Fair Workplaces (HB 89) Sponsor: Representative Johnson HB 89 would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of characteristics that may not be considered in employment decisions. Religious organizations and small employers are exempt. Quotas are prohibited.
Employment Discrimination is a problem in Utah. Social scientists measure
discrimination in four ways: surveys, official complaints, experiments, and wage
comparisons. Regardless of the research method used, studies show that lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender Utahns are routinely discriminated against in the
workplace.
People should be judged on what counts. Some characteristics, like education
and experience, are important to employers deciding who to hire. The law has
held that other characteristics, like race and religion, are irrelevant and should not
be considered by an employer. Sexual orientation and gender identity are also
irrelevant to whether a person is qualified for a job.
A fair workplace strengthens the economy. A strong economy depends on
people making rational economic decisions. Discrimination uses labels and
stereotypes instead of reason. Prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity will encourage employers to evaluate employees
reasonably, benefiting the employee, the employer, and Utah’s economy.
Prohibiting discrimination is moral. Judeo-Christian values call on people to
treat others fairly in all their dealings. AAA is not about special rights, but about
basic fairness.
HB 89 prohibits quotas. The Antidiscrimination Act amendments prohibit employers from
providing preferential treatment or creating quotas based on sexual orientation
and gender identity. Religious organizations are exempt, and can hire according to
doctrinal beliefs.
Every day, Utahns face discrimination because of sexual orientation
or gender identity. As a matter of justice, the legislature should
ensure fairness in the workplace.
Adoption Sponsor: Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck This bill removes the prohibition on unmarried couples as foster and adoptive parents and retains a preference for married couples over unmarried couples or
single adults.
Married couples will still have priority to adopt. Utah values traditional families. And
under Adoption Amendments, a married couple will take priority over other candidates in
the adoption process. But any loving and supportive family is preferable to no family for
children in crisis.
The marital restriction costs taxpayers. Children with two parents are less likely to
end up on CHIP, food stamps, and welfare than those with only one parent. Current law
prevents a parent from sharing rights and responsibilities with another cohabiting adult if
they are not married. This creates families with a working adult and a child on welfare.
The marital restriction has harmed children in crisis. In 1999, the year before the
marital restriction, DCFS placed 644 children with relatives. As of last year, relative
placement had dropped by 31%. In that same time frame, the number of children in state
custody and the length of time in custody have increased.
Parents should be able to choose who raises their children. A parent knows
what is in their child’s best interests. Under current law, a single parent can designate
someone for a second parent adoption, including a roommate or a romantic partner who
lives somewhere else. But if the second adult lives with the parent in a committed
relationship, the law says they are disqualified.
The best interests of the child should not be ignored. In October 2007, a court told
Gregg and Mike Valdez that their four nieces and nephews would be taken away and
placed in foster care because Gregg and Mike were not married. Even though the children
were with relatives and were all together, the law prevented the court from considering
what would benefit the children.
Adoption decisions should be made by parents and professionals, not politicians. All qualified parents should be able to adopt.
