Why is another law needed? What rights are gays looking for that they currently
don't have. There is already a law on the books that prohibits
discrimination based on sexual orientation. What is different about this
particular law?In addition, this is all fluff because the Senate
doesn't want to address what is ailing this country. Poor economy,
Obamacare, deficit spending..........I guess this is easier. Why tackle the
real difficult issues when you can pass this instead.
People have the right to change their views whenever they like, but Hatch seems
to do it much more than most. His whole political career seems to be
centered on maintaining his voter base.Maybe when he realizes that
the great majority of Utahans and US citizens want gun control, his change his
view on assault rifles too.
@funny_guy --"What part of limited government don't they
understand! The role of government is clearly defined and it does not include
dictating morality."I guess you forgot that part of the US
Constitution where ALL citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law.
Some people do need that reminder -- therefore, the need for anti-discrimination
Every time legislation affecting the workplace is passed, employees suffer. Raising the minimum wage translates into fewer jobs for teens. Requiring
benefits for full-time employment means fewer full-time positions. There is
always a way for businesses to skirt the law.If an employer wants to get
rid of someone they will find a way, no matter what laws are passed. Morality can NOT be legislated -- this is just another ploy by politicians to
try and buy votes.Free enterprise can deal with such issues as work
place discrimination. If a store discriminates then inform the public and let
them decide what to do. If enough people stop frequenting a store, either the
store will change their ways or go out of business.Mayor Bloomberg
is trying to dictate all sorts of moral issues upon businesses in NYC, i.e.
limiting the size of fountain drinks. Those who want more will simply get a
refill or purchase two drinks. This sort of elitism just doesn't work in a
free society.What part of limited government don't they
understand! The role of government is clearly defined and it does not include
@SCfan --"Most judges would have seen the word "sex" in
the current law as covering all people."Seriously??Welcome to the real world. People get fired just for being gay all the
time.@Badgerbadger -- "And sexual orientation
doesn't belong on a job application. It is a private matter...." Compare these two statements:"I'm going to the
movies with my girlfriend tonight.""I'm going to the
movies with my boyfriend tonight."Either one of those statements
would be common enough in any employees' breakroom. But if
you're a man, you can legally be fired for daring to say one of them -- if
you happen to live in a state with no anti-gay-discrimination laws.A coupla examples:Lisa Howe -- former college soccer coach in
Nashville -- fired in 2010 after she told her team that she and her female
partner were having a baby.Vandy Beth Glenn -- former legislative
editor of the Georgia General Assembly -- fired in 2005 when she told her boss
that she was transsexual and was going to begin dressing/presenting as a
woman.There are many many more examples out there, but I'm out
@Badgerbadger:Agreed that sexual orientation is private and doesn't
belong on a job application (and it rarely is). However, employers can make
reasoned inferences based on an employee's (or an applicant's)
appearance and record. Your "they wouldn't know" argument is too
simplistic and naive. As one who has reviewed resumes and interviewed job
applicants, I know this happens. Religion does not belong on a resume either,
but in this state, if you see a foreign language proficiency and a two-year gap
in an employment record (or "charitable work") on a resume, you can bet
the applicant is LDS. Same if you see the lines of temple garments through the
clothes. Similarly, for LGBT folks, there are suggestive clues (not necessarily
accurate; some are based on inaccurate stereotypes). Further, LGBT
antidiscrimination laws are generally based on the employer's perception of
status (whether accurate or not). They would protect an effeminate straight man
that an employer thought was gay from unlawful discharge, too.
Bob K,no, Obamacare tells people they have to believe as the state
believes, offer all the products the state views as correct whether or not the
indivudal views them as immoral or evil. The fact that BO and Sebelius have
carved out exemptions for church owned businesses such as hospitals proves
Obamacare discrminates against religion. They have tried to mitigagte that
discrimination for the church owned hospitals, but PERSONS of faith get no such
reprieve. You liberals are ALWAYS complaining about citizens
united, but here, where the organization is treated better than the individual,
you APPLAuD it because in your minds it is justified. It must be nice to have
such a convenient double standard.
"The anti-discrimination bill faces strong opposition from conservative
groups ..."Because they just love being able to discriminate
against LGBT people; it's what "god" wants them to do.@Badgerbadger;States that already have non-discrimination laws on
the books that include sexual orientation or identity have not seen an increase
in "frivolous" lawsuits, there's no reason to expect that to change
if the law is on a national level. And, since when it is "frivolous"
to file a lawsuit if you're unjustly fired? You can sue for being fired
due to your religious persuasion (which is clearly a choice), why should you not
be able to obtain redress if you're fired for being gay? Your Jesus
commanded you to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Why is it so hard for you conservatives to understand that he said exactly what
As the liberals applaud Hatch for voting for this bill, we conservatives just
get reaffirmed in the knowledge that he has changed sides, which we have been
saying for years. He just hasn't changed the letter after his name. It
would be nice if Hatch (and Matheson) would just admit who they are and what
they really stand for, instead of pretending they are Utah conservatives.If this passes, non-discriminatory businesses will have to defend
themselves against frivolous lawsuits if they unknowingly hire someone
heterosexual when someone homosexual had an application in too. And
sexual orientation doesn't belong on a job application. It is a private
matter. If left that way, no one would discriminate against anyone of any sexual
orientation, because they wouldn't know. So simple, completely free, but it
wouldn't give government more power to lord over us, so liberals will never
go for it.
This legislation really isn't going to change or accomplish much. Most
judges would have seen the word "sex" in the current law as covering all
people. The Democrats are just looking for an easy win for themselves and
Obama, and hoping to get a wedge issue against Republicans. What should happen
is the Republicans vote 100% in favor, and pull the rug out from the Democrats.
After passage, it will be quickly forgotten and the Democrats will have to look
for another straw man vote.
I like Senator Hatch a lot more when he doesn't have an impending
re-election, he acts a lot more like the statesman he is.
lost in DCWest Jordan, UThatch is willing to passively sit back
while obamacare discriminates against people of faith, but he backs this
legislation. his term cannot expire soon enough.NO: Obamacare tells
churches who run businesses, such as hospitals, that they cannot discriminate
against women employees who do not share the church's belief.Obamacare tells religious folks who own businesses that they cannot
discriminate against women who do not share the same belief.This is
America: If Mary and Joan each have minimum wage jobs, but Mary works for a
catholic hospital or a store owned by a religious nut, she may have to choose
between shoes for the kids and birth control pills, while Joan is safe to take
care of her family without burdening it with more unwanted children.It is conservative to have free birth control: society ends up paying for the
education, the health care, etc, of unwanted children.The "no
birth control" idea is simply so churches will gain more members by more
births -- it has NOTHING to do with God or Jesus, no matter how the churches
pretend it does.
Besides Heller, four other Republican senators are backing the legislation
— Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Orrin Hatch of Utah and
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and proponents expect a few others to support
it.========= Thank You Senator Hatch.At
least ONE Utah Senator isn't in it for self-aggrandizement.
hatch is willing to passively sit back while obamacare discriminates against
people of faith, but he backs this legislation. his term cannot expire soon
enough.Pelosi laments that Boehner may not allow the legislation to
come to a vote in the house if the senate passes it. where was she when harry
would not allow a senate vote on house-passed legislation?
"Americans ought to be judged by one thing only in their workplaces: their
ability to get their jobs done,"Exactly!"Boehner
"believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost
American jobs, especially small business jobs.""Suuuuure.
Like "frivolous" lawsuits against racial discrimination...like
"frivolous" lawsuits against gender discrimination -- right?"Equal rights" means equal rights for ALL citizens. Maybe Boehner
needs to go back and study the Constitution a little bit more thoroughly.
Bravo to Sen. Hatch for his leadership on this issue. (That's an
exceptionally rare statement from this quarter.)