Monday the Traverse City Human Rights Commission will present a proposed non-discrimination ordinance to the city commission. A draft can be found here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/City_Commission/Agendas/. I’ll be away on a family vacation, but I support the ordinance 110%. It’s the right thing to do, and it will be good for our city’s future.
The ordinance would prohibit discrimination in Traverse City – on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
A key difference between the ordinance and general Michigan law is that the ordinance is more inclusive: it includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Under general Michigan law, employees who have done nothing wrong can be fired from their jobs or denied housing or access to public accommodations because they are gay or transgender. The ordinance would prohibit this. It would also require contractors doing business with the city to comply.
The ordinance has important exemptions to protect religious beliefs. It does not apply to churches or religious organizations. The housing section does not apply to landlords in one or two-family owner-occupied dwellings, who may choose not to rent to someone based on their own personal beliefs. It also does not shield illegal conduct.
The ordinance is modeled after other non-discrimination ordinances on the books in other cities in Michigan. Nearly 20 cities in our state have passed these, including Grand Rapids, Lansing, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, and Detroit.
Traverse City is already a fairly open and tolerant city; the ordinance will codify into law values that I believe already predominate here. In addition to being the right thing to do, the ordinance should help the city economically. Studies have shown that cities who are open and tolerant attract more bright and talented people, which helps their business community and their home values. Professor Richard Florida, author of Rise of the Creative Class, calls this the “tolerance premium.” See http://www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/There_Goes_the_Neighborhood.pdf
Ultimately, steps like this help set a tone about the city we are and wish to be. Marshall Persky, a retired steel executive and the Chair of the TC Human Rights Commission, says it best:
“Together, we can send the message that Traverse City is open, inclusive and values equality enough to say that our city will not discriminate against anyone.”
Hope the city will hear from you on this by Monday night.
25 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 6, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Paul Nepote
Out of town Gay Group setting up shop in Traverse City to enforce gay ordinance.
——-Original Message——-
Coming to Traverse City Soon, Thanks to Commissioner Jim Carruthers, and Heidi Lovy of the gay activist group Equality Michigan.
Heidi Lovy is doing communications work for Equality Michigan out of Traverse City. She is passionate about her work and loves “being the straight girl” advocating for LGBT full equality. She expects Traverse City will be a little less laid back with Equality Michigan in town.
5. What do you see as the biggest LGBT issue to tackle in Traverse City right now?
Again, I’m still learning about my new environment, but it seems that the focus here right now is the recent passing of the Human Rights Ordinance. While this is definitely a great victory for the Traverse City LGBT community, it appears that the opposition will succeed in getting this issue on the ballot. I met recently with Jim Carruthers, an openly gay Traverse City commissioner, and he believes that the community will support the ordinance no matter what. Jim is amazing and enthusiastic and I’m thrilled that Equality Michigan is here to lend a hand.
When everything is said and done, and the human rights ordinance is safely in place, Equality Michigan can help ensure it’s being properly observed and educate the community on what it means in practical application. Stay tuned!
___________________________________________________________________________________
Michigan
Between Ourselves: Heidi Lovy
Originally printed 11/4/2010 (Issue 1844 – Between The Lines News)
Heidi Lovy is doing communications work for Equality Michigan out of Traverse City. She is passionate about her work and loves “being the straight girl” advocating for LGBT full equality. She expects Traverse City will be a little less laid back with Equality Michigan in town.
1. What will your new role for Equality Michigan be?
Since my family and I relocated up north, Equality Michigan has retained me to do communications work. I’m handing community outreach, social media and public and media relations for the entire state. I can’t tell you how excited I am to be able to continue this work. I’m passionate about the mission of Equality Michigan, and I absolutely love being the straight girl running my mouth about gay rights. I hope they’re ready for me.
No one should be satisfied until there are equal rights for everyone. I get so angry when I hear the opposition contend that we’re asking for “special” rights. It just isn’t the case. Ultimately, I want to help create a world where my kids can look back in amazement and say, “Wow, there was a time when women couldn’t vote? When African Americans had separate schools? When gay people couldn’t get married? How bizarre is that?”
2. What are you starting to see as the differences in LGBT issues in Traverse City versus southeast Michigan?
I’m still acclimating myself here, but it seems to me that the Traverse City area might need a little shot of adrenalin. There are folks doing some fantastic work here, but we need to re-energize people. I’d like to see more activism and education in the schools. There is an incredible movement going on here artistically with the Traverse City Film Fest, Interlochen and an insurgence in creative people. That’s a good sign for progressive issues. In Metro Detroit, we see lots more “in your face” type activism and I think that it’s a tad more laid back in Northern Michigan. We certainly don’t want to step on any toes, but I do believe Equality Michigan’s presence here will help motivate some people who may have taken a backseat to LGBT issues, and it will hopefully inspire some folks who haven’t been involved previously.
3. Why do you think it’s crucial to have LGBT and allied forces at work in more remote parts of the state?
People tend to feel more isolated in remote areas – and there’s really nothing worse than feeling alone when you’re having difficulties. By having a presence in northern Michigan, Equality Michigan plans to be a resource for individuals, schools, businesses, institutions, social workers … Just about anyone who may not know where to begin when it comes to dealing with discrimination. We are a state-wide agency and it’s crucial that we stay connected with all of the residents of Michigan – urban, suburban, rural … You name it.
4. How will the work you do now connect with what’s being done at Equality Michigan’s main offices?
The work I’m doing here connects perfectly with what’s being done at the main office. Everything we do is mission-driven. Our mission is:
“Equality Michigan works to achieve full equality and respect for all people in the state of Michigan regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”
hat’s pretty applicable anywhere in the state. And honestly, how anyone could be opposed to this mission is beyond me. The core of our mission is equality – the end. This is not a debatable topic for me.
Equality Michigan plans to host some town hall meetings here and in the Upper Peninsula so we’re able to connect directly with folks. We know what our take is on LGBT issues in the state, but we also want to hear about personal experiences people are having. We want to know what priorities are across the state and help communities reach their goals.
5. What do you see as the biggest LGBT issue to tackle in Traverse City right now?
Again, I’m still learning about my new environment, but it seems that the focus here right now is the recent passing of the Human Rights Ordinance. While this is definitely a great victory for the Traverse City LGBT community, it appears that the opposition will succeed in getting this issue on the ballot. I met recently with Jim Carruthers, an openly gay Traverse City commissioner, and he believes that the community will support the ordinance no matter what. Jim is amazing and enthusiastic and I’m thrilled that Equality Michigan is here to lend a hand.
When everything is said and done, and the human rights ordinance is safely in place, Equality Michigan can help ensure it’s being properly observed and educate the community on what it means in practical application. Stay tuned!
October 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Paul Nepote
SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
——————————————————————————–
Revised statement issued on July 22, 1992.
Foreword
Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.
While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or church authority who is confronted with such issues.
The first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” of 1986. The second section will deal with their application.
I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter”
1. The letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions”; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (No. 3).
2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration …, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it “neutral or even good,” the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (No. 3).
3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood” (No. 7).
4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (No. 9).
5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved” (No. 9)
6. “She (the church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to or as acceptable as the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy” (No. 9)
7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).
8. “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well” (No. 11).
9. “In assessing proposed legislation, the bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life” (No. 17).
II. Applications
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily bad to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people … are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
——————————————————————————–
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
September 8, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Disgusted American
FYI – Paul Nepote …GAY people PAY More then thier fair share of TAXES to subsidize breeders children.
September 8, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Paul Nepote
I am a little out of touch, and not up on gay-speak.
Is BREEDER the new gay word for a Heterasexual person?.
September 8, 2010 at 10:34 am
Paul Nepote
NEWS FLASH
CITY MANAGER CONFIRMS – SPECIAL ELECTION TO PASS GAY RIGHTS ORDINANCE WILL COST TAXPAYERS.
$20,000.00
MAY I SUGGEST THE GAY COMMUNITY REINBURSES THE CITY OF TRAVERSE CITY, USING WHAT THEY CALL “GAY DOLLARS”?
September 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Matt Ross
Knowing that people like you are still out there,it would be money well spent!
September 8, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Paul James Nepote
Dear Matt,
This is a good example of the division that exists between gay and local folks who try to ingrain traditional family values as a standard for their lives. You do have the right to judge others, however you should have some knowledge of the person you insult. Most folks have no interest in gay sexuality, they just would like to keep it away from our families.
September 8, 2010 at 4:14 pm
chrisbzdok
Friendly reminder to all – (1) keep it civil and don’t get personal; (2) real names must be used. This is a forum for all viewpoints to be expressed and received with respect. Thank you.
September 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Anon1
Paul: how about you stop opposing things that don’t need opposing, then you won’t be wasting city taxpayers’ money.
Chris: regarding using real names, not all of us have the privilege of stating who we are and giving information about ourselves without risking a lot (more than others would be risking).
I’m a transgender person who underwent medical transition. You would not know I was transgender by looking at me, but a simple background check will reveal my old information because these days it is impossible to eliminate a personal paper trail. For most transgender people who transition, it’s impossible to even change all identifying documentation. This makes getting a job extremely challenging ON TOP OF the bad economy, and a reason why this ordinance would be helpful.
I am fortunate to still be with my long term (and now same sex) partner who has a job. We own a home in the city and although we could really use more income, we have a decent life here. There is no way I would risk what little bit we do have by stating my real name on here. Or by coming in front of the commission (which obviously is filmed and put on the internet), stating my name and address, and my support of this ordinance.
I don’t have the same privilege as Paul Nepote or even Commissioner Carruthers because in the LGBT world, the T seems to always on the bottom. Remember what the HRC did with ENDA… hateful people confused everyone with wrong information about transgender people and HRC, rather than correct the information and stand up for what is right, threw us under the bus in an effort to get protections for just the gays and lesbians.
I hope that gender identity will not be erased from this ordinance before all is said and done. It seems that’s the way it is heading after hearing Commissioner Soffredine’s comments. So revealing who I am would probably, in the end, be for nothing anyway. I still won’t have a job and I still won’t have any easier time getting a job.
Believe me, if I had my way it would be my business ONLY and no one would ever know about my transition. Maybe I’ll get lucky and get hired for something that someone won’t check my background. If people see me on here stating I’m a transgender, it’s just one more way people can find out about me and discriminate against me….. or my partner, or harass me/us in my neighborhood or around town.
Which brings me to the other issue I have. Now that I’m in a same sex relationship, what heterosexual people don’t realize is that straight people in straight relationships make a lot of small talk about their relationship life.
In every job I’ve ever had people ALWAYS talked about their husband or boyfriend, wife or girlfriend, and/or their kids and ALWAYS asked their co-workers about their family life. When you’re in a same sex relationship this becomes very difficult to navigate and it almost never goes well if you’re trying to keep your home life private in order to avoid discrimination and harassment.
Straight people have a privileged position and like pretty much all privileged people they don’t realize these little things because they are not forced to see them or examine their own privileged position in life.
I want to thank all the people who do speak out on our behalf, including Commissioner Carruthers.
August 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Anon1
As a transgender person living in TC, I appreciate this effort. I think you’re right that it sets the right tone as a community.
I think this ordinance is more about respect than what someone is allowed to wear to work. I’m not a lawyer but I would guess that employers would still have a right to enforce dress codes on all their employees. If feather boas and fishnet stockings are not appropriate for the workplace then I’m sure they can still enforce that rule under this ordinance.
Paul, try to be a little more logical and realistic, as right now your arguments sound very ignorant and ridiculous.
I would like to know if there will be other public meetings on this? I didn’t see this entry in time to go to the first meeting.
August 22, 2010 at 11:02 pm
J Ross
Paul, you feeling your masculinity is in question? Or do you just not like everyone afforded the same rights as you?
August 23, 2010 at 9:47 am
Paul Nepote
Why do I have to explain the obvious? You were born with all of the same rights that I enjoy. If I showed up at work, wearing a feather boa and fish net stockings I would expect the owner to fire me.
August 23, 2010 at 9:59 am
Sela McNare
Is this Paul guy actual luscid? Obviously your treatment a the state hospital needed a long stay!. Your insane ramblings here just prove that mediocre minds that know how to type can say anything too. Including your need to deny rights to everyone.
August 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm
chrisbzdok
reminder – personal attacks and profanity are both prohibited on this site. The above comment has been partially cut for this reason. Repeat offenders are banned permanently. Thank you all for writing on this important topic.
August 24, 2010 at 8:22 am
chrisbzdok
second reminder. Comments placed last night containing personal attacks and/or inappropriate language have been removed. Disagreements are welcome, but this will remain a site for civil discourse. thank you.
August 25, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Paul Nepote
Mr. Mayor
Some things never change.
I hope by looking carefully at the posts on this subject, you were able to see first hand, that gay, and gay activists are much more intolerant, and tend to lash out more then the other 93 percent of Traverse City residents.
August 22, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Matt Ross
Thank you Paul, I visited the U of M website and did a little research on their class on “How To Be Gay”, it is a class in gay studies, from what I can tell it does not try to indoctrinate anyone, nice try. I am pretty sure your remarks that homosexuals must have malfunctioning sexuality switch’s, placing them in the same category as those who practice beastiality, is very offensive.
August 21, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Paul Nepote
Traverse City is still carrying the scars from the infamous “Gay Bumper Sticker Scam”.
If the HRC wants to continue down this road they will be rekindling the same feelings it has taken years to put behind us.
When some left wing Commissioner makes a statement that ” I know someone that lost there job because they are “GAY”, it’s like blowing smoke. If you are going to make that statement at a open commission meeting, she better be willing to answer to the public when asked the question Who, When, What business, and what were the other circumstances?
If the HRC wants to continue, they can be assured they will be setting “Gay Tolerance back about 11 years”. My question is why would the HRC and the City Commission want to subject the City of Traverse City to the publicity and negative feeling brought on by there unwarranted action. The only reason that comes to mind is to prove a Gay Activist point. The reaction will not benefit Gays in any way, of that you can be sure.
The referendum in Kalamazoo cost the Gay Activist community $500,000.00 to implement, yet not one Gay person has benefited from the ordinance. If Traverse City feels the need to continue this lunacy the opposition will petition for a referendum and win or loose I hope the Commissioners and there Gay actives friends are willing to reach deep into their pockets to fund the opposition to the recall of your ill advised ordnance.
On the flip side, if the homosexual activists spend half a million bucks on this ordinance that’s $500,000 they won’t be spending on teaching children ” how to be gay”.
August 22, 2010 at 8:02 am
Matt Ross
How do you teach someone to be gay? Your letter is an example of why we need this ordinance!
August 22, 2010 at 9:00 am
Paul Nepote
My I be so bold to ask the question,
If my sexual switch was malfunctioning, and I was turned on by little Puppies & Kittens, would I be able to get my very own City Ordinance?
August 22, 2010 at 11:46 am
Paul Nepote
To answer Matt Ross’s question.
The University of Michigan offers classes in ” HOW TO BE GAY “.
If I can answer any other questions, please feel free
September 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm
AFAM / Paul Nepote
American Family Association of Michigan
Subject: Re: Traverse City gay rights ordinance
Date: Thu, Sept. 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Good Afternoon,
We stand ready to assist citizens in Traverse City in opposing the imposition of this repressive, discriminatory ordinance pushed by homosexual activists and their political allies.
1. As we’ve done in every community where this issue has been raised over the last decade, we challenge homosexual activists and their political allies to identify any individual in Traverse City who has ever been denied a job, housing, or service in a restaurant based on what kind of sex they have. If they cannot, it’s obvious that this discriminatory and repressive ordinance is an unnecessary solution in search of a non-existent problem.
2. If so-called “discrimination” as defined by the ordinance is wrong, why should churches be exempt and allowed to “discriminate”? On the other hand, if it’s right to exempt churches because of their religious values, why shouldn’t individuals, for-profit businesses, or others motivated by the same religious values also be exempt? The ordinance would make it illegal, for example, for a Christian bookstore to refuse to hire a man who insists he has a “right” to wear a dress and high heels to work. It would also be illegal for a womens rape crisis counseling center to refuse to hire a man who dresses as a woman, as was the subject of a 2003 case in Canada: http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?menu=1&item=268
3. Such ordinances are widely recognized as serious threats to religious freedom, resulting in discrimination and punishment against individuals who refuse to endorse homosexual behavior as a matter of conscience or sincere religious conviction, up to and including a Methodist church in New Jersey being stripped of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to use its beachfront chapel for a wedding, or Catholic Charities in Boston being banned from serving as an adoption referral service unless it offers referrals to homosexual couples, or the Salvation Army being banned from bidding on contracts to serve the poor in Chicago, or city employees in Ann Arbor being banned from contributing to the United Way through their payroll deduction plan (because UW supported local Boy Scout troops).
See the Washington Post: “Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom. The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. …Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones (tax exemption) ruling ‘puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views. ” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html ”
Los Angeles Times: ” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/opinion/oe-stern17 ”
National Public Radio:” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 ”
4. Such ordinances are part of homosexual activists’ much broader agenda, which culminates in radically redefining the institution of marriage. All three of the state Supreme Courts that have declared a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage” — California, Iowa, and Massachusetts — expressly cited in their decisions those states’ preexisting “sexual orientation” laws as the legal justification for their rulings.
5. It is widely known and accepted — including among “gay” health organizations — that individuals who engage in homosexual behavior experience a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, eating disorders, substance abuse, life-threatening and expensive diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis, cumulatively resulting in premature death by up to 20 years compared to the general population. It is certainly an unwise and unhealthy public policy to give the city government’s seal of approval and special protection to behavior that’s proven to pose such a dramatic threat to both personal and public health.
Please let me know if there’s anything I’ve mentioned on which you’d like the original documentation.
Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
989-835-7978
September 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Anon2
some people feel they’re being “discriminated” against whenever they aren’t allowed to discriminate against others. such attitudes tell more about the people holding them than about discrimination.
not being allowed to fire or evict somebody simply because of who they choose to share a private bedroom with certainly doesn’t seem like “discrimination” in my eyes. someone choosing to call it such, however, speaks volumes.
let’s keep our eyes on the actual facts here. the draft of the proposed ordinance can be found in this packet; it comes up to nine pages of text, and — considering it is legalese, after all — really isn’t particularly hard to read and make sense of. i see nothing in it that would discriminate against anybody, at least not as the dictionary defines “discrimination” — quite the contrary.
it’s possible i’m reading it wrongly, of course. if so, could someone please point out the section and paragraph i’m misinterpreting as not being discriminatory? in particular, i myself am a bit unsure about exception (B), what current practices it is intended to protect, and why they deserve protection.
September 6, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Matt Ross
There you go again protecting the institution of marriage.
There are far worse things that threaten the institution of marriage than gays having the right to marry. I would think that adultery is probably a big one and thats been going on for thousands of years, and somehow marriage survives. I don’t understand why people feel so threatened, after a few years of marriage they will wonder why they did it in the first place.
In regards to this statement-
“It is certainly an unwise and unhealthy public policy to give the city government’s seal of approval and special protection to behavior that’s proven to pose such a dramatic threat to both personal and public health”.
If you are using this logic then those who smoke or drink alcohol to excess should not have the same right as everyone else as well.
September 8, 2010 at 4:28 am
Anon1
Not a very good example, Matt. I believe the city does have a non-smoking ordinance. I also believe that both employers and landlords can discriminate based on smoking and employers can also discriminate on the drinking. Which is as it should be since, unlike sexual orientation and gender identity, smoking and drinking actually can and do pose a health and safety risk to others who don’t drink or smoke.