All of this has gotten me thinking... What if I owned my own business, or was a manager for a company and had the authority to fire an employee? What if I was a landlord, or worked at a bank as a mortgage manager, and had the authority to evict a person or a family?
That employee and that family live an alternative lifestyle from my own. Heterosexual relationships are as backwards, unappealing, and unnatural to me as homosexual relationships are to the heterosexual, not to mention that they violate my own personal religious convictions.
Under the current laws in the State of Utah (local laws aside for simplicity's sake), I would be completely within the law to fire and evict them, based solely on the fact that they are straight, and I believe that it's wrong.
Would this ever happen in Utah? No... discrimination against the majority rarely (if never) happens, and even if it would happen, there would be riots in the streets. But perspective is everything... non discrimination bills go both ways...
I can't believe I live in a state with such a bigoted population, it's sad. And what's sadder, is most of those people that are making these decisions attend the same church meetings I do, and claim to believe in the same God I do. :(
ReplyDeleteI do not know why the legislator would slide out of this voting on this bill given the LDS's church favor on a similar bill in Salt Lake City. Your hypothetical made me remember this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/trinity-school-denies-coach-fired-straight-article-1.1553356
ReplyDeleteSurely, someone needs to explain a legitimate reason for killing the bill. The excuse they gave is asinine.
How in the hell would considering this bill weaken their position on marriage? It makes absolutely no sense. It seems like it would actually strengthen it, if anything, as a sign they weren't basing their stance merely on discrimination. Bizarre.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, this decision demonstrates animus and will weaken Utah's appeal of the 10th Circuit's decision to rule Amendment 3 as unconstitutional. I REALLY hope the ridiculous excuse gets mentioned in a Supreme Court decision ruling marriage equality as an issue of constitutionality (in other words, a decision in favor of marriage equality).
ReplyDelete