Nondiscrimination bill gets a hearing but tabled by Senate committee

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Feb. 6, 2012 9:18 p.m.


    Try a web search using "longevity of homosexual relationships". The numbers are there in black and white, and the statistics are no secret to the people in that lifestyle.

    The truth about ourselves is usually what irritates us most when it is pointed out by others.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 5, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    @flying fin
    what research fin? none of the research by the APA the NASW or APS supports your claims. If you have some credible secret research that contradicts the experts you may want to share it with the pro prop 8 crowd because they are losing bad in the courts because of the same kind of basis claims you and rifleman are making.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 5, 2012 6:21 p.m.

    where are theses studies flying fin? we have had this discussion hundreds of times on these threads but once again check out the research by the American psychological association, the National association of social workers and American pediatric society. all credible sources contradict both you and riflemans claims. there is a reason your side keeps loosing int he courst its because in the light of day you have nothing to support your claims

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    George writes: "So do you think your bias could show anymore? The fact that you erroneously assume that gay couples do not have long term relationships"

    Quite the opposite is the case. In study after study after study the relative brevity of relationships and fidelity among gay couples has been documented. I won't speculate on the reason why because I'm not a psychiatrist.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 5, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    and the source for your numbers comes from where exactly;y? long term relationships for homosexuals is on average the same or slightly longer then for similarly situated heterosexuals. There is no reason to believe if allowed to marry they would not have similar numbers.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    Re: Bubble | 10:14 p.m. Feb. 4, 2012
    "it is precisely because gay couples do have long term relationships"

    The longevity of homosexual relationship is well documented. The percentage of same sex couples living together between 16 - 19 years is about 4%. It is about 58% for heterosexual married couples in the same time period.

    Fidelity in current homosexual relationships is about 4.5%, for married women in is about 85% and for married men it is about 75.5%.

    The truth isn't always pretty.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 10:14 p.m.


    it is precisely because gay couples do have long term relationships, children and grandchildren that they want the right to marry so they can protect that which is so precious to them, their family.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 4, 2012 10:11 p.m.


    So do you think your bias could show anymore? The fact that you erroneously assume that gay couples do not have long term relationships, or children and grandchildren coupled with your disgusting comment about public bathrooms affairs really speaks volumes about you and not really so much about the gay community, but thanks for laying it out there for everyone to see.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 9:54 p.m.

    Re: Bubble | 7:40 p.m. Feb. 4, 2012
    "Really, you are going to pull out this failed line of reasoning again?"

    Coming home at night to a spouse and children certainly beats what ever comes in second, and having a grandchild sit on your lap telling you that they love you certainly beats a 30 minute love affair in a public restroom.

    It is one thing to have a long term relationship with one individual, married or otherwise, and it is quite another to have no commitment to the partner(s) you are unfaithful to on a regular basis.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    Really, you are going to pull out this failed line of reasoning again? your only defense is to compare homosexuality that has no proven harm to others with behaviors with these extreme behaviors that have a very clear and direct harm to others. I could just as easily make the same erroneous comparisons with religion or political persuasion to restrict you rights. It is exactly because of this type of reasoning that those that appose gay rights are losing in the courts on a regular basis and increasingly losing ground in public opinion.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 6:06 p.m.

    Re: atl134 | 3:10 p.m. Feb. 4, 2012
    "Why should I tolerate bigotry against homosexuals?"

    Who sets the limits, boundaries and definitions of bigotry? I'm I a bigot because I don't believe old men should be allowed to marry young girls against their will and treat them like slaves? Am I a bigot because I have no tolerance for those who believe in honor killings when their daughters marry against their will? Am I a bigot because the god I believe in the God that wants us to be chaste and clean?

    Sorry, but I don't buy into your politically correct definition of "tolerance".

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    so if these nondiscrimination laws are so bad then why not strike down all nondiscrimination laws including those that protect religion and political affiliation? I came here from the east coast and believe me you would not want to be LDS or republican and not have some protections but hey lets go for it.....right?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    "Those who are demanding tolerance for others the loudest appear to have none for those who don't agree with them."

    Why should I tolerate racism? Why should I tolerate bigotry against Mormons? Why should I tolerate bigotry against homosexuals?

    @The Rock
    So you're comparing gay people's livelihoods (non-discrimination in employment and housing)to someone choosing not to eat a big mac? Yeah you are right... that is politically incorrect; also morally disturbing.

  • tigger AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    Don't know much about the bill...didn't read it. Perhaps it was flawed. But I did read these comments and most of them are appalling.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    Re: atl134 | 10:12 a.m. Feb. 4, 2012
    "It's like that old saying... first they came for the gays but I wasn't gay so who gives a darn. (I may be remembering it wrong...)"

    Yes, I believe you are remembering it wrong. In today's world the thought police go after those who don't tow the prescribed line. Those who are demanding tolerance for others the loudest appear to have none for those who don't agree with them. We refer to this as a double standard.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    It's like that old saying... first they came for the gays but I wasn't gay so who gives a darn. (I may be remembering it wrong...)

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 4, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Okay, I am about to be very politically incorrect, but somebody has to tell the truth.

    The words "decide" and "discriminate" come from a common Latin root. There is not a single decision that anyone can make that involves money that does not discriminate. If I eat lunch at Heaps Brick Oven in Provo, am I discriminating against McDonald's? You bet I am, and every other restaurant I did not eat at. If you give people the right to make their own choices they have the right to discriminate.

    If you outlaw discrimination you outlaw freedom.

    As a youth I discriminated big time. I refused to date men. Okay, I am a straight guy. I not only refused to date men, I also did not date women that I found to be unattractive.

    I also discriminated on the basis of religion. If they were not a member of my faith, I did not date them. I don't care how good looking they were.

    The political left engages in boycotts all the time. This is discrimination with the intent to cause harm. Opponents of Prop. 8 in California discriminated against Mormons who supported prop. 8. They boycotted the businesses where these people were employed and literally forced their employers to fire the LDS people who dared vote their conscience.

    I love freedom. As a free man I make my own decisions and that be definition means that I discriminate.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    Discrimination is never a problem until it happens to you. I am appalled to read the judgmental comments that come from my "Christian" neighbors about this touchy subject. How in the world can somebody seriously think this is about protecting lazy and unskilled workers from losing their jobs? This is about protecting all hard-working and contributing residents from losing their jobs and/or apartments just because they are different than the norm.

    I recall several years ago seeing a coworker lose his job just because of what this bill is supposed to prevent. Everybody appreciated his work, and he was named employee of the month more than once. Well, one day at lunch, as coworkers were talking about their spouses and children, somebody asked him if he was married. He said no, but he did have a boyfriend. Within a number of weeks, those coworkers started avoiding him during the day, and somebody even complained about him creating a hostile work environment. Some of his coworkers stopped working with him, and that interfered with his productivity. I do believe the coworkers were the ones to blame for his demise.

    We have a big problem in Utah. We are only welcoming to people who fit into a narrow description of what is acceptable. The Jesus Christ who many claim to follow must be disappointed at the way many of his Utah saints go about showing his love for him.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Feb. 4, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    The Bill is a good compromise on a bad problem.

  • fluwoebers Fairfax, VA
    Feb. 4, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Discrimination of the kind discussed here should not be legal in government enterprise because the government belongs to us all.
    In private enterprise though, a person should be free to enter a contract or refuse a contract for whatever reason they want. It is their property; their business; their life. Government has no business telling us who we may and may not do business with.

    It may be morally wrong to refuse to do business with a person based on race, religion, gender, orientation etc., but it is also morally wrong to force a person to enter contracts on their private property (or business etc).

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    People shouldn't discriminate. But we don't need government "thought police" running around forcing people not to discriminate, or courts tied up with cases in which the argument is whether or not a decision was made based on an illegal thought. It's almost as bad as "hate crimes" legislation.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    Regardless of the issue raised, compulsion (i.e. government action) will not 'fix' things, but only make them worse. Accept in the limited powers of our government (way out of line), solving discrimination in any form can only be made by encouraging citizens to lead more virtuous lives. Seeking government action to stop discrimination, or compeling a businessman to be more Christ like, will not make for a better nation. If the gay community thinks that they will make a better nation by creating more government control, they are wrong. If the business community thinks that they can ignore treating people with respect without consequences, they are wrong. The only way to resolve this issue, and make a stronger nation, is for the business community to follow Jesus' dictum to 'love thy neighbor' better, and the gay community to repent. In no case, however, will greater government action make for a better nation! The truth is the truth.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 4:33 a.m.

    Good, its getting boring and costly to the economy to have all these laws to file for discrimination pop up and tear down a struggling economy. We all know the purpose of these laws, to sue employers because an employee has persoanal problems with themselves and thier abilities to perform a task or job assigned to them.

    They are crutch laws for the lazy, inept, unskilled and unqualified individuals which has nothing to do with their sex, race, gender, or lifestyles. These are the people that want job questionnaires to ask about minority and racial slurs and preferences so they can sue a business for discrimination if they can fall in the specific personal categories to label themselves.