Quantcast
Utah

Poll: Majority of Utahns in favor of nondiscrimination laws

Comments

Return To Article
  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 23, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    We do have a little rental and we try to have only university or college students, but we can't discriminate on race. Never have had two men or two women, but don't know if they were gay. We prefer the married couples. I didn't know you could discriminate.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    @hockeymom 12:32 p.m. Aug. 20, 2014

    We just don't get to infringe on other's religious rights, as long as no one is getting hurt.

    ------------------------

    That's the problem. When you deny a class of people the right to marry, for no reason other than "your religion teaches that it's wrong", then you hurt them. You deny them the 1300+ rights that those of us who are straight get from one simple secular contract -- marriage. Allowing LGBT people to marry won't hurt society and won't hurt religion. Allowing LGBT people to marry won't hurt families. There is no requirement that religions recognize the secular LGBT marriage contracts. It just provides equal secular status for families that happen to have a differently-configured structure.

    I don't know if you realize it, but you are making the exact same arguments that were made against multi-racial families prior to the LOVING decision. Those arguments weren't well-based then, and they aren't well-based now.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Aug. 21, 2014 4:59 a.m.

    I once read this some place "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator"

    Read this over and over till it sinks in.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @Vanceone

    "Please tell me where I have the right to force a business into bankruptcy if they refuse to participate in a ceremony."

    How about the 1st Amendment which states, in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." or, in one word, "boycott." The Religious Right does it all the time. Here are some examples of boycotts against businesses for supporting things the right does not like:

    7-Eleven
    Abercrombie & Fitch
    American Airlines
    Burger King
    Calvin Klein
    Carl's Jr.
    Clorox
    Comcast
    Crest
    Ford
    Kraft Foods
    Microsoft
    MTV
    Universal Studios
    DreamWorks
    Mary Kay
    Old Navy
    IKEA
    Sears
    Procter & Gamble
    Target
    Walt Disney Company
    PepsiCo.

    "Please tell me how I can get people fired for disagreeing with my political beliefs,"

    Write their sponsors or boycott their products and services. When the Christian right does it they call it "free speech" but if LGBTs do it the right throws out the double entendre about "homosexuality being crammed down their throats."

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    @Vanceone wrote: "Please tell me how I can get people fired for disagreeing with my political beliefs, like gays are doing all over the country. I would surely love it if you could show me how to get TV shows and their actors removed and taken off the air for violating my moral codes, like gays are doing."

    So, are you against all boycotts in general, or are you only against those boycotts that you are ideologically opposed to?

    Because if it's the former, I think you'll be shocked to find that the anti-gay community has a LOT of boycotts. Of course, most of them are unsuccessful since the majority of Americans, as it turns out, actually likes LGBT people.

    "Why do you need even more legal cudgels to use against your political opponents?"

    Because people do get fired for being LGBT. Because people do get refused housing for being LGBT. Because people get abused and bulled for being LGBT. Because people get KILLED for being LGBT.

    LGBT people are on the fringes of society, and need protection, and it's the moral thing to do.

  • hilary nottingham, 00
    Aug. 20, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    It is a beginning, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a step. Why cant everyone just relax a little.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    My_two_cents_worth: Please tell me where I have the right to force a business into bankruptcy if they refuse to participate in a ceremony. I'm curious, since gays are shutting down businesses and getting people all over the country fired for not worshipping their agenda.

    Please tell me how I can get people fired for disagreeing with my political beliefs, like gays are doing all over the country. I would surely love it if you could show me how to get TV shows and their actors removed and taken off the air for violating my moral codes, like gays are doing.

    Seems to me that you gay supporters have far more power and rights than I do. Why do you need even more legal cudgels to use against your political opponents?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    @mohokat
    "Once again more government intrusion. How about I choose who I hire and rent my property to."

    If you are renting your own home to a limited number of tenants, or your business has fewer than certain number of employees, you can still choose whoever you hire and rent your property to. This law is for bigger business owner.

    Frankly, if a business owner can not deny someone's employment or housing simply because of race, gender or sexual orientation, I don't see what is wrong with that.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    @Vanceone

    "Why should we give a group of people any more "rights" and protections "

    No one is asking for any more rights. They are asking for the same rights you take for granted. What makes you think you have the authority to decide who does and who does not get equal protection under the law?

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @ Wonder

    The issue is Church and State don't mix. I get that proclaiming my religious beliefs as laws are being made, may never change the outcome of the law. I also get that not everyone will agree with my religious beliefs. Whether the law supports my religious beliefs or not, won't change my religious beliefs, but I do want to be protected to practice my religion as I see fit, in as much as it doesn't harm anyone. ISIS (for example) can disagree with Christians all they want, but according to Western culture and religion, they don't have the right to kill them. Western culture/values are the ones I'll stand up for, and according to the dictates of my own conscience. That's the beauty of religion - we do get to choose. We just don't get to infringe on other's religious rights, as long as no one is getting hurt.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Pretty simple: We see gays suing and shoving and forcing everyone to comply with the "We are better than you--you WILL serve and dance to our petty whims!" the gays are shoving down the countries throat., Why should Utah sign up for that?

    Why should we give a group of people any more "rights" and protections when all they have done is harass and force people to go out of business, or threaten them with jail, or force them out of a job because they have the audacity to disagree that gays are the greatest form of humanity possible? If the inventor of one of the main parts of the internet can be forced out of a job because he failed to have the "correct beliefs" then I'm sorry, the gays need no more legal protection.

    It's the rest of us who need protection from them.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    If we're going to worry about enacting God's will into law, then we're going to have to enact laws banning contraceptives for married couples, banning people of different religions from marrying each other, banning people from converting from one religion to another, banning women from showing their hair, banning interracial marriages, banning sales of alcohol, banning dancing, banning women driving, etc. because there are religions that ban all of these things. Why pick and choose among religious beliefs.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    @Flashback wrote: "More feel good laws. There are already many laws on the books that cover this stuff. We don't need more."

    There are no statewide laws in Utah that protect the employment and housing rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Nor is there a federal law.

    Utah (and indeed the USA) does need more.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    @hockeymom,

    "This is not in accordance with God's will"

    from Article I, Section 4 Utah State Constitution: "The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

    God's will is immaterial with respect to the civil affairs of the state.

    "I've never heard a GA or Apostle ever say in Conference that "those people" are "icky", "sinners""

    No need, their followers are doing it for them.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    For those claiming the "God's will" argument, there are 21 different Christian denominations that openly support SSM. Your religion is not the official state religion. The United Church of Christ recently filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina stating that the ban on same sex marriage there violates their freedom of religion.

    Those who are against non-discrimination ordinances have always been against them. They have used the same arguments in 1967, in 1978, and today. "How about I choose who I hire and rent my property to" was the rallying cry against the 1978 ENDA as well as Affirmative Action laws and Equal Opportunity.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    More feel good laws. There are already many laws on the books that cover this stuff. We don't need more.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    I think most Utahn's have always been in favor of non-discrimination in the workforce and housing, and that people in long term committed relationships need to have access to one another in hospital and to their partner's assets when they die, if that is what they want. The thing most Utahn's have issues with are the SS "marriages". This is not in accordance with God's will, and I think most of us in Utah agree we need to speak up in defense of God's will. SS couples just need to use a different term that means the same thing, but distinguishes their union from heterosexual marriage, since it is not the same thing, no matter with what brush they try to paint it.

    BTW Laura Bilington - I've never heard a GA or Apostle ever say in Conference that "those people" are "icky", "sinners" or anything other than our brothers & sisters. But even so, we can love and respect them as our neighbors, friends and colleagues without accepting what they do as correct, good or right.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    'Sexual preference'? Who says 'sexual preference' anymore? It's 'sexual orientation.' Using 'preference' may fit in with the whole 'SSA, not gay' narrative that many religious people are trying to push.

    Also would have been nice to see the poll numbers supporting/opposing gender identity protections.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    "The passage of a non-discrimination bill is contingent on the ability of lawmakers and voters to separate same-sex marriage from "simple workplace and housing discrimination," Sen. Steve Urquhart said Tuesday on "The Doug Wright Show." "If I can succeed in doing that, we will pass this."

    Sen. Urquhart, I would suggest to add for us (LGBT) to ride the back of the bus. Nobody could claim discrimination, after all, we are being allowed in the bus. Right?

    "you can put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change it's still gonna stink, we've had enough of the same old thing" ( Web: MemeTracker)

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    It does not matter what the polls indicate people want or believe. It only matters in Utah what the Republican Tea Party wants to present as its policy ideas. And this policy is to continue discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens.

    Politicians at all levels of government don't really care what people want, they only care about the $ to get re-elected. And to get back into office you must tow the party line, or else.

    Welcome to the new America, Utah.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    If Utahns fall for this nonsense they will deserve the consequences which will be, among other things, bogus complaints and lawsuits, government running stings at taxpayer expense and the ultimate discovery that the only ones discriminated against are the religious and the responsible -who will also happen to be the property owners. This will be followed in short order by "social justice" initiatives, increased section 8 housing, crime and Broken Windows syndrome.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    These poll results are totally useless except to illustrate how people can be manipulated to say one thing or another.

    Read any DN Opinion piece dealing with gay marriage. You will see lofty platitudes about respect for all Utahns followed by assertions that maintaining Amendment 3 leads to such virtuous goals protecting children, strong families, and religious liberty.

    Nobody ever gets around to explaining how denying marriage licenses to gay adults is harming children, weakening families, or infringing on anybod's religious liberty.

    Bill Duncan's quote is classic. He talks about reconciling fairness and "protecting family" as if there's some huge thing there to reconcile! Then he goes on to say--not quite this bluntly, of course--that people might not be OK with laws which crimp their right to continue to discriminate, because their church tells them that "those people"; are icky / sinners / whatever.

    His ideal bill would not create any "troubling" categories like sexual orientation and it would have a "strong religious exemption". In other words, a bill which says nothing at all, protects no one who isn't already protected, and has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, would get his support.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    Once again more government intrusion. How about I choose who I hire and rent my property to.