Taking on Sutherland's Pro-disrimination Statement

I just got a press release from the Sutherland Institute about Salt Lake City's proposed non-discrimination ordinance.

Needless to say, they have some issues....

SALT LAKE CITY — October 12, 2009 — Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker recently released the details of two different ordinances designed to ban employment and housing discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” In response, Sutherland Institute reaffirms its commitment to marriage and family as matters of public policy. We continue to draw a negative policy correlation between attempts to advance “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and other similarly vague legal notions and all honest attempts to protect the meaning of marriage in the law.

While we commend Mayor Becker and his staff for their openness and willingness to discuss their recent proposals adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances – and thank him and his staff for honestly and sincerely seeking Sutherland’s input and advice as their processes have unfolded – nonetheless, we oppose the inclusion of these terms in the law anywhere in the State of Utah.

The experiences of other states, namely California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, prove that the inclusion of terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in state and local laws is used, ultimately, to denigrate the meaning of marriage. Seemingly rational and everyday concerns, along with more egregious concerns affecting the very safety and justice to be afforded every American, are manipulated and twisted by political activists and activist judges to reach beyond the limits of legal reason and the public good.

However, what Sutherland fails to mention is that the states of California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont didn't language in their state constitution defining marriage, and that's part of what led those activist judges to rule the way they did. However, Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution states "(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" So, in order for their slippery slope to happen, the activist judge would have to rule the Utah Constitution unconstitutional, which is illogical.

Mayor Becker’s new anti-discrimination proposals only open the door to such legal abuses in Utah.

I separated this out and put this after my rebuke to point out Sutherland's all-out lie.

In meeting with the Mayor’s staff, Sutherland encouraged them to emulate the compromise found several years ago on the state hate crimes bill (Criminal Penalty Amendments, H.B. 90, 2006). Conservatives and liberals collaborated to craft a law that addressed all concerns without the inclusion of vague language such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Furthermore, we alternatively recommended that Mayor Becker might choose to propose non-binding resolutions that could include vague language and yet do no harm to the integrity of state law.

As the current proposals stand, Sutherland opposes them.

So, in other words, Sutherland wants laws that don't mention them thar gay people. If you ignore, them, they'll just go away....

First, the proposed ordinances are legally vague. Redundancy is not clarity. To define “sexual orientation” as “heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual” is redundant. The definition does not clarify the words – it is the equivalent of stipulating that a specter is a ghost.

Funny, most laws have redundant definitions. As an example, Holladay City Code Chapter 8.01.030 defines an animal: "Animal" means every nonhuman species, both domestic and wild." Chapter 8.01.120 of the same Code differentiates the difference between a cat and a kitten.

And, how does the definition of sexual orientation not clarify the words?

Second, the proposed ordinances are dangerously broad. The inclusion of the term of legal art “perceived as” disallows any serious response to an accusation of discrimination. If an accuser simply perceives himself to be homosexual – or perceives the accused to have acted discriminatorily based on the accuser’s perception of himself – the accused has no basis for an honest defense against the charge of discrimination, and neither does the city’s appointed “Administrator” have reason to consider any defense if the ordinance allows anyone to subjectively “perceive” anything.

Discrimination claims put the burden of proof on the accuser. Otherwise, nobody would ever be fired ("I was fired because I was Mormon/White/a guy, etc").

Third, the proposed ordinances are inherently unjust to the parties they seek to regulate. Businesses that operate within the city limits of Salt Lake would be compelled to abide by “civil rights” laws that do not exist elsewhere in the state. While it is not uncommon for individual municipalities to differ in a variety of business regulations, it is uncommon – indeed, unprecedented – for businesses to comply with a variety of “civil rights” laws.

Yes, it's difficult for businesses to have to comply with a variety of laws, but that's just the cost of doing business in multiple jurisdictions.

The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” have no place in Utah laws, especially not in employment and housing laws. Sutherland addressed these specific concerns earlier this year as the State Legislature was pressed by homosexual activists to pass similar ideas as a part of the “Common Ground Initiative.”

Why, because Sutherland says so?

No person is legally fired for who they are – although plenty of people are legally fired for inappropriate behavior, incompatible personalities, incompetency, or anything that gets in the way of personal performance or team productivity. This is the nature of at-will employment in a free society ...

Culture, not force of law, controls our workplace relationships…

The law protects men and women and children – male and female all. Only in sex professions are an employee’s sexual life relevant to the workplace. In every other work environment, the issue of workplace protections based on one’s sexual preferences is, in itself, discriminatory. It turns an otherwise irrelevant part of an employee’s work experience into something more important than the job itself – and does so through force of law.

Well, except for cases where people *have* been fired because they were gay. Yes, a person's sex life outside the workplace is not relevant, but employers make it so by asking. I've been asked by an employer if I was gay. I'm not, and answered as such, but I wonder what would have happened if I said I was, because legally they could have fired me.

No person can be legally denied housing for who they are – they can be legally denied housing for what they do as tenants, rental experiences based on prior references, or a landlord’s perceptions about how the applicant would fit into the culture of the housing project or surrounding community. These standards apply to every rental situation in a free society, regardless of someone’s private sexual behavior…

The real question for a landlord, in these cases, concerns her perceptions (visual, communicative, or intuitive) about the rental applicant. Would this applicant fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood? Based on hard experiences, the landlord may perceive that the applicant will have too many disruptive parties, too many strangers coming and going, or even undisciplined children. In the protection of private property rights in a free society, all landlords have this right to subjectively, but reasonably, screen all tenant. [ii]

So, in other words, if my parents, as landlords, have had probelms with Republicans who rented from the, it's OK to deny applicants based on party affiliation. Or if I wanted to move to the Marmalade district, I could legally be denied because as a Latter-Day Saint I don't "fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood."

Sutherland does not condone discrimination against any human being on grounds of innate and universal human traits addressed by civil rights laws. Nor does Sutherland condone irrational discrimination against any human being for chosen behaviors.

Well, that last sentence is alie, as evidenced by the rest of the press release.

-Bob

Liveblogging HB 267 hearing

I'm listening to the committee hearing on HB 267 on discrimination.

1500: the bill does not care about what you think your sexuality is. It's about discrimination based on what others perceive your sexuality to be. Rep Johnson cites the case of a LDS Temple Recommend holding father of 5 being fired because he was perceived to be gay because he spoke in an effeminate manner.

1519: sorry. connection went out. rep morley has concern with creating protected class, because it would then discriminate against people not in a class.

1520: public comment period begins.

1524: LaVarr Christensen taking the stand.

1526: LaVarr -- empathy and compassion, blah blah blah.... counters that he never said that amendment 3 would not exclude rights for gays.

1527: lavarr says common ground is goundbreaking. claims that this would be the basis for further rights declared by the courts.

1529: lavarr syas that we can't use civil rights, that that is a protected term.

1530: sue rice gets a turn. small business owner. supports the bill.

1532: bill duncan. attorney. bill has exemption for employers of under 15 employees. concerned about litigation costs, training (isn't this usually covered in sexual harassment). costs of restroom arrangements. religious liberty concerns.

1536: Rev shawn dennison. has seen the effects of discrimination in workplace and housing. "should my landlord learn that I am here and transgendered, I could be evicted in 30 days" (near exact quote). in every religious tradition, leaders are asked to care for the downtrodden, the despised. quotes mosiah 4 from book of mormon.

1541: paul mero's turn. i'll have to transcript it, it was so full of crap. (Paul- if you want to send the text for me, please do so.)

1544: brian horn, lds rm who is gay. jan 10, 2008 -- fired from large credit union. in privately asking if partner could get benefits, got fired because they did "not want his type around."

1547: Gayle Ruzika: my dang internet cut out on me, and I've missed most of her statement. I'll have to transcript it tomorrow, too.

1552: shanna (?): director of hr. discrimination is discrimination. a non-discrimination workplace allows employees to work without fear of being let go for reasons other than their job. this culture also allows them to recruit the best and brightest. if you vote against the bill, you are giving employers permission and endorsing discrimination.

1555: last one is sandra rodriguez, america forever. apologizes to those who think they are hateful. if america ceased to be righteous, america would cease to exist. if you pass bill, you will be endorsing homosexuality. 267 will lead to reading books lke heather has 2 mommies.

1559: rep hansen: people are different. as a government, we are either going to do thing to people, or for people. bill protects him as a heterosexual. two hetersexual men who lived together were targeted as gay in his neighborhood. relates discrimination to mitt romney's problem during election.

1604: rep Jackie Biskupski: if protected classes were a problem, there would be a movement for removal of all protected classes (race, religion, etc)

1606: rep johnson summation: burden of proof is on employee. you can still fire someone, as long as you don't say "you're fired because you're queer." when we create a tolerant work environment, we create a productive work environment. This is not an endorsment of alternative lifestyles. no vote is endorsment of discrimination.

fails 5-8

Huntsman Still More Popular Than Jesus

Even since Governor Huntsman's declaration last week that he supports the Common Ground bills in addition to Civil Unions, the right has been in a tizzy, saying that Huntsman doesn't side with 60% of Utahans on the issue.

I've been wondering about that one. It didn't seem completely right.

So, I've been anticipating this poll from Dan Jones for KSL/DesNews:

In a new Deseret News/KSL-TV poll, 67 percent of Utahns said the governor's recent announcement supporting civil unions either made no difference or gave them a more favorable opinion of him. Thirty-two percent said their opinions of the governor were negatively impacted by his announcement last week.

So, only 1/3 of his constituents think less of him because of this.

Probably the third that didn't know he was a moderate.

Overall, however, with 80 percent of Utahns still approving of the job Huntsman is doing, the governor's "political bombshell" seems to have created minimal fallout away from Capitol Hill.

Sure, that number was 90% last month, but 80% is pretty dang good. I'd bet that Jesus wouldn't even get 80% approval ratings in Utah.

Now, here comes the question of civil unions:

Forty-seven percent of those polled supported civil unions compared to 42 percent who did not, according to the survey.

OK, the difference is within the margin of error, but it looks like more people in this state favor civil unions than oppose them.

-Bob

Sutherland: LDS Church is Wrong

OK, so they didn't come right out and say that, but let's connect the dots for two seconds.

On November 5, 2008, Elder L Whitney Clayton, who headed the Church's involvement in California's Proposition 8, told the Deseret News that the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign. Three months later, the Church has not refuted these claims.

In fact, on January 21, 2009, LDS Church leaders met with Republican Legislative Leaders. When pressed for a position on the "Common Ground" bills, the legislators were referred to prior statements issued by the Church. This version of events has not been refuted by either the Church nor by Legislative leaders.

On February 9, 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman came out in support of the Common Ground Initiative, including civil unions.

So, you would think that groups that consist primarily of members of the LDS Church that use religious arguments to defend their positions would applaud the Governor for siding with the Church, right?

As if.

Reference this message I received via Facebook tonight from Jeff Reynolds of the Sutherland Institute:

On Monday, February 9, 2009, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Governor Huntsman, through his spokesperson, had expressed his support for the "Common Ground Initiative" and said he was in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples.

In response, Sutherland Institute issued the following statement: "We're not surprised. Public relations, not policy, is his strong suit. He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3, and everyone has known, since then, that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Responsible citizens wishing to express their disappointment to the Governor's position on this issue may contact his office at 801-538-1000 or you can simply leave a comment for him at http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html.

The Governor needs to know it's important to be right on this issue, not nice.

Click here, and send the Governor a message thanking him for showing courage and standing up for what's right.

"It's on the web site"

I haven't been blogging much as of late because I have been looking for two things: 1) Motivation and 2) a job.

#2 is the most important, of course.

However, I wanted to post this, mostly because I am preparing remarks on the subject and wanted it in a handy place for future reference. (Tribune, Jan 22 2009)
\

Also discussed by GOP legislators and LDS Church officials Wednesday were the following:

City Creek » The church said it has no plans to postpone work on its City Creek development, the largest construction project in the state.

Same-sex couples » Officials did not specifically address a series of proposed "Common Ground" bills that would extend some rights to same-sex couples, except to refer lawmakers to their previous statements on the topic.

Immigration » The LDS leaders reiterated their concern that the state enact a "compassionate" immigration policy.