Quantcast

Comments about ‘Committee advances bill banning city dog-breed ordinances’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 6 2014 6:49 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
drich
Green River, Utah

There are more pressing issues to debate than this!!

jimy
St. Geroge, UT

The House passed (and the Senate is considering) prohibiting cities from “discriminating” against dogs based on “breed.” While some argue this as a promotion of individual liberty, I think it is (if we peel back the layers) probably anthropomorphism. The House is not promoting the freedom of citizens to own animals on their property (Will this bill let me keep some milk cows in my back yard? No).

Rather it applies “equal protection of law” to a type of animal (the domesticated descendants of the wolf), arguing that much like laws that discriminate against races are violations of the equal protection clauses of the Constitution, public ordinances that approach dog breeds in divergent manners are “violations” of animal rights. I think there are problems beneath the surface of this innocuous-appearing law.

Remember, no personal freedom is promoted—cities can still ban and regulate all dogs theoretically. The bill merely prohibits humans from regulating (by ordinance) a Pomeranian distinctly from a Doberman because “all dogs are created equal.” The key to treating animals kindly is teaching love, not enshrining rights.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments