discrimination law to assure gay people being treated equally? If they need evidence of discrimination or animus they are dealing with
daily, look no further than your post.
desert says:"Next on the news I wish to see in the head lines.
"LGBT community thanks Utah for being tolerant ..."--- You
want us to thank you for denying equality in marriage? That, sir/ma'am, is
not "tolerant". Why do you deserve our thanks?As for your
church being know for it's "tolerance"; your church was involved in
every. single. state. where anti-marriage amendments have been passed. That,
sir/ma'am, is not "tolerance"."... they have no
clue how nice Mormons can be."I grew up Mormon. I know how nice
some of you are. I also know how cruel some of you can be (read the comments
here in the DN, for example).Meckofahess says;"The
gay community would deny our religious liberties ..."--- You
already deny our religious liberty, to worship and marry as our various
religions allow. You don't like it when your own acts come back to haunt
you?@midvale guy;"Unlawful act"? The US
Constitution gives us the right to "petition our government" for redress
People are being spoon fed mis-information about the non-discrimination
ordinances. It's not about bathrooms, it's not about being forced to
rent a property to gay person. It's not about being forced to hire someone
because they are gay. All this ordinance does is adds sexual orientation to the
anti-discrimination ordinances that already exist. That is all. The
non-discrimination ordinances that already exist that include gender, religion,
race and age. These are not special rights, these are simply human rights.
People can be fired just for putting a picture of their spouse on their desk, if
their spouse happens to be the same gender. Landlords can be compelled to evict
residence from their homes simply because someone doesn't like who they are
and yes these things happen here in Utah every day. Stop listening to the lies
and mis-information from the Eagles forum and the Southerland Institute. Look at
these ordinances yourselves and then make your decisions.
@wrz "How can that happen if some person thinks he's woman and enters
a lady's locker roo"its quite simple. A man's privacy
is protected in a man's locker room, so long as there are no women there. A
woman's privacy is protected in a woman's locker room, so long as
there are no men there. I can think I am living in Antartica but
reality is I'm living in Midvale. I can think I'm a 25 year old
dominating in the NBA, bur reality is I'm not.I can think I'm a
dog(as some people do). There was a recent ABC article on such a person. But
I'm not. Standards in society have to be rooted in reality,
wrz,Men belong in mens locker rooms. Women belong in womens locker
rooms. This isn't rocket science. As there is much confusion in BGTL
community, we need to come up with some sort of definition of male and female.
And when competent medical professionals have concluded that any given person is
male or female, we are left with that as the best evidence, unless there is
compelling evidence otherwise. But, as has been pointed out by Chris and
others, a belief or wish by someone does not make it so. Chris B is not a
purple dinosaur even if he wants to be or even if he thinks he is. Similarly,
having a medical professional state that Chris B thinks he is a flying dinosaur
does not mean he is a dinosaur. If there is a better proposal for
defining what male/female is as opposed to what competent medical professionals
conclude at birth of child, I'm open to hearing it. And again, if you want
to give rare examples of anatomical ambiguity, we both know that would be
disingenuous and hurt your argument unless that is a requisite for a person to
be able to be transgender.
If SB100 is such vital anti-discrimination legislation, and the Utah Congress is
foot-dragging, please let the proponents bring this issue into the public
square, where it will be considered on its merits, before the people of Utah.
Those who stage public demonstrations misrepresenting SB100 surely seem to be
well-funded and motivated. Instead of volunteering to be thrown in jail as
media stunt, let them expend some of their energy getting voter approval for an
initiative that will bypass the legislative inertia.I frame this
challenge solely on the basis of my certain opposition to the passage of this
legislative measure. It does not represent the best interest of the people of
Utah. And I am convinced that in a democratic proposal, with full disclosure of
all the implications, the voters of Utah would flatly refuse to back this
special-interest legislation.If, as is being asserted, the people of
Utah overwhelmingly favor this measure, there should be no problem with
subjecting it for full scrutiny.As in similar issues, they bear the
burden of proving that SB100 is what it claims to be.
@Christopher B:"So in other words, a woman who only wants to shower or
change clothes in front of other women and not men has no right for that kind of
privacy."Both women and men should have the right to privacy in
public locker facilities. If trans gender folks show up, you don't know if
they're male or female. They could be both. If a female is changing clothes
and a person enters the showers with a beard she certainly has a right to be
suspicious."There is no reason to separate the genders in any
locker room setting ever if the reason for such separation can be nullified by
someone believing the reason for separation doesn't exist, regardless of
whether it does or not."Whaaat?@Ted H.:"My
wife and teenage daughters have the right to reasonable privacy, and that
reasonable privacy includes not having to change their clothes in front of men
in areas that have been designated as for females only."I agree.
Everyone has the right to personal privacy. How can that happen if some person
thinks he's woman and enters a lady's locker roo
To "USU-Logan" you are missing the point.Imagine that you
own a house, and are renting it to a group of straight men. A gay man comes to
you and wants to rent a room in that house too. Would you knowingly introduce a
gay man into that group, or would you suggest to that gay man that the current
room mates may not appreciate sharing the house with him? What if you let the
gay man rent a room, and then the others beat him up because they don't
like gays? Would you feel bad that you did not discriminate by telling the gay
man that he was entering a potentially harmful situation?Would you
want to be one of those straight men, knowing that the gay man that you landlord
added to the house could be looking at you as more than just a roommate?The problem is that if you say that you can't discriminate based on
sexual orientation, what about pedafiles, ex-cons, drug addicts, young adults,
crazy people, and so forth? Will you discriminate against them in any way?
Yen yang thing, you have to have lubricant for the inner parts and gas for the
movement to happen. A lot of money and sheared interest has got the show on the
road. how far depends on the lube and the interest. I think it will come down
to, who in the gov is coming out of the closet, and who will go back in to their
hole. When gas and oil mix the gasket will blow.
desert wrote:"The most stupid thing with the LGBT issue in Utah
is, they have no clue how nice Mormons can be."I am married to
an active LDS woman. I have lived among Mormons for three decades. I attend
meetings regularly.My observations have been that, like this
self-serving comment, Mormons in general have an overly inflated opinion of
themselves and their own "niceness".
The protestors thought this out and will win in the long run.Utah is
already receiving a great deal of negative worldwide media attention because of
the state's anti SSM philosophy. This protest adds fuel to that fire. This
situation also adds to the overall scenario that Utah is a very religious state
and is trying to keep their Mormon state just has it has been since the Mormon
pioneers landed in the territory.Others who cannot accept the LDS culture
and abide by the LDS rules, have always been, and will continue to be advised to
No matter what those protestors believed they had bravery to stand up to the
system for their beliefs. I am proud of their courage and belief. I also
remember in my own history when Blacks stood up to my Church and finally forced
that change. At the time I was shocked they dared challenge my beliefs! But
history now shows us they were right.
Let's get away from the anecdotal "evidence" and find some real
evidence that such discrimination happens. I work with a lot of homosexuals.
They promote just as easily as I do because they are qualified for the job, not
because of whom they sleep with. I have heard of no housing discrimination
amongst them. They live where they want. The only time I have heard anyone at
work complain that they had problems with housing is because they caused it and
got themselves evicted, just like any one else would if they misbehaved.There are ample laws already on the books to protect against
discrimination of all kinds. We do not need more. Nor do we need to establish
any more "protected" classes.
All this junk about people using the other restroom is getting out of hand. All this equality is attempting to do is erase needed boundaries. Things
are just going to get strange from here on out. Guys that can't
take XY trying to go to the girls bathroom as if It will solve anything.
Absent any extenuating circumstances, Utah citizens favor fairness and would
voice overwhelming support for equality and against unfair discrimination. But SB100 is not about defending against discrimination or promoting
equality. What it represents was effectively demonstrated by the shouting
disruptive protests at the Utah Capitol. Utah legislators would be well advised
to consider this in their deliberations. No hand-waving or shouting of
disingenuous slogans can disguise the obvious animus and harmful intentions that
these protesters have for imposing on the law-abiding citizens of Utah. SB100 is a legislative solution in search of a problem. It does not
merit further consideration.
wrz, The need for privacy between the sexes is legitimate. Chris correctly
points out that a belief by someone in something does not make it so. My wife
and teenage daughters have the right to reasonable privacy, and that reasonable
privacy includes not having to change their clothes in front of men in areas
that have been designated as for females only. I like some of your
ideas about unisex restrooms and am glad some logic can be put behind coming up
with actual solutions. Much credibility is lost however when one believes my
wife and daughters should be able to prohibit a biological male from entering a
locker room they are in if that biological male thinks he is a male but
shouldn't have the same right to privacy with someone who is similarly
biologically male but thinks they are female
wrz,Those who don't want to shower with someone who is
transgendered will just have to go home?So in other words, a woman
who only wants to shower or change clothes in front of other women and not men
has no right for that kind of privacy. Any person who thinks they are a woman
should be able to walk into a ladies locker room simply for believing they are a
woman, as if belief made it so. Too funny. Thanks for helping prove
my point of why this bill and those who support it are dishonest and hide what
it really means. There is no reason to separate the genders in any
locker room setting ever if the reason for such separation can be nullified by
someone believing the reason for separation doesn't exist, regardless of
whether it does or not.Liberals often start with good intentions,
but as the bill proves, typically end up in la la land. Hard to take anyone
seriously when they're suggesting a man should be able to shower with a
women(and she has no rights to privacy) if he simply wishes/believes he is a
@Chris B:"ok perhaps that would work. But you're not really
suggesting that be done are you?"My suggestion applies only to
restrooms. Locker space and showers are something entirely different.If you go to a hospital, the restrooms are for both sexes. You go in, one
person at a time, and lock the door behind you. So it will/does work for
restrooms. For locker rooms, I suppose individual changing spaces would have to
be the answer. For showers... looks like those who do not wish to be in a
shower with someone who is trans-gendered will just have to go home to
shower.Anyway, it's an extremely knotty problem.
Lagamorph, It seems most of us agree women should be in womens locker rooms and
men in mens locker rooms. Such a societal standard now requires we answer the
question: What makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman. Although you
could present rare situations when a person's anatomical structure is not
clearly indicative of male or female, that would be a disingenuous argument
because that clearly is not the basis of support. If that were the reason
behind the support, every such person would present physical ambiguity relating
to gender. We all realize not all such transgender people fall into this
category. Therefore, if you're willing to have an honest discussion, the
question still must be answered of what makes someone male or female As for the proposed allowance for an employer to look for consistency in that
person's identification or medical records, that still fails to identify
what makes someone a male and what makes someone a female. Because they believe
they are or doctor acknowledgement they belief as such? Sorry,
you'll have to do better than that.
Lagomorph,The bill only requires that an individual IDENTIFY as a
certain gender, not that they actually BE that gender. And yes, there is a big
difference.I can THINK I am a flying purple dinosaur. I
can even get a doctor to write a note saying I IDENTIFY as a flying purple
dinosaur. That is not the same as a doctor saying I AM a flying purple
dinosaur. Surely you understand this very big difference.
If people knew what was in the bill, the support would drop from 72% to 7.2%.
I am going to keep watching this activity and make my selection accordantly at
the ballot box.
@desert"Instead...everyone is complaining about religious influence
and church dominance."Utah voters banned even civil unions in
Utah and the church got involved heavily in Prop 8, what else are people
supposed to think?
@ DesertYou wrote: "The most stupid thing with the LGBT issue in Utah
is, they have no clue how nice Mormons can be." What???Don't you realize that most LGBT in Utah are Mormons or were raised in a
LDS family? I am an LDS and probably will be one until I die. May be
I will be excommunicated, but still, I will consider myself a Mormon. I was
raised as a Mormon, served a mission, served in the church, but I am a
homosexual and I know how nice Mormons can be. I also know what blind faith and
little knowledge can do, It is not a pretty picture.Many Mormons are
supporting SSM and Gay rights and to them we are grateful for their support.
However, that doesn't change the behavior and hostility of the
Chris B: "Anyone who simply says the magic words 'I am a woman'
is now allowed in womens locker rooms."No. Read the bill,
specifically 34A-5-106, subsections 7(b) and 8(c). These are intended to
prevent fraudulent claims of gender identity to access restrooms and locker
rooms. They allow an employer to require documentation of gender identity,
including medical records. Your scenario would not be allowed under the law.
It takes more than saying some magic words to access female private spaces.
The hostile environment in Utah spoken of needs some clarification.The most stupid thing with the LGBT issue in Utah is, they have no clue how
nice Mormons can be. It is just not known to them, or they would have found
other means to ask for what they want. The church has some rulings in place,
which are derived from Christ teachings.The church is built on Christ and
knowing what he taught is the key to have a better place in Utah. Not by
submission but learning.Instead...everyone is complaining about
religious influence and church dominance.If you know how a Mormon or
better someone who follows Christ like Mormon did, is thinking and feeling about
the value of each soul, you would soon arrive at the conclusion, that seeking
equal rights could be achieved with a very different approach. I am not telling
you , you have to find out.
" In other words, what protection does that women have to ensure she only is
given other female roommates by the landlord?"That
responsibility is on the woman. It would be her duty to find the proper number
of women needed to fill the rooms in the apartment, and then they go in on the
lease together. If or when one of the roommates moves, the rest then have the
duty of either finding another woman to rent that vacancy, or they agree to
increase the amount of rent each one of them pays. See how simple that is.
for those that ask about a woman who wishes to rent out a room in their house
only to other women, the following Utah code currently applies-- It
is a discriminatory housing practice to make a representation orally or in
writing or make, print, circulate, publish, post, or cause to be made, printed,
circulated, published, or posted any notice, statement, or advertisement, or to
use any application form for the sale or rental of a dwelling, that directly or
indirectly expresses any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, source of income,
or disability, or expresses any intent to make any such preference, limitation,
This is 13 people involved in an unlawful act. Arrest them and move on. It is
true that dissent is an american tradition, so is arrest and sentencing. I
don't want to spend one more dollar of taxpayer money on this issue until
the federal courts rule on the issue. Everybody that has a bill in front of the
State legislature thinks their issue is the most important as well. That
doesn't mean it is.
wrz,"Just make all 'restroom' part unisex. Keep the
sinks, mirrors, towel dispensers etc., separate. Problem solved."And yet I've never once heard that proposed in any sort of legislation
that every restroom/locker room in every school and ever impacted building in
the entire state be converted so there is no such thing as a womens locker room
or men's locker room.If you're really proposing changing
every restroom/locker room everywhere in the state - ok perhaps that would work.
But you're not really suggesting that be done are you?
Klimber510Thank you for pointing out those details that I knew were
buried. And like you say, its par for the course for this group to be
misleading like that.Anyone who simply says the magic words "I
am a woman" is now allowed in womens locker rooms.Sorry, will
not support that!
Christopher B I will address your question about whether you have the right to
rent a room to a specific gender if you do not feel comfortable renting to the
other. The answer is that non-discrimination bills have a floor. This
particular bill only applies to (on the housing side) people who own at least 4
rental units. So in your scenario, yes a woman would be allow to deny renting a
room to a man.
The 72% representation, as is a pattern for the LGBT community, is misleading.
It feigns support for SB100 which is not true.Buried in the middle
of SB100 is the following:517 (b) It is a discriminatory and
prohibited employment practice to deny an employee518 access to restrooms,
shower facilities, or dressing facilities that are consistent with the519
employee's gender identityAccording to SB100 what is gender
identity?83 (k) "Gender identity" means an individual's
internal sense of gender, without regard to84 the individual's
designated sex at birth. Evidence of gender identity may include an85
individual's self-identification, as well as the individual's
gender-related appearance,86 mannerisms, and other gender-related
characteristics.What does this mean? It means that if I am a
biological male who identifies as female, an employer must allow me to use the
ladies' restroom, dressing area, and showers.Where? Certainly
any facility that receives public funds, such as the county recreational
facility where you go swimming. Also, any incorporated business such as the gym
where you go exercise or where you work. I object to this provision
in SB100 because I believe women have a right to privacy and to feel safe.
@Schnee"The bill applies to apartment complexes, not people
renting out a room in their house"And what is a landlord is
renting out several rooms individually, can he rent out to males and females in
a single apt? Clearly he can. And what if a tenant in one of those rooms is a
woman who wants to live with other women. Can the tenant get the landlord to
promise in writing he will only rent to other women? Or would that be illegal?
In other words, what protection does that women have to ensure she only is given
other female roommates by the landlord?
I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, however I have had several
positive business relationships with them. We had four very good workers that I
interfaced with in the workplace. I also rented a house to two male homosexuals
that were the best renters I ever had. Most renters are pigs but these fellows
were excellent. They all respected my rights, and didn't run around
hugging, kissing and carrying signs professing their gay rights in my presence.
@ Desert:you wrote: "Next on the news I wish to see in the head lines.
"LGBT community thanks Utah for being tolerant and thanks SLC for giving
them a stage to protest". How about that."If you read the
article, there were several "straight" people in the demonstration. To
those people the LGBT community says Thank You!However, there is a
difference with what you expect. See, imagine Union soldiers entering into
Alabama and forcing this white slave master to release his/her slaves. Would you
expect the slave to say Thank you to the ex-master for his/her freedom?The State of Utah has been and is a hostile State to LGBT people. Now, within
Utah, there are some wonderful people who are able to see beyond the established
bigotry and discrimination and they have taken a stand against those maladies.
We have some examples in the article, we have some wonderful straight voices in
some of the commenters in this forum. To all of them we say THANK YOU! The
Government body of Utah doesn't deserve our gratitude..... yet! Change
@Baccus0902: "No more hiding, no more secrecy.Sorry, but I
don't wanna hear your secrets.@mecr"However, and I do
wonder, how do I explain my travesty neighbor to my elementary age
children?"Tell them that these people are just celebrating
Halloween all year round."...or the ones that like smoke
pot?"You might wanna not address that situation to the kids but
to the police."...or the man-eater girls... or the gigolo
guys?"What are they?"I do think business owners
should be allowed to decide who lives in their house or who does not."Some restaurants won't let you in with no shirt and wearing
flip-flops.@nycut:"...desert's comment shows a
severely limited view of what constitutes gay community, and seems to
(incorrectly) assume that gay people exist separately from "everyone
else" and are not religious."The LGBT's seem to wanna
be considered a separate community.@the rock's tells of an
employer resistant to "allowing" a trans woman use the women's room
because she wasn't "female enough" -- according to the employer.Just make all 'restroom' part unisex. Keep the sinks,
mirrors, towel dispensers etc., separate. Problem solved.
@desert"is the gay-community known for serving the poor and needy or
some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring the elderly e.g. the catholic
church is well known for"Um... gay isn't a church or an
organization. That's like asking if white people are known for serving the
poor. ["LGBT community thanks Utah for being tolerant and thanks
SLC for giving them a stage to protest". How about that.]That
would require Utah to actually be tolerant first. @Ted H."He's pointing out that discrimination is allowed in situations where
a woman may want to rent only to other women. "The bill applies
to apartment complexes, not people renting out a room in their house.
Read the Bill.Hear the Bill.It is only right.
Wouldn't it be a positive step for the state of Utah to get out in front of
the issue of equality and pass a law that would protect all gay people from
discrimination in employment, housing, etc.? This is an issue of fairness and
equality, which I thought was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Come on,
Utah, you can do it!
Anti Discrimination laws force a person to do something that they don't
want to do?Just how does that work in a "free country"?We have freedom of speech but nobody is required to listen to anyone
else.We have freedom of the press, but nobody is required to read what I
write.Rights do not impose obligations on anyone else.Anti
Discrimination laws force people to do things they may not want to do. This is
entirely inconsistent with the very idea of rights.
Polling shows strong support for adding the LGBT community to the other classes
listed in the state antidiscrimination law. The DesNews's own polling
shows 72% and that other paper shows 60%. Either case is a clear majority.
Several communities representing a large portion of the population already have
similar protections at the local level. So why is the legislature so reluctant
to hear a bill that normally would be a slam dunk with those kinds of
numbers?The answer from legislative leadership is concern that some
legislator would let slip an undiplomatic remark that could be construed as
"animus" thus taint the state's current marriage lawsuit. Can the
GOP leadership not control its own caucus and keep to a defined message?
Perhaps there is a fear that the bill would not pass at all and thus demonstrate
that the legislature is guided by an animus not representative of the population
it represents. I concur with the protesters and others here that refusing to
read the bill is (ironically) demonstration of the very animus they are trying
They tried this tacky trick in Idaho. They all got arrested. It didn't make
a very good impression.
"It would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity in the workplace and housing." Lets review a few
scenarios then.Its ok for a woman to not rent to a man because its
ok to discriminate on gender. But it would be against the law to discriminate
based on "gender identity" so it would be illegal for a woman to not
rent to me if her reason was that I'm a male, even if I tell her I
"identify" as a female? So in other words as long as I think I'm a
female then she can't deny housing to me because I identify as a female?
But if I(being the same person) decided I identified as a male then she CAN
discriminate because its ok to discriminate based on gender and not gender
identity?So in other words I control whether a female renting a room
has the right to rent to me or not, by simply telling her I identify as male or
female, regardless of whether I truly am male or female? Chris, I
don't often agree with you, but you're spot on here.
@Ted H and Chris B"Would you please address my actual point, that
there is no difference between a straight man not wanting to rent to a gay man
who may be attracted to him just as a woman may not want to rent to a
male?"------That is exactly why I suggest you read
the actual bill first before jump to any conclusion.The situation
you said is perfectly fine with SB100, because it is a private home. You are
just making a straw man here.Once again, Do you really think 72
percent of Utahns would favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, if such a law
does not allow a woman to rent her private house only to a woman? Or does not
allow a straight man not wanting to rent it to a gay man?
Of course this bill would mess with Amendment 3. If you started treating
Gay's/Lesbians with equality then you might have to let them get Married
too. That's not what Amendment 3 is about. Amendment 3 sounded great on
the ballot in 04 and I am thinking it did not cross the minds of many during the
vote the issue of Gay Marriage would be front and center in Utah just 10 short
years later. Some folks in our state had some very good foresight
regarding this matter. If Amendment 3 were around Gay Marriage would be a
non-issue, right? It seemed in 2004 after 108 years it was time to modify the
States Constitution. Those responsible for Amendment 3 probably never thought
the Gay's would stand up and demand their rights but here they are just
like Women and Blacks who bravely fought for their rights before them.Any way you slice it Amendment 3 is dirty. It was designed for the sole
purpose of excluding Gay's/Lesbians from ever enjoying the freedom of
marriage. If not that, what purpose dose it serve? Dirty indeed.
@Usu-Logan - You seem to not be understanding what Chris B is getting at.
He's pointing out that discrimination is allowed in situations where a
woman may want to rent only to other women. This is discrimination,
by definition. So why shouldn't the same rights apply to a heterosexual
person wanting to live with other heterosexuals, just as a woman wanting to live
with other women.
"Here we stand for justice and liberty for all," said gay rights
activist Troy Williams who organized the demonstration.Well, what
about justice and liberty for all (including the majority of Utahns) The gay
community would deny our religious liberties to speak about morals and immoral
behavior in the public square. The gay community does not want religion or God
included in the discussion at all outside of our Churches and homes. We have a
consitutional right to voice our opions including OUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS
anywhere we please - including in the public square!Everyone has
needs, concerns and rights, not just the gay minority.
This delay is unconscionable. It's a matter of right and wrong--it's
simply wrong to discriminate against a person because of what he or she is.
usu - logan,Would you please address my actual point, that there is
no difference between a straight man not wanting to rent to a gay man who may be
attracted to him just as a woman may not want to rent to a male?Why
is it ok for a woman to discriminate against a man and not rent to him but not
ok for a straight man to not rent to a gay man if he doesn't feel
In the above post, that rose to some exitement, I was refering to the church as
organization, it's reputation well known. The LGBT community consists of
single people as well, and I hope they are being treated by Mormons as their
loving Sisters and Brothers.But, that was not the point. What I wish
for the LGBT community as they are organized, that any event we read about in
the news will shine some reputation for their good.Not that
"fighting" standing in line to demand rights.Next on the
news I wish to see in the head lines. "LGBT community thanks Utah for being
tolerant and thanks SLC for giving them a stage to protest". How about that.
"It is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision involving money
discriminates against everyone that you don't give the money to. The only
difference between freedom and a dictatorship is "who makes the
decisions". A free man makes his own decisions. In a dictatorship the
government decides almost every importing issue."So would you be
okay with losing your home, education, and job because you're white and
Mormon?The same posters who spout off about this bill clearly
haven't read it. This display of ignorance shows even more why this bill
should be discussed, not swept under the rug during some secret caucus meeting.
@desert's comment shows a severely limited view of what constitutes gay
community, and seems to (incorrectly) assume that gay people exist separately
from "everyone else" and are not religious. @chris b's
questions demonstrate a limited understanding of how discrimination protections
in housing law works, and under what circumstances they are applied.@the rock's tells of an employer resistant to "allowing" a trans
woman use the women's room because she wasn't "female enough"
-- according to the employer.All of these are examples of why the
bill should be heard.
I read the bill. I found it is actually an update to the existent one that
prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, etc. It says, and
I quote: "A person may not be considered "otherwise qualified,"
unless that person possesses the following required by an employer for any
particular job, job classification, or position:", and then it lists
"moral character". For that fact alone, I can disregard an
application based on the moral character clause. Did the senator leave that on
purpose? Because right now, half of the state doesn't consider gay behavior
of moral character at all. You got to love politicians. However, and I do
wonder, how do I explain my travesty neighbor to my elementary age children? or
the ones that like smoke pot? or the man-eater girls? or the gigolo guys? either
they define moral character or we will be back to point one. I do think business
owners should be allowed to decide who lives in their house or who does not.
Isn't your home, your property protected under the constitution?
@ Desert"The church is known for its tolerance and loving kindness
toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known for serving the
poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring the elderly
e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?"Gays serve our
community in many facets. They serve in many non-profits, social organizations
and even in the churches you reference. I work and live alongside many gays and
they have earned their reputations long before requesting and fighting for the
very same rights you and others already enjoy.
their protest is misdirected. the governor cannot decide which bills get a
hearing or a vote and which do not; why are they protesting at his office?why don't they protest for anti-discrimination laws against
EVERYONE who suffers some type of discrimintaion? why just them?
@ DesertYou wrote:"The church is known for its tolerance and
loving kindness toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known
for serving the poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for
caring the elderly e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?"The answer is , YES!The Mormon church has thousands of members who are
LGBT and yes, we participate as everybody else.The Catholic church and all
other churches and organizations have LGBT among their members and we
participate there too.You may not like it, but we are your brothers
and sisters, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, neighbors, teachers,
accountants, lawyers, construction workers, football players, etc., etc. we are
members of your community and you are my brother a/o sister.It makes
me proud to see our brothers and sisters in Utah fighting for their rights. No
more hiding, no more secrecy.
Laws prohibiting discrimination have lead to employers being forced to allow
members of the GLBT community to use any restroom they want. My employer had to
deal with very angry women when a person going through gender reassignment
surgery wanted to start using the women's restroom.It has also
led to photographers being force to photograph same gender weddings; cake
decorators being forced to provide wedding cakes to the same.It is
impossible not to discriminate. Every decision involving money discriminates
against everyone that you don't give the money to. The only difference
between freedom and a dictatorship is "who makes the decisions". A free
man makes his own decisions. In a dictatorship the government decides almost
every importing issue.Sorry, but I would send this crowd packing.
Is it illegal to deny housing to someone based on gender?For
example, if a woman is renting out a room in her house, does she have the right
to only rent to other women if she does not feel comfortable renting to a
man?Or does a woman have no right to deny me from renting that room
if her reason is simply that I am a man and she wants a female roommate?It would seem logical to allow her to deny my "right" and not
rent to me if she feels more comfortable with a female roommate.Similarly, it should be my right to only rent to a straight person if I do not
feel comfortable renting to a gay person, just as a woman may not feel
comfortable renting a room in her house to a man.
But they were free to come and go as they pleased. Such activism is
directed for rights.I once heard a sacrament meeting talk on rights,
in which we were reminded that if you have rights you also have
responsibility.The church is known for its tolerance and loving
kindness toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known for
serving the poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring
the elderly e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?All I am
saying is, LGBT community and activism is known for demanding more rights,but how about earning some reputation ?
There are 72 percent of Utahns favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, and the
survey was conducted by DN, not by a liberal institute.I wonder why
Utah legislature don't want to give such bill a hearing and a fair