Equal Rights, Anyone?

In response to the equal rights discussion currently being held in Utah, state Senator Stephen Urquhart (R-Washington county district 29) has again proposed a bill that would make housing and job discrimination, based on sexual orientation, illegal in Utah. A television and web advertising campaign is now under way to defeat his bill.

First Freedom Coalition (which I will refer to as FFC) has posted a webpage (http://fairtoall.org/) where they list their concerns and issues with this proposed legislation. The three TV advertisements they are currently running against this bill also are posted on the webpage, as is their First Freedoms Compact. Here are the 5 items in the First Freedom Compact, and my thoughts on those items.

“First Freedoms
All people in a free society share equally the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the right to make a living.”
I could not agree more with this statement! All people, I believe, should have all these rights, without discrimination. Unfortunately, in Utah, it is currently legal to discriminate in those areas if someone is of a sexual orientation that is not strictly heterosexual. I would not want to be denied an apartment based on my sexual orientation, what about you?

“Tolerance
Pluralism within a free society requires all people to adopt a “live and let live” approach to secular and religious expressions intended for the betterment of mankind. This is especially true when people of varying beliefs disagree about those expressions.”
Then by all means, be tolerant. Be tolerant of those of a different nationality, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. Be willing to have an open discussion, and listen to other points of view. Does anyone else remember “you can’t trust anyone over 30?”

“Fairness
All people are to be treated reasonably and with fairness in their public and commercial interactions. No single group should be elevated to a “special class” above others with special rights that infringe on the first freedoms of everyone else.”
I believe we have hit upon the real core point that FFC is striving to make. No one, least of all Senator Urquhart, is trying to create a “special class” above any other. All his bill will do is make discrimination against people, because of their sexual orientation, illegal in Utah.

“Mutual Respect
Conflicting rights are inherent in a free society, and conflicts requiring public mediation should be handled rationally, respectfully and lawfully. Rational disagreements on sensitive issues are not justification for accusations of hatred, intolerance or bigotry.”
I agree that a lot of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry has been shown on the same sex marriage issue. Reading the op-ed, letters to the editor, or comments section of The Salt Lake Tribune, one can see both sides behaving in a disrespectful manner, with some writers being very intolerant of another’s viewpoint. In the discussion of mutual respect, should we not also have respect for people whose sexual orientation is different from ours? Should we respect their rights as much as we expect them to recognize ours? I believe we should.

”The Common Good
Governance in a free society must differentiate between private and public concerns – respecting the right of people to work out their lives as they see fit while also respecting public policies intended to protect freedom and advance the common good.”
Indeed, the common good. Let’s talk about the difference between private and public concerns. By accepted legal definition, a business with less than 15 employees, that does not do business with any governmental agency, or accepts any government payment (such as TANF) is a private concern. Mom and dad renting out the studio apartment over the garage is a private concern. A private college that does not accept government money for any of its programs, or accept government payment for tuition; this is a private concern. A public concern is one that deals with the public, such as a transit agency, a utility, a business (with more than 15 employees) selling its goods and services to the general public. A university that uses public grants for research, or accepts federal student loans, is a public concern. An apartment complex of five units or more, renting to the general public, is a public concern. The corner store that accepts TANF is a public concern.

Regarding the advertisements produced by FFC: in one, the case is made that a photographer was fined for not photographing at same sex commitment ceremony. Although, as it was argued in court, the company had an unwritten policy not to be a participant in any same sex ceremony, that was not disclosed to one of the participants. In another, the baker did not disclose in his advertisements that he would not prepare wedding cakes for a same sex couple. In both cases, a simple written policy, a simple written declaration, would have been sufficient to have the cases thrown out in court. Don’t get me wrong, I have been involved in small business since I have been able to wash dishes. I’ve built them, I’ve watched them succeed, I’ve watched them fail. But one thing I know, PUT IT IN WRITING. Another video talks about discrimination, by facility, of a student at Missouri State University. She had refused an assignment, based upon her faith; the University held up her rights, after a lawsuit was filed.

One video really disturbs me. It talks about setting up a “special class”, saying that the new law proposed by Senator Urguhart sets up a special class that is above other people in the country. This is, as near as I can tell, complete bulls**t. This legislation is designed to reduce discrimination against people of same-sex relationships. This legislation says a gay couple cannot refuse to rent an apartment to me, a heterosexual, based on my sexual orientation. It says that a florist cannot refuse to arrange the flowers for me because I am a heterosexual, again, based on my sexual preference.

Do I have a dog in this fight? No, and yes. I am in a heterosexual relationship, my wife and I own our home (with the bank), and I see no problems on the horizon created by our relationship. However, when I moved to Utah in the mid 70’s with a significant other, we were denied housing and bank accounts because we could not produce a marriage license.

Discrimination is wrong, whatever the basis. Agree or disagree, I welcome your comments.