The Utah Compromise:

Increasing Discrimination in a Progressing State

In March 2015, Utah witnessed

history being made after a piece of
legislation was passed that extended state
protection to LGBTQ against housing and
employment discrimination. Officially the
bill is the S.B. 296, however, many are
labeling it the Utah Compromise and that
it should become a model for other
jurisdictions.

density of His children.) This bill

symbolizes that two groups (the Mormon
Church and the ACLU), who have differing
views, can have the ability to come together
and create a compromise thatll more-or-less
satisfy both parties.

Da=

Even though there is a lot of HooHa about the bill, there are many concerns
regarding the S.B. 296 that has many
worried about backdoor discriminating
that this bill could create. Here are some
provisions that the bill covers:
-

There are a couple factors that make

this bill relatively unique. First-off, the S.B.
296 passed without much opposition
through the Utah legislation. A 65-10 vote
was passed in the House of Representatives
and 23-5 in the Senate. Secondly, it passed
in a state that is dominated by The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After
all, The Mormon Church has been openly
anti-LGBTQ because their beliefs, values
and actions do not align with those in the
LGBTQ community (for example: In 2004,
the First Presidency of the LDS Church
made a statement regarding same-sex
marriage saying that marriage was and is
between a man and a women [and] is
essential to the Creators plan for the eternal

Equality for LGBTQ and the Disabled 2016

Landlords with four or more units

are not allowed to reject a person on
a basis of their sexual orientation and
will treat it as discrimination.
However, if a landlord has less than
four units, the discriminatory laws do
not apply.
Any non-profit organization that is
affiliated by a religious organization
does not fall under the
discriminatory laws and are allowed
to require behavior consistent with
their beliefs. This is different than
commercial landlords.
Employers are not allowed to fire an
individual based off of their sexual
orientation. However, unless that
employer has more than fifteen
employees and is not considered to
be a small business, then the
employer can choose whether or not
to hire an individual based of off
sexual orientation.

Although this bill addresses the need

to add more protection for the LGBTQ
community, the provisions that allow
religious institutions, programs, non-profits
and affiliates to more or less discriminate
against LGBTQ have left many wondering if
this bill should really be a model for other
jurisdictions. Even now with the
introduction of the S.B. 107, tensions seem
to once again be arising in the Mormon
Church.

In late February, 2016, the church

issued a statement that warned against the
passing of any bill that could alter the
balance between religious freedoms and
LGBTQ rights. This statement comes with
the introduction of the S.B. 107 which

Equality for LGBTQ and the Disabled 2016

would toughen penalties against hate crimes

and has already passed the Senate committee
5-1 and will go in front of the entire Senate.
Currently, Utahs laws only apply only to
misdemeanor crimes and do not carry any
classifications such as ancestry, disability,
sexual orientation, etc. However, the new
bill looks to change this by adding classes
that would be protected and would allow
prosecutors to enhance criminal penalties for
acts done on bias.
Senator Todd Weiler, who voted
against the bill in the committee, feels that
this bill may have come too soon after the
Utah Compromise - What I think a lot of
people are asking was, if they get hate
crimes this year, then what are they going to
be coming back next year for and then the
year after that. However, thirty
organizations (such as the ACLU and
NAAP) already support the bill and will
look to gain equal rights and protection.
Only time will tell if equality improvement
and compromise can be achieved like it was
in the S.B. 296.