Posted on 12/16/2009 9:29:37 AM PST by Colofornian
SALT LAKE CITY — As predicted earlier this week, Salt Lake County followed in the footsteps of its largest city Tuesday in passing, unanimously, two new laws that create protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The pair of statutes was modeled after ordinances adopted by Salt Lake City last month that also passed their council panel without a dissenting vote.
While some county GOP council members took a hard stance against a proposal that extended insurance benefits to same-sex partners earlier this year, the anti-bias measures were roundly supported. Republican Councilman Jeff Allen, who opposed extending benefits to domestic partners of county employees over concerns about eroding what he described as the traditional family model, said these changes addressed a more basic premise.
SNIP
A handful of residents did step forward later in the day, when public comment was taken on the proposals, and all of those who testified spoke against the proposals.
On Friday, Michael Westley, spokesman for advocate group Utah Pride Center, said Salt Lake City's adoption of the anti-discrimination rules — and the LDS Church's support of those measures — could prove to be a harbinger of more widespread consideration of the protections.
SNIP
A Deseret News/KSL-TV poll conducted last month showed there is wide support for a statewide statute like the ones passed by the capital city and Salt Lake County. The poll, which has a 5 percent margin of error, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, indicated some 69 percent of Utahns would support state level protections. And, like the bipartisan support reflected by the council votes in Salt Lake City and the county, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats polled voiced support — Democrats at 84 percent and Republicans at 61 percent...
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Yup. This Lds church supported wave is moving out in a concentric circle.
First Salt Lake City
Now Salt Lake County
And since the church has taken the lead, 69% of Utahns now support it. Utah state is next.
And, then, whatever cities of sizeable Lds numbers are next...Southern Idaho...Southwest Wyoming...etc.
With these laws, the word "perception" is thrown in so that it goes beyond covering homosexuals. In fact, "sexual orientation" is a wide-open phrase.
Why does the LDS support it?
Does this mean you’ll be moving?
My understanding is that the LDS church opposes Gay-Marriage, but does not support discrimination against anyone, for any reason.
...two new laws that create protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Everyone has to live somewhere, these laws simply said that you could not deny a person the right to live in a home or apartment (that they can afford) simply because they are gay or transgendered. You cannot deny this basic right to Blacks, (no black-free apartment complex) or people with children (single-only apartments); now you cannot have either an gay-only or gay-free apartment complex.
Devil's in the details. Religious organizations are exempt from these laws.
So they extend legitimacy to homosexual “partners” and compel taxpayers to provide them benefits? This is the policy now of the city and county government? Do heterosexual “partners” who are shacked up benefit as well?
(I think it's a reaction to the negative Prop 8 stuff the homosexual activists have been putting out...ya gotta understand that the Lds general authorities are largely businessmen who tend to try to be PR "savvy"...so they sought to try to counter what they perceived as "negative" PR with "positive" PR...the problem is, what the LDS church did in CA was "positive"--not negative...now they're running the wrong way)
Has the LDS moved out of Utah?
[No, if 5 men & 7 women live together in a group marriage, an owner shouldn't be forced in a Free Republic to rent to them...a passage in the Bible (1 Timothy) talks about not participating in the sins of others...and landlords shouldn't be forced in this way...this goes beyond homosexuals because the issue is the same for cohabitating heterosexual couples]
And, BTW, these laws go beyond where you live to where you work. Companies with 15 & over employees have to abide by them -- including a law that will allow cross-dressers & gender-benders freedom to dress as they will in the workplace. Imagine being a retailer forced to have employees cross-dress and such men using the women's bathroom in the workplace.
(Lds are up to 60% of Utah...less than that in Salt Lake City)
(Yeah, the Lds church doesn't want it imposed upon themselves; but they're willing to impose it upon people of faith in the workplace & who rent houses, etc.)
IMHO, I would hope so. Why? Because having medical insurance is a 'Good' thing - it means that with fewer uninsured people, the costs for providing medical care goes down for everyone. Again, IMHO, I would like to see any person, or group of people who are a 'family unit' be able to purchase medical insurance.
So now we can not discriminate based upon a person’s BEHAVIOR???
The LDS is proving that they have no common sense.
You are confusing PUBLIC with PRIVATE.
What you do in your home, is private. You can exclude anyone you want, for any reason; or no reason at all. You may opt to not even answer the door for any person, at any time, without warning, without excuse and without cause.
When you run a business, be it a resturant, apartment, or service based company - you are now part of the PUBLIC domain. Now the laws that govern the public, govern you.
If you apartment accomodates 12 people, and the fire-marshal has signed off on 12 people living there - who lives there is NOT your business. All that you are ‘legally’ entitled to worry about is the upkeep of your property, and that you are paid your rent on the date promised. If it’s 5 men and 7 women - that is not your business. If you rent a hotel, you may not demand to see a marriage certificate before renting a room to a man and a women; as their sex life is none of your business.
The fear of having to hire cross-dressing employees is over-stated. If I run a store, part of the job description is that my employees must present an image that is in line with my business goals. If I run an upscale retail store (Dillards, Macy’s, Foleys, ect) I have every right to demand that my employees are clean, their hair is cut to a presribed length, and that they dress in accordance to the image I wish present to my customer base. For this reason, you will not likely encounter a cross-dressing degenerate working in the women’s section. No manager would tolerate this; and for good cause. By the same token, you will not see a hippy wearing Birkenstocks and Osh-Kosh B’gosh overalls working in the suit department.
Now, if I am running a factory; where the public does not see my employees, then there are different sets of expectations and behaviors that come to bear.
You are free to associate with whomever you want. You can shop wherever you like.
But, if a person is in a position where he does not stand as a company representative (sales, managerial, marketing, ect) but instead works in a factory setting - how he dresses really has no bearing on his performance making widgets.
If the man making widgets is wearing a dress with pigtails, he is disruptive to the workplace - and my solution to that is that SLC will see an exedus of factories and the accompying jobs, because most employees do not want to work in a circus-freak sort of environment. I see little justification in the real-world sense; but since when does logic and rational thought have to do with the 'tingle up your leg' you get with the touchy-feely 'feelings' such rulings envoke?
So of course you do not believe in the right to association at all. In your view of America no one really owns their business and they have to allow people who openly display any type of behavior at all to come in and take it over.
Your view is tyrannical.
Says who that it has no bearing at all? You? Do you dictate to the business owner? As I said you have tyrannical views.
You even admit that this could cause an exodus of companies because of the view you want to impose. So it is alright for people to lose their businesses because you do not think that they have the right to discriminate against behavior.
Ok so after reading your bio I can see that you are anti-freedom and want all religion driven behind closed doors as if it is shameful to be used in public discourse.
Yet of course here you are defending open homosexuality, transexuality, etc... being a right to display openly in public.
As I said you have tyrannical views and you are no conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.