March 1, 2012 in the Deseret News there was an article written by Clifford J. Rosky with the title "Religious Liberties and gay rights".  The article centers around a piece of legislation that has been rejected for times.  The bill would require the Statewide employment an housing laws to be altered to reflect the idea that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the employment and housing market would not be permitted.  Many cities and counties in Utah have already adopted similar policies so it makes a person wonder why the state would be unwilling to pass this bill when it's already supported by more than two-thirds of Utahns.  The article gives you a possible answer....would this affect or threaten our religious liberties?  The article does contain more information and expounds on those concerns as well as who would be affected by this in the business community.  I would like to just stop at this basic concept of discrimination.  I realize that discrimination occurs everywhere and our ability to control that discrimination can be difficult.  However, why wouldn't you want to encourage a bill that helps guarantee rights to a specific class of individuals that has already been given to others?  I know it's not quite as simple as that, but if it's reasonable and well thought out, which this appears to be, why hesitate?  Times are changing and we need to learn to adapt!

In the New York Times on March 1, 2012 I found an article entitled, "Free-Speech Argument In a Lawyer's Appeal" written by Colin Moynihan.  It's an interesting article.  Lynne F. Stewart, a disbarred attorney, was convicted in 2005 on 5 counts of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government.  She was originally sentenced to 28 months in prison, but was RESENTENCED to 10 years in prison.  Why the change in her sentence?  Apparently she ticked some people off when she publicly stated that she could "...do that sentence standing on her head."  When she was asked a few days later if she regretted her conduct she answered, "I might handle it a little differently, but I would do it again."   After these comments federal prosecutors appealed the sentence and asked for a new sentence stating that Ms. Stewart's comments lacked remorse.  She was re-sentenced to 10 years.  Ms. Stewart's lawyer, Herald Price Fahringer stated "One of the most cherished policies of this nation is that everybody should be allowed to speak freely.....This case puts that principle to a very great test."

So, here's the issue.  Did the prosecutor's appeal of the lower court's sentence come at the price of violating the right to freedom of speech?  She was already convicted and given a sentence so why does it matter what she says.  I'm not agreeing with her flippant attitude, but being punished further for speaking her mind doesn't seem all that right.  Is she being punished for her crimes or for her words?  What do you think?