The Utah senate proves how vile religion is

[smileyeagle1021]

Lawmakers scrap effort to ban anti-gay discrimination

The most telling line in that whole article was
"Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, spoke against the bill, saying that exemptions for religious organizations should be expanded to include religious people. Although existing anti-discrimination laws exempt owners of four or fewer units, Ruzicka questioned how she would be affected if she owned a 100-unit apartment complex.

"What if I was renting to singles and wanted I certain standard. I couldn’t say, ‘You’re living a homosexual lifestyle. You cant live here,’" Ruzicka said. "I think I should have the right to do so."

So, once again, religious people are proving just how vile religion is.
There are some amazing Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc, but the fact that religion requires protections to practice discrimination tells me everything I need to know about religion.

eta- and the funny thing is, over the last month or so, my view on religion was softening...
seriously, it seems like every time I try to change my view on religion to see it as something positive or at the very least not negative, something like this happens to prove my distrust correct.

[HYHYBT]

So, once again, religious people are proving just how vile religion is.
There are some amazing Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc, but the fact that religion requires protections to practice discrimination tells me everything I need to know about religion.

Again, no. *Religion,* stated like that, requires no such thing. Some people's religious beliefs do. Even where they are the majority, and even where those are the official positions of religious organizations (and few if any require not doing business with gay people), it is untrue to make the universal claim that you do. And you ARE making a universal claim, putting it as you do.

[Silverharp]

Gayle Ruzicka...I have NO idea how this woman is listened to. The Eagle forum is a small gathering of loudmouths who claims to speak for everyone.
Hell, this is the woman who stood on the steps of the state capital screaming at an open lesbian state rep "You're wasting your vagina! WASTING!!!!!"

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I am a Christian and I refuse to discriminate against anybody

[smileyeagle1021]

I am a Christian and I refuse to discriminate against anybody

and anymore it seems like you are a minority...

[Silverharp]

I am a Christian and I refuse to discriminate against anybody

I'm a drunken pagan and would buy you a drink

[HYHYBT]

and anymore it seems like you are a minority...

"Anymore?" As in, you think the proportion who don't agree with discrimination is going *down*?

[Skunkle]

I, too, am a Christian, and I don't discriminate. As the nasty religious types get louder, the numbers of Christians opposed to such crap get larger. Quietly larger, admittedly, because the ONLY ones who get heard are the ones who scream at the top of their lungs.

I must be in a really nice area (western Washington) where I don't have to deal with a state-wide religious majority. But then, Ken Hutcherson and Mark Driscoll are here... Ick.

I've said this before: To anyone who believes that no groups of kind, loving, caring Christians exist - who think people are loved be they gay, straight, trans, white, black, rich or poor - they can get their tail up to Seattle, drop me a PM, and I'll take 'em to a church full of 'em. And not only that, but people who'll hear they're not Christian and *gasp* won't try to convert them on the spot!

[Mytical]

There is good and bad in all people..great and small.

Religion, is not bad..I know we've had that discussion before, and you have your reasons why you have trouble believing that, but it is true. The people in them can be evil, cruel, vile..etc. So can any type of person. Any race, gender, belief..even yes .. I am sure there are homosexuals that are all that I listed. Would it be right for anybody to then label ALL of the LGBT community because of the actions of a few? Or even a lot?

Religious people have done a whole lot of good also. Fed the hungry, protected the weak, given shelter and warmth to those in need...

I know nothing I say will probably change anything, as I said you have your reasons, and I will respect them. Please remember some of the posters here belong to a religion..and respect that also. Regardless either way I will always respect your view point..even if I do not agree with it.

I may not be religious..but I am spiritual..so ..may the spirits guide and protect you in all your undertakings.

[protege]

I am a Christian and I refuse to discriminate against anybody

I was raised Christian (Catholic, actually...but no longer follow it), a Republican (simply because I'm *against* the local status quo), and usually lean towards conservative ideals (not *all* of them, since I have no problem with gay marriage)...and I don't discriminate against anyone either. Well, except for Canadians. They just piss me off Just kidding, guys!

[KabeRinnaul]

I don't discriminate against anyone either. Well, except for Canadians. They just piss me off

Well, what's wrong with that?

[wolfie]

A bit O/T for religion, but since the original post dealt with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation:

If I were the landlord of a multi-unit building, and 3 couples (assuming 20s through 40s age-wise) wanted to rent (male homosexual, lesbian, and heterosexual) and there was one unit available, if all other factors were equal I'd probably base my decision on the sexual orientation of the couples, and rent to the gay men.

Why? Because of the 3 couples, they would be the least likely to have a (noisy, disturbing other tenants, and in a protected-against-discrimination category) baby.

[smileyeagle1021]

A bit O/T for religion, but since the original post dealt with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation:

If I were the landlord of a multi-unit building, and 3 couples (assuming 20s through 40s age-wise) wanted to rent (male homosexual, lesbian, and heterosexual) and there was one unit available, if all other factors were equal I'd probably base my decision on the sexual orientation of the couples, and rent to the gay men.

Why? Because of the 3 couples, they would be the least likely to have a (noisy, disturbing other tenants, and in a protected-against-discrimination category) baby.

In Utah you'd select the heterosexual couple 10 times out of 10... they are the ones least likely to offend the sensibilities of your other tenants making them decide not to renew their leases.

[jackfaire]

In Utah you'd select the heterosexual couple 10 times out of 10... they are the ones least likely to offend the sensibilities of your other tenants making them decide not to renew their leases.

Or you would rent to people that think for themselves instead of to institutions.