Advertisement

Archive for Monday, September 26, 2011

Protected class?

September 26, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

A recent Journal-World article demonstrates the mayor of Lawrence standing for what amounts to an attack on part of what Americans should stand for. The article, “City to consider ‘gender identity’ as protected class,” demonstrates what modern tolerance looks like, which is intolerance. The mayor said: “Part of what we’re trying to do is send a message of tolerance” and “Lawrence is a tolerant community.”

This is not a message of tolerance; it is a law enforcing a political agenda. If this law is passed, Lawrence will not tolerate “justice and liberty for all,” but only for a “protected class.” The mayor is trying to force his intolerance on others under the guise of tolerance and make Lawrence intolerant of liberty and justice for all.

Will churches be forced to do this? Will all employers have to do this or risk being sued? The mayor is throwing the city and its taxpayers under the bus with this piece of legislation, which will open the floodgates to lawsuits and the great expense of “fixing” public bathrooms. Is there really a problem with large amounts of discrimination which justify such a radical approach?

The mayor is no longer pursuing liberty and justice for all, but instead for a “protected class.” He is evidently tolerant of a few, but also being very intolerant of the rest. This law will not make Lawrence look tolerant, but rather intolerant of justice and liberty for all. Is he mayor of all or a “protected class” only?

Comments

Jason Bowers-Chaika 2 years, 6 months ago

These poor oppressed religious types don't seem to have a problem renting, employing to persons who have differing religions or religious views as themselves. A purest may believe that only his religion or practice of that religion is true and that all others are sinners yet usually they don't have an issue with doing business with those persons? Of course, then it comes to Jews and Muslims and suddenly, the 14th amendment goes out the window.

I follow a faith that believes that God made gay people just as they are and that one's sexual orientation is a gift from God. To go against what God made you would be the sin. In other words for a person to go against their particular orientation would be the problem. Trying to force gay people to be straight is the sin.

Transgender persons just want to live their lives usually without drawing attention to themselves. Live and let live, they're harmless.

0

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

I think landlords should decide on credit rating, ability to pay and character, not on hate based fantasy.

0

jayhawxrok 2 years, 6 months ago

What a silly letter. I guess the far right just has to have someone to hate. There'd be no need for anything like this if we didn't see loons bursting into church to shoot people they disagree with politically, or racist jerks dragging people behind trucks until they were depapitated. Lawrence has always been a more live and let live community, which is why Brownback hates us so much. His type of religious zealot are much more akin to the Taliban than anything truly American.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

The brief answer to Mr. Smith's assertion is that the concepts of liberty and justice are not always easy to secure equally.

And that we have decided as a society that it is preferable to preserve justice for all, even if it means limiting the exercise of liberty (ie. absolute freedom).

That means that we limit a landlord's freedom to deny housing to black people, women, Jews, etc. in order to guarantee justice for potential tenants.

Also, it's worth pointing out that these protections also protect the dominant group - in other words, white Christian straight men can't be denied housing for any of those attributes either - I think the reason this gets missed is that those groups very rarely are discriminated against, and so they don't realize that they're protected as well.

0

Oldsoul 2 years, 6 months ago

Lawrence tolerant? That's the biggest whopper I've ever heard. You cannot even enjoy the public space in that redneck town without being approached by offensive strangers who have been raised to get up in others' business for discriminatory and harassing reasons. Someone needs to point out to these people that they really do not give off trustworthy, competent, or intelligent vibes.The kindest thing idiots can do for others is just keep their mouths closed and hands off. Respect people's space and privacy. Only thinking people have the capacity to be useful and contribute to others, and that hardly describes the majority of Lawrence residents.

Stop kidding yourself you can "help"( Get a clue: you're way dumb) and start asking yourself the offensive, intrusive, and aggressive questions you have the rude lack of awareness to force on strangers, starting with, "Are you o.k".? Braindead checkers cashier has to use a calculator to subtract 9 from 20 , yet she's been raised to go around acting like she's God's Gift. The idea of" help" from someone that stupid is terrifying.

0

kugrad 2 years, 6 months ago

I think the argument the author of the LTE is making comes down to this: Those people who choose to be intolerant should be allowed to express their intolerance without restriction. This logic comes up a lot when one relies on religious beliefs to support intolerance. Somehow the religious roots of intolerance are supposed to make it protected from the law. If your religion teaches you to be intolerant toward Black people and other minorities, are your rights violated by the Civil Rights Act? No, because you have no inherent right to discriminate against others. You have no right to refuse to rent to a transgender individual just like you have no right to discriminate by refusing to rent to a Black person. You are equally protected under the law, as no one has the right to discriminate in renting to you on the basis of your religious bigotry. The 20th century happened Mr. Smith. The law no longer sanctions bigotry. Get over it.

0

observant 2 years, 6 months ago

correction should have read adhere to "proper" christian values have "NO" rights at all. It's in the bible, look it up.

0

observant 2 years, 6 months ago

Problem seems to be, only the christian conservatives have the right to any protections, Everyone else, since they don't profess to believe in and adhere to "proper" christian values have any rights at all. The entire world does not have to be evangelical to have basic human rights.

0

writeon 2 years, 6 months ago

Excellent rationale and commentary in your post here.

The idiotic "If Lawrence is so tolerant why do we need this?" argument is vapid. This legislation only puts in place the "tolerance" that is supposed to already exist. If not, then someone could just discriminate at will, "tolerant" Lawrence or not. The new legislation will make the tolerant "norm" a legal position.

0

mustrun80 2 years, 6 months ago

Just to be clear; everyone who disagrees with liberals is always either a racist, homophobe, sexist, or bigot.

Why because all of their ideas are so pure and magical that the only way any person could disagree is by hate.

Some of you posters on here actually think that way.

0

hujiko 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm all for the marketplace of ideas but sheesh, LJWorld -- shouldn't an LTE actually make some sense? There's no real argument here other than the same poor disenfranchised white christians that feel attacked anytime they disagree with some piece of legislation based on their own morals. This bill doesn't set anyone above anyone else, it doesn't limit the rights of anyone, and it doesn't grant any special privileges. This bill makes it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender identity. This bill is the same as any other that makes discrimination based on sex, race, religion, or some other distinguishing factor unconstitutional. Either everyone is is protected under our constitution, or the whole document is null and void.

It's no longer the 1950s so grow up and shut up and let people live as they please, and if it still bothers you then perhaps you need to work out your own problems first before taking it out on anyone different than yourself.

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

What is it with the focus on the bathrooms?

What exactly are you people doing in the bathrooms that you think transgender people are going to want to watch?

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 6 months ago

Uh, for those who can't get it: We are ALL supposed to be in the protected class. The purpose of the ordinance is to bring transgender people under the same protections that everyone else already enjoys, not to give them any special protections unavailable to the general population.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 6 months ago

Question: Are bigots a protected class?

0

ksrush 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

oneeye_wilbur 2 years, 6 months ago

Remember, I told you so. "worst commission yet".

Too bad doesn't have Tugboat Tranny, now there is a real person, with drive, and can move tugboats. Of course Tugboat Tranny wouldn't waste his/her time in Lawrence, the fake european village of meeting goers.

Mayor Cramwell just wants to have his name on an ordinance, hey the guy has nothing else to sign.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

mustrun80 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes, you are without a bigot if you do not want your 10 year old girl to be using the same showers at the lawrence aquatic center with a 45 year old man who happens to identify with females.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 6 months ago

Quite frankly, I'm surprised Lawrence has been this tardy in implementing this.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 6 months ago

They must have removed logic from it. I am sorry, but my reading of this makes me confused as to the point. I didn't read an article about what the Mayor is doing so I guess that could be the problem, but usually I am well read. So explain to me why we need a "law" that prohibits intolerance?

0

Keith 2 years, 6 months ago

Did the newspaper edit this letter to remove any form of logical argument from it?

0

Roland Gunslinger 2 years, 6 months ago

"Dick" - no law would be needed if people would stop discriminating... but no, you want to continue to be bigots and deny some people of things you yourself have no problem acquiring just because they may be gay, a minority, a female, elderly, jewish, etc etc etc.

Once you stop discriminating then these laws will be obsolete. Deal?

0

Steve Jacob 2 years, 6 months ago

This is the same augment they used against "Simply Equal" in 1993.

0

Wadde 2 years, 6 months ago

"protected class is constuitional"
0

Gandalf 2 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps decisions to rent should be based on credit history and references only. Not personal predijuices.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.