Freedom: We can do better in Utah

So the other night, I was watching How I Met Your Mother on the CW channel with my roommates (here in Provo, UT).  During one of the commercial breaks this ad came on:



Seems super benign and reasonable, right?

FALSE.

I had heard a few things about SB100 (Senate Bill 100), Utah's proposed housing and employment non-discrimination update, enough to know that this ad was misleading at best.  I went to the Sutherland Institute's (a conservative think tank based in Utah) YouTube channel to see if I could re-watch the ad, and found they also had 2 others (see below).

The problem with all three of these ads is that they are purposefully misleading to the point of being dishonest.  The first ad (above) is the only one to explicitly mention the proposed Utah non-discrimination law.

The main part says:

"But then I learned it gives special rights to some people, and takes away the rights of others. Being loving and tolerant shouldn't cost others their special rights: like freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the right to make a living. These harmful consequences are already happening in nearby states."

This, my friends, is well crafted, intentionally misleading ad.

First off, let's go over what SB100 actually does:

It adds sexuality and gender identity to the state's existing housing and employment non-discrimination law so that:

1) You cannot be fired from, or denied, a job simply because you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ), if otherwise qualified
     a) Religious organizations, businesses owned by religious organizations, and small businesses ( with < 15          employees) are not required to abide by these rules

2) You cannot be denied housing simply because you are LGBTQ
     b) Landlords with 5 or fewer housing units are exempted from these rules

Here is the full text of the bill, which I have sped-read through:
http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0100.html

The only "special right" it gives people is to expand protection from non-discrimination to one of the more vulnerable classes of people in our society, especially in Utah.  It is currently illegal to deny someone housing or a job based on their age, sex, color, national origin, disability, or religion.

You can't be fired because you're 65 (if otherwise qualified)
You can't be fired because you're a woman (if otherwise qualified)
You can't be fired because you're brown (if otherwise qualified)
You can't be fired because you're from Kazahkstan (if otherwise qualified)
You can't be fired because you're in a wheelchair (if otherwise qualified)
You can't be fired because you're Mormon (if otherwise qualified)

But, right now, you can be fired if you're gay.

You can't be denied housing if you're just barely 18
You can't be denied housing because you're a man
You can't be denied housing because you're Asian
You can't be denied housing because you're from Chile
You can't be denied housing because you're visually impaired
You can't be denied housing because you're Lutheran.

But, right now, you can be denied housing because you're a lesbian.

Could you imagine the outrage if some self-righteous Southern Baptist bought a condo complex in Salt Lake and then refused to rent to Mormons? The anger would indeed be justified. And what he did would be illegal.  The Southern Baptist could claim that he was only doing it out of his freedom of association and expression of his conscience - and to that degree, he would be correct. He feels that Mormons are being beguiled by Satan and does not want to associate with them, or rent condos to people who claim to have God's power to seal themselves together for time and all eternity in their holy temples.  He finds their personal lives to be an affront to the God he sincerely believes in and tries to follow.  And yet, as a society, we have decided that a human being's right to express their religion without it impairing their ability to find and secure housing, trumps his right to 'freedom of association' that he would be able to pick and chose (based solely on religion) the tenants he rents to.  And I think most people are happy that we've made that decision. I also think, that most people are happy to add LGBTQ to the list of things we won't discriminate against in housing or employment.

Expanding non-discrimination laws to include LGBTQ individuals, does not "takes away the rights of others" especially if we're talking about freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the right to make a living.  You can still quite freely speak, freely exercise your conscience, and make a living quite comfortably, while still ensuring LGBTQ individuals are not denied housing or employment solely because of their sexuality.  The only way this takes away anyone's "rights" is if somehow there is a right to "deny housing or employment to someone based on their sexuality," which I feel fairly confident is not a right.

Another issue I take with these ads, is maybe a little semantic, but I feel is almost just as important.  The use of "other people" and the "new rights" we're giving them.  Quite frankly this is just a poor characterization of what is going on.  We don't have non-discrimination laws for other types of people because race, we have non-discrimination laws for all of us because of different categories of race.  Stop 'othering' everyone who have different characteristics from you.  We're. All. The. Same. We're all human. And nobody should be discriminated against based (solely) on any number of characteristics which we deem to be inherent to our nature, or choices so sacred and personal that we don't want society meddling with our decisions.  We don't have these laws to 'grant rights' to other people, we have these laws because all of us deserve to live freely in a society and not be constrained by the characteristics of our individuality. There are not black people, and French people, and men, and old people, and Catholics, and disabled people, and transgender people.  There are just people.  People who are black. People who are from France. People who are men. People who are old. People who are Catholic. People who are differently abled. And people who are transgender.  In fact, one person could be all of those things together.  There are not different types of people, or other people. There are just people, all with different characteristics, quirks, personalities, and interesting details.  We aren't making these laws to give new rights to a new segment of society, we're just expanding the number of details about every person and their life and that we don't feel should be a barrier to them putting a roof over their heads, or getting a job to feed themselves and their family.

What really offended me were the 2 following ads, which do not explicitly mention the Utah bill, but quite clearly intend to create an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding about the legislation.




"Imagine you're a landlord renting to private university students, in accordance with the university's honor code, and a young man decides he wants to live in women's housing. Those special rights would trump your rights as a landlord and ultimately the honor code."

First, "imagine"  should be a really big red flag.  A political ad based solely off a hypothetical situation, which is also explicitly not possible under the proposed legislation, is misleading and dishonest.  Second, the hypothetical situation doesn't make sense anyways.  Private and public universities still retain their rights to define and enforce 'honor codes' as they see fit.  If a university says men and women can't live together, they are not allowed to. The end.  Now you can withdraw from or be kicked out of the university if you really want to, but non-discrimination laws do not suddenly render moot university policies about housing and 'honor'.  If you're renting to university students, you're not forced to accept non-university students.  If you're just renting to the general population, that's a different matter.  Not to mention, that if you have fewer than 5 units (which I think covers a lot, if not the majority, of private landlords) you're not even required to abide by the legislation.  The above hypothetical is totally totally bogus. Next.


"But what if they were forcing someone you love to chose between keeping their job and living according to their individual conscience and values? Does that sound fair? Is that legislation that you would want to support? To learn how special rights laws are already threatening people who just want to live according to their personal values, visit fairtoall.org."

Now this one is even better / worse.

Again "what if" should be a big warning sign. Also, the "someone you love" is a totally unnecessary (but highly effective) addition to suck people into an emotional, rather than rational or logical, state when they consider the contents of the ad.  Another hypothetical situation that has literally NOTHING to do with the proposed legislation.  Actually, to be fair, this hypothetical only makes sense if you consider that currently many LGBTQ individuals feel they have to choose between keeping their job and 'living according to their individual conscience and values' by being honest about who they are and they relationships they may or may not be in.  Quite the opposite of the fear this ad intends to instill.

Unless, you're employed as someone who hires and fires people for a non-religious company of more than 15 people, and feel that it is your moral obligation to not employ or work with people who are LGBTQ, there is nothing about the proposed legislation that would make you choose between your job and your conscience.  Also, if you are that person, I'd like to talk to you about the God you believe in, because I feel like he might be different than mine.

This ad is hinting at "'public accommodation" laws that have been enacted by other states (but is not being considered by Utah) which require businesses to not discriminate when serving customers - these are essentially anti-Jim Crow laws.  The need for and efficacy of public accommodation laws is something quite worthy of debate on it's own.  Indeed, I am not sure how much I support them.  But to conflate public accommodation laws, however subtly, with Utah's proposed SB100 is again, misleading and dishonest.

I am all for people honestly and openly debating the merits of legislation and government action in our society. It is healthy and indeed essential.  But the ads by the Sutherland institute are underhanded and dishonest.  And that upsets me.  Ad's like that upset me whether they're from the Obama campaign or the Sutherland institute, or anything in between.  Furthermore, Sutherland and their allies appear to use this approach, not only in ads, but when talking to the media:

"Nobody should have to choose between their convictions and their livelihood. This law would definitely set the stage for that."  - Laura Bunker, president of United Families Utah(United Families Utah is among 19 organizations that make up the First Freedoms Coalition, which was formed to fight the proposed nondiscrimination law)
Once again, opposing legislation, if we take their word for it, based solely off of what they few it could do to legal landscape in the future. And trying to use that imaginary fear to block current legislation.

I would encourage you to read this article (source of the quote above), because if you have even minimal critical reading skills it should be blatantly apparent by the talking points used by both sides which side is being deceitful and playing politics and which side is being straightforward.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865594100/Same-sex-marriage-debate-could-impact-proposed-Utah-nondiscrimination-bill.html

In another Deseret New Article, a poll shows that

72 percent of Utah residents, 68% of Utah Republicans, and 67% of active LDS members favor the proposed legislation.

Paul Mero, president of Sutherland Institute, described the poll questions as "fluff" because he said although they accurately reflect Utahns' feelings, they don't get to the core issue.

The real question should be, he said, do Utahns support a statewide nondiscrimination law that would conflict with their "first" freedoms such as the free exercise of religion and speech.

No, Mr. Mero. The real question is whether or not Utahan support the legislation. Duh. Not some sly politically motivated talking points that you aren't even using effectively, let alone honestly.

Read that article here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865594605/Poll-Utahns-favor-nondiscrimination-laws-in-employment-housing.html?pg=1

When I see underhanded stuff in politics, I often ask myself why.  And quite frankly the answer always has to be: they don't believe they can win without being underhanded.  Why be dishonest, if you can be honest and still accomplish your goals? More importantly: why support something that can only be accomplished by being dishonest?  The fact that the First Freedoms Coalition (including Sutherland Institute and United Families Utah) would engage in that  kind of activity disappoints and angers me.  If they intended to slyly sway public opinion with their vague and dishonest TV ads, they have instead upset me enough to devote a few hours crafting this blog post with the intent that my friends will become educated on the issue and come to the same conclusion I have: that SB100 is a very common sense bill that does a lot of good, mitigates almost any possible negatives, and makes our state a better place for all of us.  And, that the organizations that are opposing it are being deceitful, which should make us all think twice before trusting political information from them in the future.  Bad move FFC. Bad move.

In conclusion, if you think that people should be able to fire people, not hire them, or deny housing to people simply because they are LGBTQ, (which most people acknowledge is not a choice) then by all means exercise your God-given right in a pluralist republican-democracy to oppose this bill.

If however, you, like most people in Utah,  (including Governor Herbert, as of today!) believe that every human being deserves the opportunity to house themselves, and obtain gainful employment, regardless of immaterial details about their lives, please support SB100.

PS: Five gold stars if you read through this entire post :)
PPS: Yes, I paraphrased the name of the ads for my blog post title, because I can, and I because I thought it was deliciously ironic. :)