SB 100 (Anti-discrimination Amendments)

Currently, Utah law prohibits workplace and housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy/childbirth, age, national origin, or disability. My SB 100 (Anti-discrimination Amendments) will add protections for sexual orientation/gender identity. People of any race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. still can be fired/evicted; but not because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

In other words, if a person is otherwise qualified, housing and employment decisions should not be based on that person’s sexual orientation/gender identity. This addition to the law is straight-forward and simple. Without hurting anyone, it will protect individuals. It will promote economic development. It is supported by a significant majority of Utahns.

Given the simplicity of the bill and the broad support for the bill, opponents of the bill have resorted to misleading the people. Clear dialogue is needed and welcome. But as part of that clear dialogue, I will call those intentional misstatements what they are: lies.

I will quickly clear up some of the lies. If the Sutherland Institute (Paul Mero), Eagle Forum (Gayle Ruzicka), Fair for All or any other opponent of the bill cares to point to specific provisions in the bill that support their (mis)statements highlighted below, I of course invite them to do so in the comments. (HINT: They won’t point to specific provisions or lines in the bill, because the lies they are spreading aren’t in the bill.).

The bill DOES NOT affect marriage in any way.

The bill DOES NOT require bakers to bake cakes for anyone they don’t want to serve.

The bill DOES NOT require florists to arrange flowers for anyone they don’t want to serve.

The bill DOES NOT change a thing regarding restrooms for school children.

The bill DOES NOT create exemptions that allow for discrimination. (This lie is particularly rich. Switching from arguing that Utah needs to discriminate more, Paul Mero flips to argue that the bill allows too much discrimination by carving out exemptions. All exemptions—like BYU housing, businesses with fewer than 15 employees and property owners with fewer than 4 dwellings—are in existing law and are not changed by my bill.).

Okay. After the lies are sorted out, the bill simply prohibits discrimination in housing/employment based on sexual orientation/gender identity. Utahns support the bill. It is time to pass it.

Our discussion

  1. Bob Colomb said

    Type your contribution to our discussion here.

  2. Martha Hales said

    I am in favor of fair treatment and an anti-discrimination bill.

    Thanks for doing this!

  3. Mike McLarty said

    I knew immediately when I saw that the TV ad for was sponsored by the Sutherland Institute that I should support this bill. Political decisions here in Utah are very easy to make. If the Sutherland Institute or Eagle Forum support something, then I’m against it and vice verse. Gayle and Paul both spew lies at the drop of the hat because they know that so many people will just march lock step with them because they don’t want to think for themselves.

  4. Paul Ford said

    By supporting this bill the prevailing conservative majority in our great state are supporting the statement “that all people should be treated with respect.” ( The pejorative overtones of the opponents to SB100, will sway some, but ultimately you will see this bill through, for the love of the game, we are simply asking for a few anti-discriminatory amendments. Senator Urquhart, we are grateful for your contributions. Your work and diligence shape the great legacy that will out live us all. I remember long ago, as a young State Delegate, going door to door telling my neighbors why they needed to vote for you. Years later, you still make me proud. Your work in education is tireless. Keep it up.

  5. Ryan Reeves said

    How many documented cases of this type of discrimination in Utah exist?

  6. TJ said

    How do you know that Utahns are for this ? I dont recall a referendum. Many of us Utahns are actually in, “lock-step”, with the Eagle’s Forum.
    Put it to a real vote.

  7. Ronnie M said

    Nondiscrimination proponents -they’re saying all the right things, aren’t they? It certainly seems a feel-good, win-win proposal.

    Until you look deeper.

    Until you examine the ethics and methods of those pushing it.

    I’ve studied this legislation for years – in other locales – and it never ceases to amaze me how gay activists fool lawmakers with these counter-constitutional, hypocritical provisions. People expose their rationale at times, and they are forced to re-euphemize the nomenclature, and now they’re selling them as “fairness” ordinances.

    Gay nondiscrimination grossly-empowers a tiny minority who’s activist-minded, hyperlitigious and intolerant. These bills function less a shield against bias, more a sword of punishment against moral opposition; functioning as a badge of civic invincibility – kind of like affirmative-action on steroids. They also function as a get-out-of-accountability-free card, as gays need only scream ‘discrimination’ to avoid consequences in employement and housing (BTW, is there a safety-valve that ensure’s that won’t happen? I’ve not seen one.) Proponets give evocative, emotionally-charged pleas, chock-full of down-home sentiments about universal values and fairness…superficially-coherent and rational-sounding.

    We’ve seen over and over how this hyperlitigious activist community has abused such provisions by weilding them to punish Christians for their values in the Marketplace. Actually, even in their own homes. There’s a national trend of Christian-owned Bed and Breakfasts, who run this business from their own homes, being shut down or fined for declining single-occupancy rooms to gay couples, courtesy of gay nondiscrimination ordinances.

    Even more impactful is how such ordinances allow gays and their political allies to seize control of the political landscape, resulting in things like – in 2007, the San Diego fire department being forced -against their will- to walk in the gay pride parade. Resulting in things like Christians being hauled into jail for peaceful gatherings near such parades – including a scene at a 2004 Philly gay pride parade, where 11 Christians were arrested for gathering, including 2 women over age 70.

    And not just the political landscape but the cultural landscape, translating into a suffocating realm of political correctness, where people lose their livelihoods for simply voicing dissagreement with gay activism – people like Duck Dynasty, and others:

    -Damian Goddard, Sportscaster, fired for tweeting dissaproval of gay marriage.

    -Fmr NFL player Craig James, fired from Fox News after somebody researched his past (over a year prior) and located him quoting Biblical dissaproval of homosexuality

    -CNN anchor Roldand Martin, fired for tweet of dissaproval of homosexuality

    Soccer player Lee Steele, fired for a gay-critical tweet.

    -A Brooklyn, N.Y. District Attorney, also fired for a gay-critical tweet.

    -Boxer Manny Pacquiao, who lost an endorsement deal with a California Mall when he affirmed traditional marriage in an interview.
    -Matt Barber, Allstate Claims Investigator, fired for writing an editorial critical of gay activism.

    Not only does gay nondiscrimination translate into the above cases of intolerance, it opens the floodgates for a tidal wave of frivilous litigation by this thin-skinned demographic, cases like:

    Granville, TX where a gay bank employee sued his bosses for discrimination, because his promotions didn’t come as timely as he’d have liked.

    Or the Ohio Bell gay employee, suing his employers for gay discrimination because they refused to address him by his *husbands* surname, even though Ohio doesn’t recognize gay marriages.

    A Tampa, Florida gay man is suing Cracker Barrel for gay discrimination because he (says) he overheard other employees talking critically about him.

    A gay man in Massachusetts is suing an advocacy group that pays for facial reconstruction surgery for only female victims of domestic violence, alleging discrimination.

    A cross-dressing man in Washington, D.C. is suing a Christian-owned women’s homeless shelter for denying him access. This example has disturbing implications. Indeed, the ‘T’ in LGBT – via nondiscrimination ordinances- grants cross-dressing men full access to all sanctifiably-feminine public facilities, one’s used by little girls as well. In Florence, CO, high school girls are aghast at the continued presence of a cross-dressing boy sharing their restrooms…and there’s nothing they can do about it. Ditto with a cross-dressing man imposing on women’s privacy at Evergreen College in Olympia, WA. We see in actual practice how this warped notion of “equality” plays out – laws making the public engage in the same delusion as the gender-confused do.

    And speaking of Christians, we have the national trend of Christians in the para-wedding industry being forced to either violate their consciences – make gay wedding cakes, and such – or be fined out of existence. At you can see the large list of Christians penalized for their values.

    Not just seizure of the cultural and political landscapes, gay nondiscrimination functions like an all-access pass for getting gay-social-engineering mandates forced on the local marketplace, government, and academia – including to the youngest of children in schools.

    This is public policy insanity. How can you bestow special rights on a minority when there aren’t even validating standards proving they are gay? There is no gay gene, or any biological proof of this condition, and only exists in the realm of subjectivity. And how can it be proven that -amidst discrimination allegations- that an employer or landlord was even aware of that invisible, subjective trait in their dissaproval of a person?

    We draft laws for the prosperity of the Many, not the molly-coddling of the Few. And this ‘Few’ is an army of militant, feverishly-driven zealots with cavalier indifference to the rights of others. Don’t empower them – they’re already drunk with power. They already have mega-funded advocacy groups molly-coddling them, people like GLAAD and HRC, ACLU.

    Bottom line, there simply is no climate of systemic, institutionalized bigotry against gays. It’s proponents are revolting against some phantom, unseen, unsubstantiated theoretical possibility of oppression – a glorified paranoid delusion. Must we draft overreaching legislation to validate this delusion?

    See the disturbing assessment of such ordinances at your contribution to our discussion here.

  8. Ronnie M said

    A sexual preference does not a civil right make. An invisible, subjective trait does not a person make. How can you prescribe this permanent solution (in-search-of-a-problem) to validate a transient reality. I’m talking about ex-gays -people like Little Richard, Actress’ Anne Heche and Cynthia Nixon, and a huge list of the not-so-famous.

  9. Stanley Klemetson said

    I have seen unintended consequences with these types of laws. As an example, the ADA had a great goal of protecting those with disabilities, but what I saw was the attorneys making all of the money. Write a bill that attorneys can receive no more than ten percent of the award and than perhaps I can support the bill.

Post a Comment

This is just a formality to keep robots and trolls from spoiling our fun. I never share email addresses. Both your name and email are required to publish a reply. Thanks for understanding.

Posted in Uncategorized
  • Twitter