The House Rules Committee pulled the bill away from the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, reassigning it to the House Business and Labor Committee - a panel more heavily weighted with conservative members.

"The motivation is to send it there to kill it," said Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City, who reacted with surprise when Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, proposed the change. "They won't like the bill."

Biskupski, a member of both committees and one of only three openly gay Utah lawmakers, argues the bill deals with legal issues. Members of the Judiciary Committee would be more likely to grasp the logic and legal issues involved, she says, and not focus on what some members believe is a mandate to employers.

But Hughes says he believes "100 percent" that the bill belongs in the business committee because, if it were to become law, employers would be affected. "If businesses are going to be the ones expected to be under this bill if it becomes law, then the Business and Labor Committee should be the one scrutinizing the bill," Hughes said.

Hughes said he doesn't know that the Judiciary Committee would have taken the same business-oriented approach.

HB89, sponsored by Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake City, would make it unlawful for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law currently bars discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, nationality, disability and age.

The business committee has more Republicans - 10 to three Democrats - than the judiciary panel, with nine Republicans and four Democrats. Also, the business committee's members are more reliably conservative voters.

While Biskupski complained about the committee switch, Johnson, who also is openly gay, expressed no concern. "I think that members of the Judiciary Committee and members of the Business and Labor Committee have an equal ability to" debate the bill, said Johnson, a Judiciary Committee member. "Both committees have the ability to let it out and have a healthy floor debate."