Posted on 11/11/2009 6:01:17 AM PST by Colofornian
Salt Lake City has become the first Utah city to offer housing and employment protections for gays and lesbians — an action supported by the Mormon Church.
The City Council, in a unanimous vote Tuesday, passed a pair of nondiscrimination ordinances that would bar landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality — a protection not currently afforded under state or federal laws.
In a rare public appearance before local lawmakers, a representative from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor Ralph Becker.
"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage," said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church's public affairs office.
Otterson added that the statement of support is consistent with the church's prior position on such matters, as well as its stance on marriage.
SNIP
In addition to agreeing with Becker's approach to the ordinances, the church also recognizes the proposal attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom, Otterson said.
"In drafting this ordinance, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations — for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
All because they can't stand the heat by the homosexual crowd? They are sending the wrong message to them & their bully tactics -- and that's on top of coming down wrongly in trying to treat "sexual orientation" as protected class status.
How does the Mormon church define "sexual orientation" anyway?
Please do not alter headlines.
I didn’t. (I just double-checked)
So much for the Mormon Church standing on principles. They caved to the Gay lobby.
Yep. This will encourage more militant homos to terrorize anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
Wow.
This is even more huge than the Episcopalians doing it. How could someone who has actually read the Bible AND THE CONSTITUTION support this? It goes against both. The constitution does not treat people differently. The law applies equally to all. It is not necessary to call out straights, gays, black, blue, baseball fans, or any other group.
And of course that is the minor point. The Bible is the main one.
If a landlord chooses not to rent to them or to people of certain ethnicities, or religions, then perhaps he shouldn't be a landlord any more.
JMHO
The Republican Party was organized to oppose those twin vestiges of barbarism: slavery and polygamy. Once buggery is not only legalized, but sanctified, can there be any bar to polygamy? Who knows, maybe our grandchildren will enjoy the benefits of both polygamy slavery under shira law.
>>...and that’s on top of coming down wrongly in trying to treat “sexual orientation” as protected class status. <<
You nailed it. Our country is founded on a constitution that protects the individual, not “classes”.
In the US, the individual - not classes or groups - is king.
Please do not alter headlines.
2 posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:02:32 AM by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Admin Moderator
I didn’t. (I just double-checked)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An honest mistake on the part of the Admin Mod; I’m sure. Anyone looking at this headline might mutter; “What the....” and automatically assume it’s a made up headline
That’s because I changed it for you, just like I did yesterday.
CC, you're a dear sister in the Lord, but here's my take. Because we're a country built on religious freedom, one of those freedoms is to follow our own conscience and Scripture. So let me ask you, if a Christian or Mormon landlord reads in their Bible, "...do not share in the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22) -- and then if they try to follow that admonition by not providing a...
...brothel to a tenant
...or a marijuana den
...or a heterosexual cohabiting couple
...or a group marriage
...or a homosexual couple
...then shouldn't that landlord be able to follow either 1 Tim. 5:22 or their conscience?
Well, thank you. (I didn’t see my error, whatever it was).
Salt Lake City has been moving left for a long time, just like the SC who insist on “Lovable Lindsey” in the Senate.
That’s quite an accomplishment. Just cut & paste next time and you’ll be fine.
Not saying that it happened here but I’ve seen web sites change their own head lines after one has been up for a while.
Not saying that it happened here but I’ve seen web sites change their own head lines after one has been up for a while.
The pandora's box of honoring "sexual orientation" is that often it's left undefined -- as if every "sexual orientation" under the sun has to be elevated and dignified.
Even when some of these city ordinances seek to qualify them in some way, they wind up philosophically militating against what they're trying to do. I mean, here they say you shouldn't "discriminate" vs. a given "sexual orientation," and yet they specifically give protected class status to just their pet "sexual orientation."
Used to be you could count on Mormons being conservative. That has been wearing down for years. Lots of mushy liberal Mormons out there. Plus they are illegal immigrant friendly in Utah
Still are conservative Mormons but their ranks are thinning
Yes, it happens. But usually not in the five seconds between the time of the original post and the time I check.
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.