Think-tank targets anti-discrimination

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • susanne whitaker
    Oct. 15, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    I see this as a childrens' issue. The proposed legislation once again, favors a minority special interest group, bringing them closer to the breakdown of the basic unit of society - the natural family. Please don't cave in to the loud voices of such a small group.

  • Cheating
    Oct. 13, 2009 12:42 p.m.

    Re: "With that in mind, and the possibility his efforts may be parried by lawmakers in this winter's legislative session, the mayor will push for an April implementation date, if the changes are approved by the City Council."

    I think we've uncovered an agenda here. Knowing that he will be overturned by the legislature, Hizzoner wants to make a cynical and useless political gesture.

    Hate crimes legislation is NOT an introduction to the 21st century. Thoughtcrime was described quite well by George Orwell in the first half of the 20th century.

    You paleoliberals -- why is it you're always looking backward, as you call yourselves "progressive?"

  • Anonymous
    Oct. 13, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    This ordinance protects heterosexuals as well. Therefore it protects all classes of people as does any piece of anti-discrimination. Let's enter into the 21st century folks.

  • Stuart G. Crump
    Oct. 13, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    Putting phrases such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into law would be more legally hazardous than producing heroin lollipops with wrappers that say "100% natural" and "brain cell enhancing" and then distributing them to children.

    Pandora's box of legal exploitation would be wide open.

  • just a mainstream LDS guy
    Oct. 13, 2009 10:52 a.m.

    Why do they promote such hate, disguised as public policy. Mormons are a protected class, Governor Herbert is a protected class being both Mormon and a male over the age of 40, yet they fret about "special rights" for gays and lesbians while enjoying all sorts of protection themselves. Hypocrisy and hate. That's what you get from Sutherland.

  • More lies from Sutherland
    Oct. 13, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    NONE of those states that Sutherland claims have used "sexual orientation protections" as launching points to marriage have a constitutional amendment like Utah does (with the exception of California who NOW does with the passage of prop 8, but previously did not). Even though I support gay marriage, there is NOTHING a court in Utah could do to legalize gay marriage because of Amendment 3. Now activists, of course they have the right to fight and try and change public opinion to repeal that amendment. At which point it would be the "will of the people". Until then, sutherland is just spreading more lies with releases like this.

  • Sink Tank
    Oct. 13, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    Marriage? Really? REALLY?

    I better tell my wife we're about to get a divorce. Because as soon as my supervisor can't harass my gay coworker anymore for being gay, I'm sure our marriage will fall apart. That was the last thread.

    And their compromise is to eliminate employment at-will in Utah? Good luck with that.