Available on the Traverse City website, chapter 605 defines the non discrimination ordinance as passed by commissioners in 2010. I have included a few parts here for discussion.
605.01 INTENT, PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION.
(a) It is the intent of the City of Traverse City that no person be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil rights or be discriminated against because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Firstly, but for basically two things, civil rights can only be violated by government, government run institutions, or through enforcement by government agency. Sans interference by government, no natural rights can be denied except through murder, or some form of imprisonment enacted by an aggressor.
The Supreme court limited action on civil rights enforcement upon individuals, and in 1964 in order to reach the actions of individuals, The congress itself acted. Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. Discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or were/are supported by the state, became prohibited.
Indeed the courts have since interpreted somewhat broadly, and whether or not businesses have had a reasonable connection to interstate commerce, reasonable people have assumed reasonable policies with regard to Race, Color etc..
(b) The prohibitions against discrimination as provided for in this ordinance are intended to supplement state and federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in the areas of employment, public accommodations, and housing. Provided, however, this ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
The effect of regulatory limits on employer might seem to be a reasonable connection to the commerce activity described above, however the language is both vague and assumes too much with the prior section’s inclusion of “weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
One wonders. Would Hooters, an east bay establishment face penalty for not hiring fat girls if it was located in Traverse City’s limits? Could Traverse City Attorney Dean Robb be fined if he failed to hire my downs syndrome 2nd cousin based on his mental disability?
The last part however, seems to be the point in which we are going to bridge those natural dispositions that are more similar to race and ethnicity to the question of behavior based identity.
Sexual orientation could mean any number of things. I believe the purpose of the language is designed to relate to those who are ‘homosexual’, as there has never been a problem associated with discretion based on a person being normal, or heterosexual. The glossary included states:
(q) “Sexual Orientation.” Male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, whether by orientation or practice. Sexual orientation does not include the physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult.
That last line was as an afterthought, literally the last part included. But for the sake of argument, lets accept this as the only definition existing. Clearly city commissioners were concerned that without that line it would amount to an acceptance of pedophilia. And good for them in addressing it in such a way that is quite coherent and obvious. The effects of such perversions on children are devastating.
Except that protecting the children against the dangers of adult indulgence has many facets. Effects that go beyond a minor plugging of a hole in the overall sieve of morality that is the normalization of homosexuality. There are REAL consequences that come as a result of protecting abnormality:
“The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
But Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.”
Tell me how to explain away the desired mutilation these ‘loving’ parents wish for their ADOPTED boy child.
Sadly, the story is not made up.
And unfortunately, this comes not as a coincidence, but as the result of an immersion in the new ‘normalcy’ being promoted through acceptance measures like the ordinance being discussed here. Acceptance of family composition that lacks the balance of male and female role models. Acceptance of gender changes for children whom have not the maturity nor the world view capable of making such a decision. Acceptance of an activity based gender identity that would result in the extinction of any other species without intervention, now drives the psyche of families, and parenting?
Which ordinance shall stand up in defense for the rights of this tortured boy?
(c) Nothing in this ordinance shall require preferential treatment of any person or group on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. (Ord. 882. Passed 10-4-10)
Certainly no ordinance in Traverse City. And though the language directly above says one thing, the intent and STATED language of the ordinance as a whole says by default, that “you will consider homosexuals as we (the board) consider homosexuals, and that is as normal as anyone else heterosexual or otherwise.”
Consider this thought exercise. If you disagree with homosexuality, and you cannot say so around any group of people without fear of reprisal, either statutorily or punitively through government action, then your opinions become less than that of those who support it. The supporters of such activity based identity have a stronger right to free speech and freedom of association than you.
Preferential treatment of this new ‘protected class’ is mandated.
The “first amendment and freedom of religion” canard included in the second paragraph of the intent (sec b) is wholesale whitewash. If it was included to truly protect those who have religious objection or freedom of speech issues, the point of the ordinance as a whole would be moot. Its inclusion is merely a distraction and was added to salve the conscience of those who know the ordinance is wrong, yet voted for it because they otherwise fear a well prepared homosexual lobby. It may be included, but it means nothing.
How might a family with a young male child who denies the rental of a spare room to an openly homosexual male fight language such as this:
605.03 DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICES.
Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance:
(a). No person shall discriminate in leasing, selling or otherwise make available any housing facilities.
(b). No person shall discriminate in the terms, conditions, maintenance or repair in providing any housing facility.
(c). No person shall refuse to lend money for the purchase or repair of any real property or insure any real property solely because of the location in the City of such real property.
(d). No person shall promote real estate transactions by representing that changes are occurring or will occur in an area with respect to race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
(e). No person shall place a sign or other display on any real property which indicates that the property is for sale or has been sold when it is not for sale or has not recently been sold.
(Ord. 882. Passed 10-4-10.)
How? Take it to the supreme court? Claim FREEDOM OF SPEECH! ?? Right.
Fact of the matter, is that most conscious adult parents would recognize the danger to the social and mental development of their young male, and would decline to rent based on reasonable discretion. However, according to the language of the ordinance, if they decline, then they are potentially in violation. At the very least they can be brought before an agency which will decide their ‘guilt.’ Even the exemptions listed do not speak to this. Exemption “L” comes close with:
“To discriminate in any arrangement for the shared ownership, lease or residency of a dwelling unit.“
However apportioned spaces (in the same building/lot) being separate would prevent the desired discretion from being applied. The exposure would still be there, contrary to the wishes of the objecting parents. The fact stands, even with Exemption “R”:
“To the rental of housing facilities in a building which contains dwelling units for not more than two families living independently of each other if the owner of the building or a member of the owner’s family resides in one of the dwelling units, or to the rental of a room or rooms in a single-family dwelling by an individual if the lessor or a member of the lessor’s family resides in the dwelling.”
The language is weak. But it must be, or the overall package would not be considered a ‘necessary’ ordinance. An Ordinance with a $500 penalty, and ‘associated prosecutorial costs’. (an open ended device which could be used to further punish ‘dissenters’ to be sure)
As for the employment components?
I wouldn’t place a business in Traverse City, or ANY city with this ordinance in effect. The chilling thought of dealing with a municipality’s enforcers for such a reason is unacceptable. Especially because of a claim of an aggrieved homosexual who is denied a place in an organization of a private business owner is sickening. Adding to a number of takings our governments already collectively place on private property, is now the control of their private enterprise through intimidation of a special rights ordinance.
Going forward the question remains pretty straight forward. Given the effects of
- Loss of private property rights
- Loss of family values control
- Loss of speech rights
- Loss of jobs to the community
- Increased psychological distress in our youth
- Increased circumstance in abuse and mutilation of our youth
- Increased breakdown of the natural family unit
- Increased health care burden on communities with high homosexual activity
Do we openly advocate more destruction of our communities by elevating homosexuals as a new ‘protected class’? Do we continue to promote an activity based identity as one that is on par with race, natural gender through the hammer of government? Do we continue to pretend that accelerated health care costs associated with an unhealthy lifestyle are a figment of our imagination? And promote those lifestyles through policies designed to paint normalcy on that which is not?
Traverse City is indeed the jewel of the north. But homosexuality did not make it thus.
I live on the outside of the town limits. And according to some, my voice is irrelevant in this debate about whether or not special rights are granted by elected citizens. My opinions about the community, which is STILL the center of the region I live in, are insignificant if one were to ask CERTAIN residents or the Homosexual editor and promoter of homosexuality in the local paper of record.
As an elected official with a story and an opinion, I have already been called a bigot because I see a difference between a class that is defined more by anal intercourse than natural development. To be clear, I have not pursued persecution of the homosexual community, nor have I suggested treatment of those who engage in adult consensual matters in any other way that should threaten their ability to make adult decisions.
But this ordinance goes a step beyond a hands off policy that recognizes ‘equal’ rights, and drives a wedge of authority into the debate, further forcing an acceptance of an activity and offering special rights to that which has such costs to society as listed above.
I stand firmly with those who oppose the special rights agenda of those who seek to justify their own destructive activities through destruction of choice, free speech, family values, common sense and decency.
For the Children. For decency.
Please vote no on proposal one.