As a proponent for the legislation, which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, I listened carefully to the arguments offered by Sen. Chris Buttars and Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, against the proposed bill.
Both agreed that discrimination exists in the workplace but oppose this type of legislation for three reasons: (1) passage of the legislation would provide legitimacy to a segment of the population that the majority of Utahns believe is immoral and does not represent traditional Utah values; (2) the passage of the proposed bill would result in a spate of unnecessary lawsuits; and (3) anti-discrimination protections should purposely be broad and not be extended to "subgroups."
Ms. Ruzicka opposes the bill primarily on moral grounds and sees it as part of a larger culture war, the goal of which is to provide legitimacy to a "lifestyle" she abhors. She does not believe that homosexuality is experienced honestly and involuntarily or that gays face extraordinary discrimination.
Regarding the possibility of lawsuits, I would make just two comments. First, as the discussion at the debate made clear, the concern about an increase in lawsuits has simply not materialized in those states that have already adopted statewide employment nondiscrimination legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as categories.
Second, on occasion, lawsuits are necessary to redress wrongful termination. When there is no statute, legal remedies are not possible.
Sen. Buttars' opposition to the proposed legislation is based primarily on his belief that to specifically include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals in the proposed statute as a protected "subgroup" would start us down a slippery slope that would have every "subgroup" (he specifically mentioned those with tattoos) asking for similar protection.
That argument loses some of its credibility when we recognize that similar protections for valued subgroups are already in place and have wide public support. I will cite just three for your consideration.
* We double fines for speeding in road construction areas.
* We impose 20 mph speed limits in and around our schools.
* We enhance penalties for attempted assassination of elected government officials.
Why? Because we recognize that citizens we value highly, i.e. our construction workers, our school children and our elected officials, are at increased risk because of whom and where they may be.
That GLBT people are at high risk for discrimination is beyond dispute. Several examples of blatant discrimination were cited during the debate for which most agreed there was no legal recourse under current Utah law. GLBT individuals are experiencing the discrimination firsthand and have asked for such protections.
I support the proposed legislation, not so much for what it will do from a legal protection standpoint but for what it will do for all of us.
It will send a message that we, as a people, deplore discrimination in all forms against any and every citizen in this state. It will express our view that discrimination is not a Utah value. It will acknowledge that we love, value and respect our GLBT neighbors and friends and want them to be able to contribute and compete fairly in our workplaces.
---
* GARY WATTS is a diagnostic radiologist and nuclear medicine physician at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center in Provo.
