Tide turning on gay rights in Utah?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is interesting:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...bias-laws.html

New Dan Jones poll shows that 69% of Utahans now support statewide anti-bias laws protecting gays in terms of employment and housing. The recent church support of the SLC law (I am too lazy tonight to find the link to our earlier thread) appears to be having some effect. I wonder how this poll would have turned out prior to the church statement of support?

As usual, the Utah legislature is still way out in right field. Some legislators still thinking about passing a law that would overturn the SLC law:

In fact, several conservative legislators say they believe a bill will be introduced that would actually outlaw the Salt Lake City ordinance and thus prevent any other local governments from adopting similar laws.

Apparently, gay rights laws restrict the rights of property owners to discriminate:

Wimmer said he worries that the city's ordinance or a Johnson bill would not "adequately protect" private property owners' rights or local businessmen's concerns.

Especially in constitutionally protected private-property rights — which deal with rental properties, for example — Wimmer said it would be wrong to step on one person's rights to aid another's.

Baby steps.

[thesaint258]

The only problem I have is how one should know if a person's gay or not. These days, even the allegation of discrimination is enough to harm a person, especially in a professional setting. My dad works for a city government and he's been accused of both racial and gender discrimination with absolutely no supporting evidence at all--only the allegation (and an unjustified one at that). He's had to hire a lawyer to ensure his rights are protected because the city's policies protect the accuser and leave the accused with little protection at all. It's not hard for me to imagine a gay person not getting a job and suing the hiring manager and company because he or she thinks that the manager is guilty of sexual orientation discrimination. Even if there's no evidence for it, the accusation can really hurt the manager, and the company will have to pay to defend itself against the suit.

I should make it clear that I don't support discrimination. I just think that when the entities that make laws or rules against discrimination of a characteristic that isn't evident (like sexual orientation or religion), they should make an effort to build in some kind of evidentiary requirement.

[statman]

The only problem I have is how one should know if a person's gay or not.

Coming out to anyone but family or close friends is a political statement, nothing else. I don't declare my sexuality at work, why should gay coworkers feel compelled to declare theirs? In that regard, I like the military's 'don't ask don't tell' policy. No more witch-hunts looking for gay soldiers, but if you make the political statement of coming out or if you're indiscrete in your sexual activities, you're history.

All that said, I support the equal rights laws that SLC has passed, but with decent human beings, it shouldn't ever be an issue anyway...

[UtahDan]

This is interesting:

New Dan Jones poll shows that 69% of Utahans now support statewide anti-bias laws protecting gays in terms of employment and housing.

This is actually very encouraging because it shows the the rank and file have internalized the message of Christianity even if their elected leaders have not. You don't have to support gay marriage to think that it is wrong to mistreat people on that basis. This is common sense. Actually, maybe I should be shocked that there are 31% anywhere who don't get that idea.

[BlueHair]

It's amazing how quickly public sentiment changed when the church made their statement. Mormons really do follow their leaders.

[myboynoah]

More interesting developments:

Manhattan Declaration -- Who Are They Kidding?

[Hallelujah]

This is interesting:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...bias-laws.html

New Dan Jones poll shows that 69% of Utahans now support statewide anti-bias laws protecting gays in terms of employment and housing. The recent church support of the SLC law (I am too lazy tonight to find the link to our earlier thread) appears to be having some effect. I wonder how this poll would have turned out prior to the church statement of support?

As usual, the Utah legislature is still way out in right field. Some legislators still thinking about passing a law that would overturn the SLC law:

Apparently, gay rights laws restrict the rights of property owners to discriminate:



Baby steps.

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

[Non Sequitur]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

Should business owners be able to fire people if they find out they are Mormon? Should apartment owners be allowed to prevent Mormons from renting from them?

[Moliere]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

That's easy, just institute a dress code/standard at work. Then they have to abide by it just like everyone else. Problem solved.

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

I don't think they are looking for more rights, just a protection of the rights they should already have. It's a sad situation that we have to pass such laws to protect rights that already exist but for some reason the world today necessitates it.

[pellegrino]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Your impressions of what homosexuals look like is rather . . . limited. You'd be surprised at how many homosexuals look and dress just like you.

[SoonerCoug]

If I were serving as a democrat in the Utah State Legislature, I would support all my arguments with quotes from Church leaders. There are enough quotes out there to support pretty much any position imaginable. This is the ONLY way to debate with non-thinking Mormons.

[thesaint258]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

I've read that the ordinance applies certain exceptions that already exist in federal and state law. If I remember my property law correctly, if you're the owner of a small business or a landlord who lives in the space he's renting, you can discriminate as much as you want. If you own a large business or rent a space that you don't live in, you can't discriminate.

[I.J. Reilly]

I've read that the ordinance applies certain exceptions that already exist in federal and state law. If I remember my property law correctly, if you're the owner of a small business or a landlord who lives in the space he's renting, you can discriminate as much as you want. If you own a large business or rent a space that you don't live in, you can't discriminate.

I think you can have up to four units for rent. No stated preferences, though.

[woot]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

WTF? Have you ever seen a gay person? What you've described here is a lot closer to 80s punk than to anything I've seen in the queer community. Have you ever wondered why you have such strong opinions about things you are completely ignorant about? Has it ever bothered you?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So lets say I own a company. A worker comes out of the closet and because a gay flamer. Black lipstick. Ear rings. Colored, spiked hair. Would a business owner have a right to fire that person if he thought it reflected badly on his business?

Or.....as a landlord, why can't I rent to whomever I want? Why should they have more rights that the rest of the populace. Try and fire a black female these days vs. a white male. Same process?

Hal, you're way off on your description of how gay men dress. Instead think frosted hair, LaCoste shirts, tight fitting designer jeans and Puma spikeless track shoes. In other words, they dress like 50% of the BYU male students.