Saturday, November 13, 2004

Gay Rights Ordinance

Our beloved city council is considering a nauseous, politically correct gay rights ordinance that is completely unnecessary. I wrote to the city council:

"As a small business owner, I must issue my objection to the proposed ordinance extending special rights to those who define themselves by an alternate sexual orientation. In my past business management experience, I am quite sure I have hired homosexuals and didn’t require an ordinance to do so. There wasn’t a check box on the employment application form asking for their sexual orientation and I didn’t ask. I hire the best person for the job and I do not want to be forced into weighing a decision in favor of a homosexual so I don’t have to worry about being slapped with a discrimination lawsuit. I don’t want anyone in my company to be defined by their sexuality, whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.

What if my business has an office, and within that office I have a heterosexual employee who starts making inappropriate sexual comments to other employees. It would be fine to fire that person. What if a homosexual person did the same thing? Or what if they decide to start dressing flamboyantly, in a manner I deem inappropriate for the office, and want to fire or reprimand the employee? A city ordinance on special rights for homosexuals gives them an avenue for taking legal action against me, warranted or not. Even if I were able to win in court, the provision enables them to take that action and cost me dearly in downtime and legal fees.

And it’s completely unnecessary. I haven’t seen a single case of discrimination against homosexuals in Topeka. None. And I don’t believe you have either. I have followed these attempts to add this type of ordinance and not a single case of discrimination has been raised. This is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Most major employers in Topeka have their own policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Further, to extend special rights based on sexual orientation is to classify sexual preferences in the same category as race and ethnicity—factors in which the individuals have no choice. There is no proof that sexual orientation is innate. If it is true that homosexuals are born that way, then why do I know former homosexuals? The only former black person I know of is Michael Jackson.

I also object to this ordinance because churches and individuals who are opposed to homosexuality because of religious reasons will be forced to hire or extend housing to homosexuals. There is no other way to read the proposed ordinance than to conclude that they will face sanction if they discriminate against non-heterosexuals.

I urge you to either table this issue or vote against it. Or why not put it to a vote of the people during the next regularly scheduled election since it is obvious there isn’t a pressing need to implement such an ordinance (again, no evidence of discrimination has been produced)? The only reason you would approve this highly controversial measure without giving us a vote at the polls is because you know the citizens would overwhelmingly vote against it. Having this type of ordinance forced upon an unwilling populace is not a way to engender a positive community environment!

I will be a part of a very active group of citizens who will finance the campaigns of council members who oppose such special rights ordinances, and work as part of a grassroots campaign against those who do.

As we saw in elections throughout the country, Americans do not want this politically correct nonsense crammed down our throats. What a horrible time to make this attempt."


Post a Comment

<< Home