Skip to comments.Salt Lake County approves anti-bias laws
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.
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.
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 ...
Try reading what I posted, and stop listening to those voices in your head. Up the medications, and drop the flaming.
First off, I simply stated the FACT. If you run a store, you can't say "No N*ggers allowed". Why? Because that is illegal, that is a fact. That is not my opinion, I never said it was my opinion; this is a FACT. Don't take my word for it, open a business and post signs that say "Jews not allowed" and see how long your business keeps it's tax license.
This is the difference between the public domain, and the private domain. You cannot say "We don't rent to Buddhists", or "We don't sell to the Colored", or "we don't serve alcohol to Indians", or "Single women not permitted on premises". You can't say "People from Ireland are Unwelcome at this establishment", and now in many places your business cannot proclaim "Gays are not permitted on premises".
This isn't my my rule, this is the rule of the land, and we are a country of laws. There is nothing tyrannical about that. Whether you like it or not; really has no bearing on the fact. I'm not crazy about Newtonian physics - but I have to abide by the laws thereof.
Now, who you associate with, is a private matter. You are free to associate with whomever you wish - I wouldn't dream of interfering with your choice of friends, acquaintances or colleagues. If you chose not to associate with Muslims, gays, blacks, Jews, whites, Koreans or Lutherans - that is your business.
The laws that are imposed, are imposed on society for the protection of us all. So, what part do you not understand?
Good grief, I see the skill of 'critical thought' was utterly lost on you.
Let's try the remedial version (the dumbed down version) and see if you can grasp that concept.
If I mandate that *your* religion is the law of the land, then you are forcing your religious views upon everyone in your city, district or state. Then, when the population changes to a different demographic (ie. more people who do NOT belong to your church); you will then be forced to adopt laws governing your life that are contrary to your religious views. This is wrong. This is the reason the Pilgrims took their chances on the open seas, rather than live this way in England.
If the US becomes predominately Muslim, then by your standards; they should be allowed to declare Sharia law upon everyone in that district or state. I oppose this. I instead chose to have the laws that govern us be nonreligious; based upon logic, not upon your particular faith (whatever it is - athiest, Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, ect.).
My faith has constraints upon what foods I may eat, would it be fair for my church to impose those standards upon you? No, that would be tyranny (see how that term works?).
The laws are in place to impose limits on society, such that everyone can move ahead - not exclusively people who fall into a very narrow definition (right race, creed, sex, religion, national origin and now sexual orientation).
Boy, how long did it take you think of this "Captain Obvious" statement? That's like saying that Chinese government mandating one-child-per-family governs you -- because they deem the number of people is a "public domain" issue...IOW, your argument of "public domain" vs. Private in this case doesn't address the arbitrariness of what's deemed "public" & what's remains "private." We all know whatever intrusive aspect that any govt wants to take on, it suddenly becomes "public domain" -- at least to them! (See examples below to see how "arbitrary" this all becomes -- because these SLC laws apply to businesses with 15 employees -- but not businesses with 14 employees -- yet both businesses at bare face would seem to fit your "public domain" argument...which shows you've failed to consider the details of it as any kind of consistent standard!)
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.
Well, as I said. I can' believe you're so confused about relying upon boundaries & standards that are so inconsistent & carries with them no inherent absolute standards -- other than "well, whatever the government says, goes" -- which is your bottom line.
Let's review the inconsistent arbitrariness of these laws:
Example A: If you rent out 4 dwellings, this law applies to you; if you rent out 3 dwellings, this law doesn't apply to you. Yet both landlords in this case are people "dealing with public domain." (So much for your "public domain" argument)
Example B: As mentioned, if you employ 15 employees and don't have a religious exemption, this law applies to you; if you employ 14 employees, this law doesn't apply to you.
In addition, you seemingly gloss over other obvious realities: If this was such a clear easily acknowledged "public domain" vs. privacy issue, then why don't 85-90% of cities have these kinds of laws on the books? You somehow seem to think that just because perhaps 10% of the communities think this is a "public domain" issue, "Well, gee, golly-whiz that locks up this argument right there!" But you somehow neglect the 85-90 of cities who think this remains a freedom of association privacy issue! What about their standards about governments infringing upon private domain? (Why do you ignore them?)
Likewise, even these other 10-15% of the cities believed the same way the other cities did for 50 to 100 to 200+ years of their existence. Were these cities "governing the public domain" all that time? (Yup. Ya sure betcha). Yet, "sexual orientation" and "gender affinity" was NEVER a "public domain" issue then, now was it?
(Which leaves, really, you're only comeback to that argument as trying to make "sexual orientation" protected class status the same as race or sex -- which is the real bottom-line issue...that people want to politicize was goes on in the private bedroom and impose it in the "public domain" among the rest of us)
...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.
So what? If a gender-bender or cross-dresser is clean cut, & their hair is the prescribed length of what they perceive themselves as, are you as a business owner going to risk a fine & the publicity to try to make that employee "realize" what gender they really are? (Boy, have you not kept up with the times)
Re: the cross-dressing issue...what you don't understand is there's legal organizations which exist who've already gone on record stating they're available to take on cross-dressing employees & bathroom issues. Usually, since corporations want to avoid both lawsuits & publicity that could lead them being hounded by gay activists, they've often been able to work out "uni-sex" bathrooms -- which are usually solo-seat bathrooms.
But not every business is structured to accommodate this -- and nor can we anticipate every cross-dresser who's willing to "settle" for a uni-sex bathroom. Some of these cases are not in the public eye simply because they are confidential personnel issues.
What we do know is that thousands of corporate HR reps for the last several years have been subjected to workshops that cover the bathroom issue & homosexual activists' demands that someone who "feels" they are a woman cannot be denied access to the bathroom.
My point is here that's not ONLY a "how we dress standard" issue -- it goes to the core of when the homosexuals push us on a formerly readily-agreed upon standard of the sexes, are business owners going to push back? (And noting the governmental climate, the gay activist climate, the corporate HR climate, the legal climate, the answer to that question is a likely "No!")
As you summed up: The laws are in place to impose limits on society, such that everyone can move ahead - not exclusively people who fall into a very narrow definition (right race, creed, sex, religion, national origin and now sexual orientation).
Hodar, so you think what people do in their bedroom should be public business -- at least in terms of hiring? Why should "sexual orientation" be a "business" issue? And please define "sexual orientation" if you can?
Wow! You have got to be one of the most inconsistent FR posters I've seen in a long time. I can just imagine an employee-employer lawsuit or personnel conflict issue on this basis...Now imagine the employer paraphrasing what you just said to TheBigIf:
"Well, you see, Mr. Jones, if only we could 'hide' you behind our public face and place you in the 'back of the bus' of our workplace, then we wouldn't really care how you dress according to how you perceive yourself. But, because you're right up front, well, that gives us the right to employ what our advisor, Hodar, calls 'discrimination'..."
(Yeah, right, the gay activists are going to let you get away with making arbitrary false distinctions like the ones you keep inventing...and then the argument will become what's a "public face" and what isn't in the workplace...all with 101 different versions of what's "public" and what's not...let's face it, you've come up with a "crappy cement" wall that at the first flush of any water force will disintegrate)
(I second this emotion...what brings you to FReeper land anyway -- other than to argue with conservatives, that is? ...and tell us what conservative positions you hold that keep you from reaching official troll status?)
This depends upon the public. For example, the moment I walk into Dillards and see a cross-dressed man working in ANY department, will be the day that I take my business elsewhere. Now, not everyone will do as I do; but when a company in a conserative area realizes that hiring a cross-dressing man is day that they go out of business - they will refuse to comply.
The limitations of 3 apartments versus 4 simply means that if you OWN a Fourplex, you may exercise your personal decision upon whom you rent your personal property (ie. home) out to. However, if you do not reside in the fourplex; then the building is a business, and as a business is regulated by the laws that apply to the public.
Your statement of refusing to rent an apartment that can accomodate 12+ adults to a mixture of genders is simply a way of you forcing yourself into the bedroom.
There is no confusion; what you do in your bedroom is your business. When you own an apartment complex, what goes on in those bedrooms is none of your business. Your only concerns are with regard to legal activities, damage to the property and payment of your rent. That's where your rights terminate. Don't like the law? Then work to have the laws changed.
We both acknowledge that the laws will result in a loss of jobs. If I employed 15+ people, I would certainly consider trimming my payroll down to 14; just to avoid the additional constraints. What I do see happening is that market forces will force companies to relocate their headquarters outside of the SLC community, where they are free to operate in a manner that makes fiscal sense. When SLC starts realizing the loss in revenue, and the loss of jobs - (like California, Michigan and other places) the remaining population will be forced to deal with the reality of the matter.
Who died and appointed YOU King? I'll post when, where and how I like - whether you like it or not ... I frankly couldn't care less.
The laws are on the books to prevent Dictators, like you, from forcing your opinions, views and feelings upon the rest of society. And I, for the most part, agree. Sorry to take away your little 'Power Play' - but you are no more important than anyone else here.
So, is there something in the water that prevents Critical Thinking, or are you just a wee bit slow?
If you can use your religon to impose rules and constraints upon me; then I can use the same upon you. If you demand the right to impose rules against Islamic members of society - then you shouldn't whine too much when they decide to turn the tables on you.
My view is that the laws are designed, to govern without regard to what religion you are. Yet, you seem to be unable to grasp this relatively simple concept. Worship any way you want; just don't interfere with the way others chose to worship. Does that mean that your religon is pushed to the back - well, that depends upon your outlook. Frankly, I don't care what your religion is - but I do not have to tolerate your religious tirades as I go about my life. I will live where I chose, shop where I chose, worship how I chose, and purchase services where I chose. Whether you like it or not; frankly is your problem.
Try listening to yourself. Your an idiot. First off you do not understand the difference at all between aspects of humanity like race and gender and human behavior. You seem to mimic the left-wing voices in your head that tell you to say that we have to treat aspects of behavior the same as we treat legitimate innate aspects of humanity like race and gender.
There is no rule of the land as you claim about homosexual behavior which is exactly why we have threads such as this discussing how to fight the battle from preventing left-wing idiots like you from creating such tyrannical laws.
And for you the only thing that you want to consider private is what someone could hide behind closed doors. You have zero respect for individual liberty and the right to OWN your property and business. You wish to further erode “the right to association” by claiming that BEHAVIOR should not be allowed to be discriminated against.
Yet you claim on your bio that people should keep their religious expression to themselves and behind closed doors.
You are a left-wing tyrannical immoral piece of dirt.
A coherent thought would really be nice. A complete train of thought would be an absolute delight.
If you read the bio again (go ahead, move your lips and read it again R-E-A-L slow) you will see that in the case of Law - your religion has no merit. Now, close your eyes and think that one through for a moment.
Do you want to live under Sharia law? No? How about laws that govern any specific religon? Or, do you think that everyone should live under the laws that YOU agree with? Now, look up the word "Hypocrite" in the dictionary.
I'm not gay, in fact I'm a Grandfather of 7. I have no kids that are gay (hence the grandkids); but some laws are just and some are unjust. Prohibiting a person from living in an apartment because he/she is gay (or you THINK he/she is gay) is an unfair practice. This person is entitled to live anywhere they like, whether they move in next door to you, or in the apartment down the street. You have no right to dictate their life.
Now, if you chose to not associate with them, so be it. That's your choice. Associate with whomeever you like.
If you run a grocery store, you cannot tell that person that you refuse to sell food to them. That person has a right to buy food, the same as you or I. Same thing with buying gas, getting utilities, clothes or anything else.
Do you know what 'Tyranny' even means? You seem to like to throw that word around a bit, and you sound pretty ignorant - so I'll do you the favor of enlightening you to what the word means - you can thank me later.
noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
Youre a hypocrite as well considering that you started with the insults and now whine about it. I can read your bio and understand it real easy. You want no mention of religion in the public square. Quote: If you cannot defend an idea without resorting to religion, and/or your interpretation of scriptures; you are a either simply stupid or gullible, either way, devoid of individual thought. You claim it should be only a private matter which is a typical talking point of the progressive left-wing. Keep it to yourself hidden behind closed doors is your attitude. Yet here you are claiming that behaviors such as homosexuality and transexuality should not be discriminated against in public.
Basically you favor public expressions of perverse sexuality from being discriminated against but in your own bio you discriminate against religious expression calling those who use it to be either simply stupid or gullible.
You obviously do not support the rights of business owners to be able to discriminate against perverse behavior which does show your TYRANNICAL point of view. You instead support the government using force to tell them what behavior they have to accept. You simply want religious expression to be discriminated against.
Keep writing your idiotic rants about how you are not being understood. It is typical.
Ah, you've shifted arguments from some kind of inconsistent legal angle ("whatever is legal or illegal is OK 'cause after all, the government's going to decide that" -- and then infuse that position into arbitrary public policy of 15 vs. 14 employees & 4 vs. 3 dwellings...to a moral angle)
You understand, Hodar, don't you, that when you start arguing morality you can't back up & then say, "Well, I wasn't talking about private behavior" -- because morality is morality no matter where's enacted or ignored.
Let's say your adult 18 yo daughter wants to bring her boyfriend home to sleep in her bed overnight. Now never mind the legalities of what legal right you have as a homeowner here -- 'cause we'll both agree on the legalities ... but see now you've entered the moral realm ... how consistent are you on your morality? Would you or I as a father be "forcing" ourselves into our 18 yo daughter's bedroom (if we had one, that is), by clamping down on that activity?
What about any adult children of yours? OK for them to bring over any old partner(s) to sleep in your house when they come visit? Are us "old-fashioned" people who say "no" to that simply "forcing" ourselves into bedrooms just because we don't want our homes converted into bordellos? (After all, with many sleeping arrangements, it's not just $ exchanged...it's often security, conveniences of other kinds, maybe getting ahead at the workplace, etc.)
Besides, I'm sure your "forcing yourself into the bedroom of your tenants" conclusion would have won over the hundreds of thousands of landlords' homes & offices in the...
telling them all, "Hey you're refusal to rent a room or multiple rooms or a place out back or a home to shacking-up couples = you just trying to force yourself into their bedroom."
(Hey, what's you're next argument...that landlords who won't rent to renters with a history of making meth labs -- even if they say they're now "clean" of that -- are "forcing their way into the potential 'at-home science experiments of renters?")
The reality is that freedom of conscience is closely rooted to freedom of association. And this is where I agree with TheBigIf re: your tendency toward tyranny...here, any Christian, Mormon or any other Bible-believer who takes seriously 1 Timothy 5:22 & fleshes it out in their business decisions (...do not share in the sins of others) is deemed by you to be someone who should be fined $1,000.
And see, that's where I'm consistent principle-wise: What would apply to my own daughter (minus any "discrimination" thank you -- in that I don't want to knowingly & intentionally sanction a sinful lifestyle) I don't want to apply to a potential renter who's shacking up, regardless of what "sexual orientation" they are. (And this is where the tyrannical government is stepping in & saying, "No, you can't consider the morality of others' behavior.")
(Hey, frankly, I like liberal trolls who are at least willing to enter into conversations on their beliefs to measure their consistency -- or lack of it...I just know that others in this neighborhood aren't appreciative of those who may be heading into threads simply to stir things up...since I can't read your mind as to your true motivations, I'll leave that up to the thread hosts)
What's interesting, though, is your claim of a universal right of exposition...but anybody countering you becomes a "dictator" -- someone imposing upon you...more inconsistencies on your part..."My words are expository posts; thy words are imposing dictatorial ones"... (what a moving target you are)...if you're going to claim for yourself carte-blanche free expression, then might I suggest that when someone actually opposes you, that you consider refraining from flashing labels like "Dictator" out of your flaming mouth...not very becoming of those deeming themselves to be "progressive."
If you demand the right to impose rules against Islamic members of society - then you shouldn't whine too much when they decide to turn the tables on you.
(Is this some kind of veiled comment to indicate you're some kind of a liberal Taliban or something???)
Yeah, we know, we're sure, in the sake of consistency, that you've...
#1...offered opposite-sex, in-the-sack, sleep-overs for all your kids & eventually your grand-kids as well...
...'cause you don't want to be "unfair" or "dictate" their sleep life...
...and you want everybody to know that all the beds in your house are "equal opportunity" beds for any & all bed-partners...
...and #2 next you're going to start a new L.O.G. House group (League of Grandparents) where you're going to lobby the government to fine grandparents $1,000 nation-wide should they NOT offer their beds as "equal opportunity beds"...
...all under your liberal, tyrannical but nice-sounding banner of, "Hey, everybody has a right to get some shut-eye!"
Well, how consistent are you? Can we expect your L.O.G. charter anytime, now?
Well, the first response is "my house, my rules".
If she were renting a room from you (or anyone else) my feelings would be completely different. Would I be happy she was briging her boyfriend home? No. But, I would be having words with anyone who took it upon themselves to interfere with an adult decision, made by consenting adults. What she does, as an adult, is her business. Whether we like what she does or not; really is none of our business.
Now, I would definitely try to disuade this sort of behavior; but depending upon the circumstances, you are forced to make a series of moral decisions. If she's 25 and living with her boyfriend, you are faced with the choice of being involved in her life, or alienating yourself.
But, the fact remains that by refusing to provide a service to others, based upon YOUR morality is inherently wrong. As for the Meth labs, I believe you can deny them access to your property based upon their criminal history, just as you could deny renting to someone with a horrible record of paying their rent, destroying past rental properties or other such applicable criminal activity.
However, being 'Gay' is not a criminal activity. And this is the crux of the matter; you are insisting upon denying someone the right to live in a publically available domicile, based not upon their ability to pay the rent, or upon criminal history, but upon thier sexual preference.
Now, there are gay people who chose to be chaste (ie. some Priests - granted,not a majority), and there are some hetero-sexuals who may have effinate characteristics. Bottom line, do you KNOW they are gay, or do you suspect they might be? Based upon your feelings and intuition, you would espouse to deny them the right to live where they chose.
We are not talking about anyone forcing their way into your home; we are talking about denying a segment of our population the right to live where they want.
As for bringing up 1 Timothy 5:22; if the Koran had a verse that stated the exact opposite, would you quote that? If you can use the Bible to form law, then the Islamist is free to do the same with the Koran. Hence my statment that neither be used.
The laws exist to enable society to function as a whole, without fragmenting society.
Now would our society be 'better off' if marriage was required in order to permit cohabbitation? Probably yes. But the fact of the matter is that this is not the case.
Interesting; so taxpayers and companies who have more than 15 employees are compelled to spend their resources on nonconformists and degenerates. This is what Utah has come to?
SLC is a Democratic based area and has been for decades. They are certainly in the minority in Utah; but the Democrats have done the legal work to make this the case.
Now, what I imagine will happen is that many small businesses will “down-size’ to 14 employees, or move their base of operations outside of Salt Lake County.
What are you views regarding the unalienable rights from our Creator basis of the Declaration and our Constitution?