A group led by TC resident Paul Nepote has turned in signatures to put the city’s non-discrimination ordinance on the November ballot. The signatures still need to be reviewed but there appear to be enough of them.
I supported the non-discrimination ordinance at the city commission and I will support it with my vote as a city resident in November. My reasons were here: http://planfortc.com/2010/08/07/protecting-the-rights-of-everybody-august-8/
Despite the potential for controversy, getting an issue decided directly by the voters is never a bad thing. I do hope residents will remember the two predictions made by opponents of the ordinance last summer and fall:
1. that it would drive away business from Traverse City
2. that the city would persecute people for their religious or personal beliefs.
It’s been 9 months since the ordinance went into effect. The complete failure of these predictions to come true is really worth thinking about.
I’m sure more discussion will follow in the months to come.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 13, 2011 at 9:47 am
Greg
How would anyone at work know a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity anyway. It’s sad to think workers would gather around a water cooler and discuss what they do in their bedroom.
July 13, 2011 at 11:03 am
Max
I’ve never been in a work or school situation where people didn’t socialize and talk about their home and family life. For heterosexual, gender-normative people that socialization process is taken for granted. For those people there’s no threat of harassment or firing for talking about family life at work. There’s also stereotyped behaviors that out certain people as gay… one person talked about that during the public comments at the city commission meeting (the one before the vote I think).
For transgender people, many are unable to keep their gender identity private in work situations because you pretty much have to tell your life story to a stranger in order to be hired for a job. You can try to hide it, but it’s too easy to find out things about someone in this age of information.
For instance, many transgender people have sex mis-matched legal documents because the rules for changing these documents vary by agency and state. Many transgender people also have open court records of name/gender changes, and these are extremely difficult to have sealed. Even if they could easily be sealed, these days it’s pretty much impossible to get rid of your old name on various paper trails such as credit reports and driving records.
The point is that it’s very difficult to keep your private life private when you work for someone else, and none of it involves standing around a water cooler discussing your sex life with co-workers.
July 7, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Max
I think it might be helpful to point out that this ordinance is *not* an affirmative action ordinance and it does indeed apply to *everyone*. That is, I assume that “sexual orientation” would include heterosexuals and “gender identity” would include people who identify with the gender they were originally assigned, in addition to homosexuals and transgenders. That is, everyone!
I suspect the only reason people see an ordinance like this as “special rights” for LGBT people is because they can’t fathom someone being fired from a job because they are heterosexual or gender normative. Ironically, they prove the point that these type of ordinances are indeed needed because the only people being fired from a job for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity are homosexuals and transgenders.
And, Zack, is this not an example of a group forcing itself on individuals? It’s a forced social norm. That is, through withdrawal or withholding of the financial, emotional and social benefits of working a job, the majority group in society is forcing its values on a minority group. Again, this is why ordinances like this are needed, to temper the mob rule.
Wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a society where everyone was tolerant of each others’ differences? Reality is we don’t and there are a lot of people who have no desire to be tolerant and are actually proud of their intolerance. When that intolerance is wrong, sometimes the only way to correct it is through laws.
Finally, affirmative action requires employers to hire from a certain pool of people, this ordinance does nothing of the sort. Nobody in TC is required to hire a person based on sexual orientation or gender identity, so there is no affirmative action component to this ordinance what-so-ever.
July 13, 2011 at 1:35 am
zack F
Max,
The quote I posted below uses the term “affirmative action” in a broad sense – from Wikipedia “Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin”[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.”
“Ironically, they prove the point that these type of ordinances are indeed needed because the only people being fired from a job for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity are homosexuals and transgenders.”
While I have no problem associating with those of different sexual orientation, I would never want to use the threat of force to coerce someone else into adhering to my point of view. Doing so would override cherished aspects of a free society such as the right to freely associate with whom we choose, and private property rights. An employer that chooses to no longer employ the superior employee over something as trivial as sexual orientation will suffer the consequences in the marketplace. Ironically, well-intentioned laws like this can actually result in LESS hiring of the “protected” classes, because employers are now more exposed to lawsuits.
July 13, 2011 at 11:20 am
Max
Zack, could you point out where in the TC ordinance it says employers are required to take into consideration an underrepresented group and confer a benefit on them?
Also, could you point to any statistics that show employers are less likely to hire a particular race, sex, etc because they are afraid of lawsuits? I think we’ve had these non-discrimination laws long enough that there ought to be some statistics to back up the claim that employers are less likely to hire because of them.
As for your other comments, I think we have a difference of opinion/philosophy. I don’t think “freedom” and property rights always trump everything, especially when dealing with social and environmental issues.
July 13, 2011 at 11:58 am
Zack F
Max,
You raised the issue of employment and getting fired because of sexual orientation.
Re: statistics that show employers are less likely to hire a particular race, sex, etc because they are afraid of lawsuits?
I don’t have statistics to prove that they are less likely, but do you have statistics to prove that employers would not hire MORE protected minorities if these anti-discrimination laws weren’t in place? Of course you can’t, because these issues can’t be determined with a survey; you have to use some common sense.
“I don’t think “freedom” and property rights always trump everything, especially when dealing with social and environmental issues.” I agree that we have a difference of philosophy. Individual rights should always trump the “rights” of the collective. Collective rights are generally invoked to oppress individuals for the benefit of other individuals, under the guise of helping the community.
July 23, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Max
Since we’re using common sense here, I’ll point out that common sense would probably say that you (and certain others around here) are making much ado about something that is largely symbolic with no real force behind it anyway.
This being an “at will” state, do you really think these non-discrimination laws matter except in the most obvious cases where the employer, landlord or whatever goes out of their way to discriminate or behave like a bigoted jerk?
I seriously doubt it, Zack. There are many ways to legally fire, not hire, not rent or not sell something to someone. You simply don’t call them back when they apply or you just tell them they’re fired, no reason has to even be given to them. It happens all the time.
So what this really comes down to is civility. Why do things have to be codified into law in order for people to be civil to one another? Heck, even that doesn’t work sometimes. I just don’t understand the apparent need of some people to be so judgmental and hateful, which is why I support this ordinance as a symbolic law, if nothing else.
July 24, 2011 at 8:27 am
Zack F
Max,
I agree with you that employers are unlikely to use sexual discrimination as their reason for firing or not hiring someone. What concerns me is that this ordinance can be used to persecute and prosecute employers, landlords etc. under the guise of anti-discrimination, whether it actually occurred or not. For example, suppose a gay employee was passed over for promotion in favor of a straight employee; that could theoretically result in legal action under this ordinance.
I think that a resolution is a far better way for the city commission to express its social views than an ordinance, though frankly there are far more important things for the city commission to be dealing with – namely fixing the budget, the roads and so forth. Let’s leave social improvement and engineering to issue advocacy groups and institutions that change hearts and minds through persuasion voluntarily rather than through force and coercion.
July 1, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Zack F
I’m not a fan of Mr. Nepote’s methods or rhetoric. That said, I think this movement to codify tolerance is misguided and counterproductive. I am a member of a religious minority, voluntarily living in the gay neighborhood of Chicago, and I think we need to treat people as individuals and not confer collective group rights.
“All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it’s homosexual, women, minorities – it leads us astray. So it’s much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life, if they do no harm you don’t try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values. But you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work… A group can’t force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group, so if a homosexual group wanted to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that either.”
July 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm
chrisbzdok
Zack I apologize that your comment sat in the spam folder so long – I have not been keeping up with the site this week. Will be back at full speed by the weekend. thank you for writing, Chris