Saturday, November 15, 2008

Kalamazoo to Persecute Christians

The city of Kalamazoo is discussing an ordinance to discriminate against Christians. Of course, that's not how they put it.

Proposed Kalamazoo ordinance would ban discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals

KALAMAZOO -- A proposed Kalamazoo city ordinance aimed at protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals from discrimination will be introduced Monday before the City Commission.

"There is not one law on the federal level or state level that protects against discrimination for sexual orientation," said Terry Kuseske, head of the Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality's political action committee.

The proposed city ordinance, dubbed the "Equal Rights Ordinance," would protect against discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations. The ordinance would apply to both the private and public sectors, although there would be some exemptions. Churches would be exempt and so would individuals who are seeking to rent out part of a residence in which they are living.

Violations of the ordinance would be referred to the city manager and could be punished with a fine of no more than $500 plus costs of the action.
So Christian bookstores would be forced to hire crossdressers. This proposal would take away everyone's right to hire or not hire whomever they please. This is a violation of the freedom of association.

The city of Kalamazoo and Kalamazoo County have previously adopted an Equal Employment Opportunity statement that says sexual orientation should not be considered in hiring employees. The protection outlined in the statement, however, is limited to employees of city or county government and applicants for jobs within city or county government.
The gay rights movement is not about freedom or tolerance and it never has been. It quickly moved from changing government policy to restricting private behavior. How long will churches and private citizens be exempt if this proposal is passed?

"I would be shocked if it didn't pass," City Commissioner Barbara Miller said. "When Terry first told me that the LGBT community were not a protected group, at first I laughed because that is absurd in 2008."
Why aren't people protected from discrimination on the basis of left-handedness, or chess-club membership, or musical ability? It's 2008! Of course there are almost infinitely many things that should not be a basis for discrimination. You can't put all of them into a law.

And there is no need to. If someone refuses to hire you or rent to you, go somewhere else. If you would be a good employee or tenant, someone else will be happy make money from you. Anyone who discriminates irrationally only hurts himself. There is no need to take away his freedom.

This ordinance will not only take away freedom, it will hurt business. It opens up one more front for lawsuits, whether or not they have any merit. It will only help to further drive business and jobs out of Kalamazoo.

One category of people not likely to be protected against discrimination in Kalamazoo anytime soon are people who want to be free to hire and rent at will.

17 comments:

oopster said...

If it we're just one or two places discriminating against lgbt people, then laws wouldn't be needed, but it's a lot more widespread than that.

Let me put it this way, if employers and landlords refused to hire Christians, simply because they're Christian, and not based on their ability to do the job or pay their rent, how would you feel about that? You would feel wronged and want to do something about it. That's all that lgbt people want, equal treatment, and sometimes, it takes the law to ensure that treatment.

Zoe Brain said...

History shows that there's times when a substantial proportion of the populace would rather harm themselves than give up their pet bigotry. e.g the USA around 1920.

Do you really mean "at will"? Would you find it acceptable to return to the days of "No Niggers Allowed" signs being openly displayed? I doubt it you're too... sane. Conservative.

Or do you mean something less than "at will" in the most inclusive sense? If so, why?

Personally, I'd be in favour of laws protecting any minority group, be they redheads, chess club members, or Right Wing Death Beasts like me, provided only that they can show a 50% unemployment rate and a rate of being murdered at least 10 times higher than the national average.

For the Intersexed (ie born with bodies neither wholly male nor wholly female) the rate is 17 times greater by the way - compared to young black urban males, where it's only 3 times greater.

This is no trendy "fashionable cause of the month" beloved of the chattering classes and Leftist Moonbats. It's a real problem.

Example : this video, showing a beating by Memphis police of a Transsexual.

Armed with a copy of the tape, she complained to Internal Affairs.

She was found executed by a single bullet to the head a few days ago.

And I bet you didn't know about this, nor the Transgender Day of Remembrance, where names on a list now over 17 pages long of Transgendered people killed for being who they are are commemorated. Because Leftist Mainstream Media is just as down on them as the most embarrassing elements of the GOP.

Mykell said...

The whole point of this law is so that if one business refuses to hire you, there is another that will hire you.

RightMichigan.com said...

We have a constitutional right to associate freely. The Christian bookstore example is a good one.

But there's another issue here, too.

This law seeks to protect sexual choices the same way it protects skin color.

One you're born with... the other you act on by choice. There is a HUGE difference.

This ordinance is specifically targetted at people of faith and directly restricts their ability to practice it. It should not be passed.

Something tells me that won't stop them, though.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

oopster said...

"This law seeks to protect sexual choices the same way it protects skin color.

One you're born with... the other you act on by choice. There is a HUGE difference."

Why should someone's choice of sexual orientation as you put it, affect whether they are suitable for a job or not?

Are there a lot of Christian bookshops where you live, and do you think that there will suddenly be a mass of flaming queens queueing upto interview for jobs in them?

I'm pressuming you're heterosexual, did you make the choice to be heterosexual, or did you just go with what felt right to you? Stop thinking that sexual orientation is a choice.

As a Christian, you are not supposed to judge others, that is not your responsibility, it is God's.

Tina Seitz said...

For all the allegedChristian people out there that are opposed to equal rights; there were two studies this year that show transgender "ism" is genetic, not a choice. How many studies show that your religious affiliation (that you already have protection for) is not a choice? You chose bigotry and then complain when there is a law proposed that goes against YOUR LIFESTYLE CHOICE. Get over it, get over your bigotry.

Elliot said...

LOL, it's hard for me to stay out of a discussion like this.

1. Is it wrong for me to believe that sodomy is a sin?

2. Well, you say it's wrong for me to judge other people. OK... Then why are you are you judging me for doing so?

3. If sodomy really is "not a choice," than how do you explain the testimonials of those who have successfully left their GLBT lifestyle?

4. Finally, if someone wants to refuse to be my friend simply because I'm a Christian, that's their prerogative. The Bible never promised me an easy life here on earth, but those of us who are Christians know that it is far more blessed to suffer persecution with Christ, than to live in wealth and ease w/o Him.

oopster said...

"1. Is it wrong for me to believe that sodomy is a sin?"

Whoever mentioned Sodomy?

"2. Well, you say it's wrong for me to judge other people. OK... Then why are you are you judging me for doing so?"

Did I judge you?

"3. If sodomy really is "not a choice," than how do you explain the testimonials of those who have successfully left their GLBT lifestyle?"

Have they really left the "lifestyle" as you put it? I've heard so many stories of "ex-gays" being discovered in "gay" situations.

"4. Finally, if someone wants to refuse to be my friend simply because I'm a Christian, that's their prerogative. The Bible never promised me an easy life here on earth, but those of us who are Christians know that it is far more blessed to suffer persecution with Christ, than to live in wealth and ease w/o Him."

This is not about whether someone wants to be your friend or not, this is about someone being denied the opportunity to be employed or housed.

Matt W. said...

As a left handed person, I have never faced the discrimination that the LGBT coummunity has faced.

Also, since most Christian Bookstores are Church sponsored they would be exempt from the ordinance. Plus, (I assume) there are more inclusive religious organizations that my LGBT friends would rather be working for than those that openly discriminate against them.

Finally, the American Psychiatric Associatiion and the World Health Organization do not recognize homosexuality or transgendered-ness as an illness. The Surgeon General has said there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. The APA has also stated most people have little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. People who choose therapy (i.e. reparative or conversion therapy) do not change a their sexual identity, they merely repress it. Therapy may do more harm than good.

Isaiah 56:1-8

oopster said...

As a left handed person, it wasn't so long ago, that you would have been discriminated against, as some sort of deviant, simply for being left handed. We now know, that that is just based on silly superstition, but the same people who want to discriminate against the lgbt community, would have been the ones leading the charge to discriminate against left handed people.

Matt W. said...

oopster,
I agree. In my lifetime I was never forced to become right handed. Also, I don't think being left handed requires any legal protections, which was more my point.

It also gives me hope that, as humans, as creatures of compassion, we can become a fully inclusive and a truly free society in my lifetime.

BlackTsunami said...

Rather than ruminating over crossdressers (who don't necessarily have to be gay) and Christian bookstores, instead of making up phony notions of the persecution of Christians, why not just tell the truth about this law:

"Churches would be exempt and so would individuals who are seeking to rent out part of a residence in which they are living."

You seem to have forgotten that part of the article.

Jim Lippard said...

Your opening paragraph says this is "an ordinance to discriminate against Christians"--yet Christians are already protected by an equivalent ordinance, even though Christianity is more clearly a matter of choice than sexual preference. Further, the ordinance itself has a religious exemption in it.

If you're going to be consistent, you should favor a removal of religion as a protected category from discrimination along with opposing this ordinance. But of course, that *really would* be an ordinance that allowed discrimination against Christians.

yoshi said...

So Christian bookstores would be forced to hire crossdressers.

You do realize that the vast majority of 'crossdressers' identify themselves as straight, right?

Demeus said...

Wow, this is the work of "The best College Republican group in the country"? I guess if you think an endorsement from Ann Coulter is a badge of pride, you can't be too intellectually rigorous.

Johnny said...

There are two problems here:

1. English Comprehension. The article does not infer, insinuate or otherwise, infer that to protect Gay and Lesbians from being discriminated against, is a the thin edge of the wedge in aplot to discriminate against christians.

2. Christianity is a choice too. I have chosen to reject it due to its high levels of intolerance, insularity, arrogance and the assumption that they are right to practice a lifestyle that is abhorrent to a lot of people, AND they want to deny others the right to make their choices?

3. Then again, I would never be friends with such an intellectually bereft group of people!

Johnny said...

Then again, I'm going to open aplace where christians can freelya ssociate withe ach toehr, without fear of having to associte with undesireables.

It's called a Lion's Den. Christians only please!