I don't believe in excessive legislation of any kind. People should be left to govern their own actions as much as possible and receive whatever consequences occur due to those actions. There are, however, instances where punitive laws are needed to ensure the basic health and safety of the members of society. Pocatello's non-discrimination ordinance doesn't really qualify since it does nothing to punish murder or mayhem, but I'm voting to retain it anyway for the following reasons:
- The ordinance is applicable to all of Pocatello's citizens and, contrary to the strong views of many, does not offer special protections for any one group of people, therefore retaining the ordinance does not create an imbalance of justice in favor of any group of people. Any citizen who feels they have been unjustly denied employment, housing, or use of public facilities due to their sexual orientation or gender identity has recourse to this law. A gay landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant because they are straight. A transgendered employer cannot refuse to hire an individual who has retained the physical gender expression of their birth.
It is important to understand this point because there are proponents on both sides of the debate who misrepresent the facts. Nowhere in the language of the ordinance are LGBT people mentioned. They are not once singled out for special protections. The language is inclusive of all inhabitants of Pocatello. I think I've made my point. - Because of the confusion addressed in the first point, Pocatello's ordinance has become inseparably associated with LGBT people. It should be retained not just because of its ability to protect people but because of what it would mean should it be repealed. At this point, repealing the ordinance would be a clear signal that it's not only okay to be blatantly discriminatory, but that it's encouraged. Pocatello would come to be seen as a place that welcomes bigotry and hatred, be it straight, gay, or whatever.
- This leads to my 3rd point. Unfortunately, this debate has also become an issue of image. Most large businesses would not even consider locating in Pocatello if the ordinance is repealed. We can't afford to alienate their interest if we want to thrive as a town.
Having said all this, I want it understood that I'm pretty passionate about both justice and mercy. Fairness is a big deal to me, but knowing what is fair is rarely a black or white proposition which is why broad legislation is a bad idea in most cases. For my friends supporting retention of the ordinance, I'm sorry if my support is less enthusiastic than you expect. For my friends supporting the ordinance's demise, I'm not going to apologize for my views because there's no need. If you are my friend, then we can have different views and be friends anyway.
