Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Daniel2]

Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discrimination bill

http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-church-backs-utah-anti-discrimination-bill-191841917.html

Associated Press By MICHELLE L. PRICE

1 hour ago

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah lawmakers introduced a landmark bill Wednesday that bars discrimination against gay and transgender individuals while protecting the rights of religious groups and individuals.

The measure has a rare stamp of approval from the Mormon church and stands a high chance of passing in Utah, where the church is based and many state lawmakers and the Republican governor are members of the faith.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined LGBT-rights activists, bipartisan lawmakers and Utah's Republican lieutenant governor in unveiling the bill at a news conference Wednesday.

"This is a historic day," Equality Utah executive director Troy Williams said. "People from diverse backgrounds have come together to craft what no one thought was possible."

State Sen. Stuart Adams, a Republican who led negotiations on the proposal, said at the news conference that they've found a way to respect the rights of some while not infringing on the rights of others.

"If Utah can do this, my opinion, it can be done anywhere else in the nation," Adams said.

The proposal, which will face its first legislative hurdle at a Thursday hearing, prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation when it comes to housing or employment. Religious groups and organizations would be exempt from the requirement, as would Boy Scouts of America, which has a ban on gay adult Scout leaders and has close ties to the LDS Church.

The church said Wednesday it is fully behind the legislation, which follows the principles set out in the faith's recent nationwide call for laws that balance both religious rights and LGBT protections.

"In this approach, we acknowledged that neither side or no party may get all they want," D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said. "It is better if both sides get most of what is desired than to have a winner-take-all where one side loses."

Christofferson said the plan contains strong religious protections and a fair approach to housing and employment.

LGBT activists have spent years pushing for a statewide non-discrimination law in Utah, but their efforts were fast-tracked this year after the Mormon church issued its call for this type of legislation.

Gov. Gary Herbert indicated he supports the measure as well, saying in a statement that the collaboration is a "great example of what makes Utah great."

Democratic state Sen. Jim Dabakis, who was raised Mormon and is openly gay, said local Catholic and Episcopal church officials were also consulted about the proposal but they have not officially endorsed it.

Sen. Steve Urquhart, a St. George Republican who co-sponsored the bill, said the Boy Scouts were not involved in negotiations on the Utah proposal and did not request the exemption. He said the organization was included because of a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing the organization's constitutional right to exclude gay members.

The Boy Scouts now allow openly gay youth.

Boy Scouts of America national spokesman Deron Smith said the organization didn't have any comment on the legislation. Utah Boy Scouts leaders deferred comment to the national organization.

Scouts for Equality, an organization critical of the Scouts' ban on gay leaders, criticized the exemption.

"The fundamental principle of non-discrimination means that there aren't special exemptions," Scouts for Equality executive director Zach Wahls said in a statement. "Non-discrimination means 'non-discrimination,' not 'non-discrimination except for the Boy Scouts.'"

The compromise also attracted criticism from some conservatives.

"It's heavy on protection for special classes of people that I don't believe should be a special class, but it's very light on religious protections," Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative family-values group Utah Eagle Forum.

Ruzicka said the proposal needed more protections for religious individuals to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Beyond banning discrimination based on identity and sexual orientation, the proposal says employers can adopt "reasonable dress and grooming standards" and "reasonable rules and polices" for sex-specific restrooms and other facilities, as long as those standards also include accommodations for gender identity.

It protects the right of an individual employee to express their religious or moral beliefs in "a reasonable, non-disruptive or non-harassing way," as long as it doesn't interfere with the company's business.

It also prohibits employers from firing, demoting or refusing to hire a person for expressing religious or political beliefs about marriage or sexuality unless those beliefs conflict with the company's business interest.

The Mormon campaign pushing for these types of laws is the latest example of a shift in tone by the church. While it has moved away from harsh rhetoric and is preaching compassion and acceptance, the church insists it is making no changes in doctrine and still believes that sex is against the law of God unless it's within a marriage between a man and a woman.

__

Associated Press writers Brady McCombs and Kelly Catalfamo contributed to this story.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

[tonie]

It upholds the 15 employees or less exemption that is included in a National non-discrimination proposal.

 

Owner-Occupant landlords are exempt:

 

(3) This chapter, except for Subsection 57-21-5(2), does not apply to the rental of a room in [the] a single-family dwelling by an owner-occupant of [a] the single-family dwelling to another person if:

(a) the dwelling is designed for occupancy by four or fewer families[,]; and
(b) the owner-occupant resides in one of the units.

[Ham Clam]

Told people to give it at least a year before everyone starts reacting to the Church's announcement.

We'll see how it continues to play out.

[tonie]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

 

 

It is a good start. Now Utah just needs one to prohibit discrimination with regard to providing goods and services.

[The Nehor]

It is a good start. Now Utah just needs one to prohibit discrimination with regard to providing goods and services.

I think federal law has that part covered pretty well. Could not hurt I suppose.

[Daniel2]

The Associated Press covers the basics:

Things to know about the Utah LGBT anti-discrimination bill

http://news.yahoo.com/things-know-utah-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill-202355061.html

Associated Press

By MICHELLE L. PRICEMar 6, 2015 3:23 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah lawmakers, LGBT activists and officials with the Utah-based Mormon church released a landmark bill this week that blends discrimination protections for gay and transgender people and protections for the religious.

Some key questions about the bill:

HOW ARE LGBT INDIVIDUALS PROTECTED?

In employment, the proposal would bar decisions about hiring, firing, promotions or pay based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It stipulates that employers can adopt "reasonable dress and grooming standards" and "reasonable rules and polices" for sex-specific restrooms and other facilities, as long as those standards also include accommodations for gender identity. For example, companies could offer a unisex, stand-alone restroom for use instead of a larger restroom with a bank of stalls. Those drafting the bill said they they've left room for companies to interpret what is a reasonable accommodation because they cannot pass a law to deal with all scenarios.

In terms of housing, the bill would make it illegal to refuse to sell or rent, deny a home loan or real estate services and to base other housing-related decisions because someone is gay or transgender.

WHO IS EXEMPT?

The bill exempts religious groups and the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts have long-standing ties to the Mormon church, which is the organization's biggest sponsor. Utah lawmakers said the Boy Scouts did not request an exemption and were not involved in the drafting of the bill. The organization was included in the bill because of a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing its constitutional right to exclude gay members. The Boy Scouts now allows openly gay youth but still bans gay Scout leaders.

The bill also exempts small businesses with fewer than 15 employees and small scale landlords who have three or fewer housing units.

HOW IS A RELIGIOUS GROUP DEFINED?

Utah's proposal includes protections for all manner of religious groups, including their religion-owned businesses or affiliated organizations, such as schools, hospitals and charities. The housing exemptions also apply to those contracted by religious groups.

For example, Brigham Young University, a private school owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would be exempt, as would 1,400 landlords the university has contracted with to provide off-campus housing that abides by its standards and rules.

HOW ARE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROTECTED?

The proposal protects the rights of employees to express their religious or moral beliefs in "a reasonable, non-disruptive or non-harassing way," as long as it doesn't interfere with the company's business. A law professor who helped work on the bill cites the example of Planned Parenthood barring a worker from wearing anti-abortion buttons.

If a company allows employees to discuss political or religious beliefs at work, the company must allow all opinions and beliefs to be expressed without retribution. Employers cannot punish or retaliate against workers for beliefs or actions expressed on their own time, such as donating to a campaign against same-sex marriage.

WHY DO LGBT ADVOCATES SUPPORT IT?

For years, advocates for gay rights have pushed for a statewide non-discrimination law. With this bill, they say workers and tenants no longer have to fear they will be fired or evicted if someone finds out they're gay or transgender. While it allows for the expression of religious beliefs and exceptions for religious organizations, secular bosses and landlords cannot cite their deeply held religious beliefs as a justification to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

To prevent future legal challenges that could chip away at one side of the protections, the law includes a clause that if any part of the law is struck down, the entire law would be struck.

WHY DOES THE MORMON CHURCH SUPPORT IT?

Officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said this week they're backing the bill because it meets the guidelines laid out by the faith's recent nationwide call for laws that balance LGBT protections with religious rights. D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said the bill contains strong religious protections and a fair approach to housing and work.

WHAT DO THE CRITICS SAY?

Opponents say the bill is being rushed through the Legislature, which adjourns next Thursday. They argue the proposal appears to require employers to construct special restrooms that they may not be able to afford, that it should allow protections for individuals to refuse to serve LBGT individuals because of religious beliefs.

Several critics said they were opposed to the government recognizing or protecting LGBT people.

Interesting about the provision that if any portion of the bill is altered, the entire bill is nullified.

Something that suggests this bill is more of a short-term, rather than a long-term, solution...?

Edited March 7, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I think federal law has that part covered pretty well. Could not hurt I suppose.

Federal law doesn't yet prohibit discrimination in the realm of public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity. ENDA is an ongoing work in progress.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

Didn't Sister Neill Marriott reiterate at that news conference that the Church of Jesus Christ is not changing its doctrine with regard to homosexual behavior? Was that in this story or another one I read?

[Scott Lloyd]

The Associated Press covers the basics:

Interesting about the provision that if any portion of the bill is altered, the entire bill is nullified.

Something that suggests this bill is more of a short-term, rather than a long-term, solution...?

As I read this, it might have prohibited what happened to Officer Moutsos.

[tonie]

As I read this, it might have prohibited what happened to Officer Moutsos.

 

What part of the proposed law do you think would have kept Moutsos from resigning his position without first exhausting the administrative process?

[tonie]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

 

I am not so sure this is a "reasonable compromise". 

 

The proposal is that a an "otherwise qualified" individual can not be discriminated against. "Otherwise qualified" includes the requirement of "moral character".

 

An employment with 16 or more employess could say to a LGBT person, "You lack "moral character" for identifying as LGBT, and thus you are not "otherwise qualified". Therefore, you will not be hired for identifying as LGBT."

[Scott Lloyd]

What part of the proposed law do you think would have kept Moutsos from resigning his position without first exhausting the administrative process?

From the summary:

 

The proposal protects the rights of employees to express their religious or moral beliefs in "a reasonable, non-disruptive or non-harassing way," as long as it doesn't interfere with the company's business.

 

The police chief might have been less confident about summarily suspending the officer or less apt to do so if the chief knew he might have to prove that the officer's simple request to trade assignments had interfered with the police department's business.

 

Laws are not totally about providing redress to those whose rights have been violated. Theoretically, they deter the violation of rights in the first place.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

 

Reasonable COMPROMISE?  What one thing did the Church give up for this compromise?

 

It can still discriminate, even in housing and employment, and it gets the extra added benefit of protecting its members from being fired for expressing their anti-gay views.  I'm surprised that the Church didn't throw in a couple of land-use variances and temple off-ramp road improvements while it was in the neighborhood.

[Storm Rider]

Reasonable COMPROMISE?  What one thing did the Church give up for this compromise?

 

It can still discriminate, even in housing and employment, and it gets the extra added benefit of protecting its members from being fired for expressing their anti-gay views.  I'm surprised that the Church didn't throw in a couple of land-use variances and temple off-ramp road improvements while it was in the neighborhood.

 

I hate it when people are allowed to express their ideas openly.  All dissenting opinions need to be suppressed immediately so that we can have a more tolerant, open society.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I hate it when people are allowed to express their ideas openly.  All dissenting opinions need to be suppressed immediately so that we can have a more tolerant, open society.  

:rofl:

[Guest]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise and I imagine a lot of work.

Kudos to all involved.

Daniel, we all love you, all hope for your happiness. I have a question that you might be able to help me with. As you know I have a gay child, there are so many topics here that could use your opinions, but all that we here from you about are gay issues. I know you love the Church as does my daughter, you served a mission, she helped finance her little brother's mission. But she is obsessed with the issue of gay marriage and tells me she does not want me to abandon my beliefs, but is angry that I do not support Georgia allowing gay marriage. Every Sunday I ask her and her partner to come to dinner....even at times calling her partner to make sure they come. So often those of faith who believe in marriage between man and woman are called bigots, usually it is the gay community who is pointed the finger. So how do I show my daughter how much I love her and her partner and hold to my faith and beliefs? It is clear the gay community is winning the battle over gay marriage, but still very angry at those who believe it is not right. You served a mission and your husband did (I believe you said)...what about thread concerning the BoM, or doctrines? I would love to hear (read) your comments. Do you still believe in the gospel or God? I just don't know. How does a believing Mormon or (if you will) Non-Mormon Christian have a loving relationship with their gay child?

[Ahab]

Reasonable COMPROMISE? What one thing did the Church give up for this compromise?

It can still discriminate, even in housing and employment, and it gets the extra added benefit of protecting its members from being fired for expressing their anti-gay views. I'm surprised that the Church didn't throw in a couple of land-use variances and temple off-ramp road improvements while it was in the neighborhood.

We want everyone in society to have the legal right to discriminate against anything they don't like or don't want to do or support, instead of only religious groups or institutions having that legal right, so we lost that battle even though we got some in society that legal right.

For example, only bakers affiliated with a religious group or institution have the legal right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while bakers that are not affiliated with a religious group or institution are still legally required to bake that cake if they offer wedding cakes to other people.

On the upside we might get more bakers becoming affiliated with a religious group or institution this way. Not all would become LDS though, probably.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Ahab

[Guest]

Reasonable COMPROMISE?  What one thing did the Church give up for this compromise?

 

It can still discriminate, even in housing and employment, and it gets the extra added benefit of protecting its members from being fired for expressing their anti-gay views.  I'm surprised that the Church didn't throw in a couple of land-use variances and temple off-ramp road improvements while it was in the neighborhood.

Housing laws prohibit excluding gay from housing and people cannot be fired from a job for being anti-gay? Do you think people should be fired for freedom of conscience? Your comments are rude and uncalled for; what gives?

[pogi]

Reasonable COMPROMISE?  What one thing did the Church give up for this compromise?

 

It can still discriminate, even in housing and employment, and it gets the extra added benefit of protecting its members from being fired for expressing their anti-gay views.  I'm surprised that the Church didn't throw in a couple of land-use variances and temple off-ramp road improvements while it was in the neighborhood.

 

Every ounce given to non-discrimination legislation is an ounce taken away from religious liberty and vise versa.  That's why this is seen as a compromise.  This is legislation where both sides give an ounce.  

[mormonnewb]

Every ounce given to non-discrimination legislation is an ounce taken away from religious liberty and vise versa.  That's why this is seen as a compromise.  This is legislation where both sides give an ounce.  

 

What ounce did the Church give?  Will this new law impose a SINGLE restriction on one of the Church's current practices?  If the answer is "No," how do we call this a "compromise"? 

[tonie]

We want everyone in society to have the legal right to discriminate against anything they don't like or don't want to do or support, instead of only religious groups or institutions having that legal right, so we lost that battle even though we got some in society that legal right.

For example, only bakers affiliated with a religious group or institution have the legal right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while bakers that are not affiliated with a religious group or institution are still legally required to bake that cake if they offer wedding cakes to other people.

On the upside we might get more bakers becoming affiliated with a religious group or institution this way. Not all would become LDS though, probably.

 

 

You are wrong because of two major flaws in your scenario.

 

First major flaw, Utah DOES NOT recognize gender identity or LGBT/Heterosexual as protected classes. Therefore no baker in Utah is required to bake a cake for anyone. Nor a photographer to photograph.

 

Second major flaw,  SB296 IS NOT ABOUT providing goods/services. SB296 is about HOUSING and EMPLOYMENT.

[mormonnewb]

I hate it when people are allowed to express their ideas openly.  All dissenting opinions need to be suppressed immediately so that we can have a more tolerant, open society.  

 

I fully support the right of free speech.  What I don't support is the right to be free from the consequences of your free speech.  If you exercise your right to free speech and others decide that they don't want to associate with you because of what you say, then they should have that right.  However, this law is attempting to shield people from the social CONSEQUENCES of expressing their religious beliefs.  Well, at least, those religious beliefs that deal with advocating less civil rights for gay people.

 

If an employee were to participate in a Klan rally, NO ONE would object to that employer firing the employee immediately.  In fact, to fail to fire such an employee, would be irresponsible and could endanger the survival of the entire enterprise.  Yet, we have crafted an exception that prevents employers from firing those who hold anti-gay views, even if the holding of such views may subject the employer to the same financial ruin as keeping a bigot on the payroll.

[Pahoran]

I fully support the right of free speech.  What I don't support is the right to be free from the consequences of your free speech.

That sounds profound. What does it actually mean?

Under that formulation, the Tiananmen Protesters were simply subjected to the consequences of their free speech. Is that what you meant to say?

 If you exercise your right to free speech and others decide that they don't want to associate with you because of what you say, then they should have that right.

But should they have the right to sue you into financial oblivion because they feel slighted?

 However, this law is attempting to shield people from the social CONSEQUENCES of expressing their religious beliefs.  Well, at least, those religious beliefs that deal with advocating less civil rights for gay people.

The "social CONSEQUENCES" or legal repercussions?

If an employee were to participate in a Klan rally, NO ONE would object to that employer firing the employee immediately.  In fact, to fail to fire such an employee, would be irresponsible and could endanger the survival of the entire enterprise.  Yet, we have crafted an exception that prevents employers from firing those who hold anti-gay views, even if the holding of such views may subject the employer to the same financial ruin as keeping a bigot on the payroll.

I once worked in an office just a few desks away from a card-carrying communist. It never occurred to anyone (including me) that he should be fired for his anti-capitalist views, despite the fact that he was working in the private sector in a market economy.

But I guess that just goes to show how much more censorious and overbearing the self-righteous Left is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It upholds the 15 employees or less exemption that is included in a National non-discrimination proposal.

 

Owner-Occupant landlords are exempt:

 

(3) This chapter, except for Subsection 57-21-5(2), does not apply to the rental of a room in [the] a single-family dwelling by an owner-occupant of [a] the single-family dwelling to another person if:

(a) the dwelling is designed for occupancy by four or fewer families[,]; and

(b) the owner-occupant resides in one of the units.

IOW, a person who rents out a room doesn't surrender the right to set the moral tone of his or her home.

You seem to think that is a bad thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I am not so sure this is a "reasonable compromise". 

 

The proposal is that a an "otherwise qualified" individual can not be discriminated against. "Otherwise qualified" includes the requirement of "moral character".

 

An employment with 16 or more employess could say to a LGBT person, "You lack "moral character" for identifying as LGBT, and thus you are not "otherwise qualified". Therefore, you will not be hired for identifying as LGBT."

I think you need to consult a good dictionary about what the word "otherwise" means.

Regards,

Pahoran