At the most recent City Council work session, gay and transgendered people appeared in force to back the city's proposed nondiscrimination ordinance. The ordinance received overwhelming support, I being the only dissenting voice.
But in the midst of all the testimonials from our homosexual friends, an astonishing fact came to light. Speaker after speaker announced that they either lived or worked in Ogden. Not one of them complained of being denied housing or employment. Should we be stunned that our city has managed this without a nondiscrimination ordinance in place?
According to Clifford Rosky from Equality Utah, no employers and no landlords have ever placed signs or ads that say "No Gays Allowed." Homosexual and transgendered people have full access to city buses, and they can even sit in the front. They have equal access to our schools, colleges, universities and public bathrooms. Restaurants serve them. Churches welcome them. Businesses employ them. Landlords rent them apartments. Realtors sell them houses. Lenders lend them money. We somehow manage all of this without the help of a nondiscrimination ordinance. Can this be?
Perhaps we should be impressed with ourselves. We have been loving our neighbors, even those we disagree with, just the way we should, and without the threat of a $500 fine for failure to comply. We are getting along the way we ought, without yet another city ordinance requiring it. This is a good thing!
But then, since this is the case, why do we need another ordinance? During the civil rights movement of the 1960's, whites openly practiced discrimination. People were regularly and openly denied housing and employment. The civil rights laws of the 1960's corrected that. But this ordinance does not seek to correct; it seeks to prevent. That is different, and it raises an important question. Why push for this?
The answer should be obvious to all. Our homosexual friends want recognition for their lifestyle. In order to do this, they must silence their opposition. If we pass this ordinance, sexual orientation gets a government sanction. The question of morality will be effectively squelched, and those who have moral objections will be prevented from voicing them in the workplace, and possibly even at home, without the threat of a harassment charge.
No doubt many support this ordinance. I witnessed that support on full display, and my objections represent a razor thin minority. Perhaps very few share my objections. But my right to voice those objections should be protected, even if I own a business with more than 15 employees. Passing this ordinance will establish a new kind of intolerance: an intolerance of that part of Christianity that objects to homosexuality. In the name of diversity, we will be squelching one particular element of diversity.
Suppose for instance that a Christian employer who objects to homosexuality has 16 employees. Suppose further that one of those employees announces at work that he is homosexual. So long as nobody objects, everything is fine. But his announcement makes an inescapable moral claim. Our Constitution protects his right to make that claim, but this ordinance strips his employer of the right to voice his disagreement.
Homosexuals regularly lecture us about staying out of their bedroom. But when a homosexual announces what happens in his bedroom, then what? He brought his bedroom to me and invited my comments. The new city ordinance would allow me to give him an affirming hug and be supportive. But what if I am not supportive? If I voice my opposition, that can be called harassment. Affirmation is legal. But opposition will cost me $500 or a sensitivity training course.
And if that same homosexual keeps speaking about his homosexuality openly, will other Christians in that workplace have the right to respond? One proponent of the homosexual agenda called this "intimidation:" in other words, harassment. This ordinance is not about equality at all.
The proposed housing ordinance is no better. It is unrealistic to say that landlords should only judge people by their ability to pay rent. For the sake of other tenants, landlords must make moral judgments. In fact, Ogden's Good Landlord program requires landlords to make moral judgments in the form of background checks. But the new ordinance would require them to make a moral judgment, and then restrict them from making moral judgments. Property owners have a fundamental right to form their own convictions and apply them on their own property.
Landlords, by and large, do not deny housing to homosexual or transgendered people. We have no crisis here. But we do have a push to force us to accept their lifestyle. They want to end the debate, not by refuting their opponents, but by legislating definitions. This ordinance would establish a new kind of thought police. The city council should reject it.
Dave Mallinak is the pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Ogden. You may e-mail him at pmallinak@berean-baptist-utah.com
Comments