Inequality Utah

 

Photo credit: AdelaMae; Fibonacci

As homosexual activists continue to push their political agenda throughout Utah, the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incessantly invoked, as are its adherents’ perceived endorsements (through public opinion polls) in support of homosexual rights.

[pullquote]Evidently, today’s homosexual activists are so enlightened they can transcend justice and base local ordinances on the thoughts (“perceptions”) of others.[/pullquote]While this is an easy argument to deconstruct – which Sutherland Institute will do in anticipation of a new push for statewide nondiscrimination ordinances during the 2012 legislative session – I have a question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in passing laws based on what a person thinks? 

Homosexuals argue that their “sexual orientation” is a feeling or an attraction, independent and exclusive of sexual behavior. Nondiscrimination ordinances, such as those approved by the Salt Lake City Council in 2010 (and endorsed in Salt Lake City by the LDS Church), contain a “perception clause”: a person cannot discriminate against another person based on “perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Of course, the “perception clause” is one of the primary injustices of this sort of law. How does anyone know what another person is thinking? Normally, a person would tell you what she’s thinking. Under the constraints of these nondiscrimination ordinances, the “victim” will tell the accused what the accused is thinking.

In light of this preposterous legal position, I was reminded of Alma, Chapter 30, in the Book of Mormon:

Now there was no law against a man’s beliefs; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds…

Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in Him there was no law to punish him.

But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.

For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal ground. (Alma 30:7, 9-11)

According to the Book of Mormon, under God’s law applied civilly in that time and place of history, there were no laws against thoughts. In fact, to create such laws placed citizens on “unequal ground.” In addition, crimes were recognized only as human action (not feelings, not attractions) – a standard that placed all citizens on “equal grounds.”

Evidently, today’s homosexual activists are so enlightened they can transcend justice and base local ordinances on the thoughts (“perceptions”) of others. In other words, homosexual activists get to play out their lives in their heads (feelings and attractions) without consequence but, for the rest of us, our minds are to be read by strangers with severe consequences. In any other day and age, that incongruence would be deemed “unequal grounds,” or inequality.

To punctuate this point, Salt Lake City was recently bestowed the honor of the “Gayest City in America.” The criteria? Does Salt Lake City have the “gayest” feelings in the nation? Does Salt Lake City have the most people with same-sex attraction? No, those characteristics aren’t a part of the bestowal – nor could they be given you can’t measure feelings and attractions.

The criteria for the award are human behaviors. The equation for being the “Gayest City in America” is the number of homosexuals elected to public office + does the city have a WNBA team + the number of competitors in the “International Mr. Leather” competition + the number of “Imperial Court” chapters (you’ll just have to read about this to believe it) + the number of teams that competed in the “Gay Softball World Series” + the number of bookstores catering to homosexuals + the existence of a nude yoga class + laws protecting “transgender” people + the number of concert performances since 2008 by Gossip, the Cliks and the Veronicas … divided by population.

Evidently, those criteria represent “gay.” Frankly, those odd (even stereotypical) criteria would be easier to protect with nondiscrimination ordinances than feelings and attractions, especially ones “perceived as.”

This entry was posted in Gay Rights and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • JBT

    Discrimination is an action, not a perception. Applicants are refused housing. Employees are terminated. Well qualified applicants are not given jobs. Most gays are open about their sexual orientation these days and openly admit to being gay. You are grasping at straws with this “thoughts and perceptions” of the “discriminator” argument. Once the applicant or employee openly admits his/her sexual orientation the thought or perception then becomes first hand knowledge and if a discriminatory action occurs after this point, then such discrimination would become actionable under an ordinance banning discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation.

    • Paul Mero

      I’m hesitant to reply because I’m concerned you’re unable to get the point at hand: should we make laws based on what someone thinks someone thinks? If you’re unable to see the disturbing problem with that notion, I’m not sure what more anyone can say. The only logical defense of such a dangerous and preposterous notion is that a person can read minds.

  • Griffin T. Kearns

    Acutal JBT quote from a previous discussion: “I understand your thinking Derek much better than you do.”

    By your own admission, this subject is more than just “grasping at straws”.

    Nice try though.

    http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/01/03/oops-oh-yeah-that-does-create-a-protected-class-for-gays/

  • JBT

    Acutal?

    • Griffin T. Kearns

      Notice how JBT avoids the subject completely when he doesn’t have anything of value to add to the conversation.

      This, boys and girls, is the manifestation of an internet troll. Once they lose the initiative, they quickly move on to such irrelevancies as grammar, punctuation and diction – things which have very little value in a chat room or comments section, and are a tell tale sign of a low, mean intelligence.

  • JBT

    Notice how much Griffin has added to this topic. All he has done has been to take a quote out of context from another thread, and try to use that against me in this one. All the while he is chastising me for “not adding anything of value in this discussion”. Hmmm . . . .

    I actually (note the correct spelling) presented a clear and logical argument that responds to Paul Mero’s assertion that under an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that person’s who act in a discriminatory fashion can be punished for their “thoughts or perceptions”.

    Underlying all discrimination and bigotry is the belief that a class of citizens are in some respects inferior, and therefore do not deserve to be treated as equals. I would argue that Paul, Derek, and Griffin who have all posted in these threads in favor of discrimination based upon sexual orientation have in their psyche, whether they admit it or not, the belief that they are superior to those brothers and sisters among us who have a same sex attraction.

    Responses as to whether this is true or not are more than welcome from any of the individuals named.

  • Duane

    Of course, if there are other valid reasons to reject the applicant, like they caused massive damage to the last apartment they rented, or they are actually unqualified for the position, the “gay discrimination” card can and often will be played. It already happens with race, age, appearance, etc. You are a liar if you say that it won’t happen with the gay issue.

    Your own words indicate that you assume that ANY discriminatory action after a gay disclosure is actionable. You have claimed the ability to read the other person’s mind.

    You just proved Paul’s point.