[Boogieman]

From your source:

“At the same time, the Church said it would support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections, while ensuring that religious freedom was not compromised.”

So there is no essential difference to the stories that I can see.

[AppyPappy]

If anyone denies me anything, I’m going to become gay as a May Pole and scream for my rights.

Prove I’m not.

[Colofornian]

[To Ripliancum]: From your source: “At the same time, the Church said it would support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections, while ensuring that religious freedom was not compromised.” So there is no essential difference to the stories that I can see.

Well, of course there's no essential difference!

This is all fresh out of block -- and Ripliancum, being the devoted Mormon apologist he is, (perhaps) instsead of giving feedback to the Lds general authorities "powers that be" -- he rushes out to attempt "damage control" PR-wise.

Folks, on where people's "identity" unveils itself, it shows:
1. Mormon -- and Mormon apologist -- first.
2. "Conservative" ... somewhere way down the line.

Mormon leaders rushing to make "sexual orientation" a civil protection in housing and employment has been going on for over five years:

Examples:

* Homosexual rights: Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights
and Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws