Regardless, the first example seems especially more vague or soft than statements from modern-day prophets referenced in this podcast.

1st example:
http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/English_PITLW08257_000COMP.pdf

Non-Church Resources Available to Help the Poor

Members may choose to use resources in the community, including government resources, to meet their basic needs. The bishop should become familiar with these resources. They may include:

• Hospitals, physicians, or other sources of medical care .
• Job training and placement services .
• Help for people with disabilities .
• Professional counselors or social workers.
• Addiction treatment services.

Even when Church members receive assistance from non-Church sources, the bishop should help them avoid becoming dependent on these sources.

2nd example:
http://providentliving.org/question/result/0,12973,2929-1-24-6,00.html

What is the Church’s guidance on receiving government assistance?

Latter-day Saints have the responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. Individual members, however, may find it necessary to receive assistance beyond that which the family can provide, in which case they may turn to the Church for help. In some instances, individual members may decide to receive assistance from other sources, including government. In all such cases, members should avoid becoming dependent upon these sources and strive to become self-reliant. Where possible, they should work in return for assistance received.

When deciding what welfare assistance to give, the bishop determines whether members are receiving assistance from the government or other sources. Bishops should be careful not to duplicate welfare assistance.

Admittedly, I have a rather significant problem with this legislation. Also, to be perfectly honest, I’ve not reconciled the Church’s coming out in support of this ordinance. It seems to me to be something that the Church didn’t need to have made a statement on. I suppose it’s one of those, “put it up on the shelf and wait for further understanding” things. To me, this legislation is an express violation of our fundamental property rights.

By way of background, my family owns a sizable business. When it comes to what I might refer to as “front line” employees, primarily in sales positions and front office positions, I believe that who we hire and how they represent themselves is a reflection of my family, my family’s values and ideals, and the culture that we try to promote within our company. Within our industry, it’s widely known that we are LDS. Our company name is our family’s last name (followed by the type of business). i.e, Johnson’s Bakery. The nature of our business is such that we build strong relationships with our clients, seeing them on a regular basis. Many of which, we’ve seen weekly for as long as 30 years.

I’m very conscious of the commandment that we all have to love everyone. My problem with this ordinance is that:

1) It exempts state entities (of course!), religious organizations and “expressive organizations” (i.e., Boy Scouts, I believe), as well as companies with less than 15 employees. Whatever it is that is magical about the number 15 is beyond me.

2) It expressly prohibits private employers from discriminating against “otherwise qualified” persons based on sexual orientation or gender identity. “Sexual Orientation” is defined as “a person’s actual OR PERCEIVED orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.” “Gender Identity” is defined as “a person’s actual OR PERCEIVED gender identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the person’s sex at birth.”

Paradoxically, “Otherwise qualified” includes “moral character” as one of a myriad of acceptable requirements that can be expected from an employer for a particular job, job classification, or position (along with education, training, ability, integrity, disposition to work, adherence to reasonable rules and regulations, etc.).

Put yourself in my shoes. With the background I’ve given, how excited would YOU be about the prospect of having someone apply for a sales position with your family-owned business and that person is PERCEIVED as being an otherwise qualified FLAMING homosexual?

A restaurant near my office has a cashier that fits that bill. I don’t consider myself homophobic, but I can tell you that i’ve deliberately not patronized that restaurant because of how squeamish that cashier has made me. With time, perhaps that will change. Regardless, in my case, that business has been adversely impacted by employing that person. Perhaps this restaurant has others who expressly do business with them BECAUSE of that person. That is a judgement that should be reserved to the business owner and the image that the owner wants to portray.

I absolutely respect a person’s right to do as they wish with their body and with respect to their sexual orientation. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t social consequences for the same.

In my opinion, NO government should have ANY right to dictate to me who I can choose to represent me or my company. If I’m not comfortable having someone with extreme effeminate mannerisms represent me, that should be my prerogative and mine only. Who is the government to deny me that right?!?

Perhaps I’m missing something in this ordinance that would not expose me to the liability of being sued for NOT hiring a person like this, but I don’t think that’s the case.

For the record, I’ve employed other homosexuals (and very possibly do right n ow, that I’m not aware of), including one who is a returned missionary. i have no problem with that AT ALL. It provided a wonderful opportunity to build a friendship and hopefully be a positive influence in their lives. Again — my resentment is sourced in being compelled, by penalty of government imposed fines and with the threat of being sued for discrimination, to do so. What “freedom of association” are ordinances like this all about?!?

Most HR law makes my blood boil. I want to stand accountable to God, not to the government, for the way I exercise my agency in this regard.