You are hereAnchorage residents should be free to discriminate
Anchorage residents should be free to discriminate
By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard
The socialists controlling the Anchorage Assembly want to make it illegal to discriminate against gays in decisions affecting hiring, housing and education. They will push the plan, which was written by the ACLU, before conservative Mayor Dan Sullivan is sworn in.
It’s a perfect example of how much faith leftists have in government. They believe government is able to judge the intent of man’s heart. Foolish.
But even if a government bureaucrat were able to determine whether someone denied a potential tenant housing because he or she is gay, a bigger question must be asked: should that be illegal?
What if, for example, a young couple with young children buys a two-unit condo, live in one side and rent out the other. What if the couple decides they don’t want a gay couple living next door because they don’t want to expose their young children to that lifestyle? Does that decision make the couple homophobic, evil, or haters of gay people? Or is the young couple simply trying to avoid questions like why were Bob and Steve kissing in the front yard?
The same could be true for unmarried couples. What if the young couple would rather not have to explain to their children why the couple living next door is not married? Should not the young couple owning the condo be able to rent it to anyone they want? This is still America isn’t it? The land of the free. What business does government have telling anyone what to do with what they own?
Acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman supports the ACLU ordinance.
"In an ideal world, the code would just say, 'Thou shall not discriminate for any reason,'" Claman said.
Does Claman really believe we should never discriminate? Can he honestly practice that in his own life?
If Claman were hiring a nanny, would he choose a sexual predator with a criminal history? Of course not, he would discriminate against them. Would he rent a home to someone with bad credit? Of course not, he would discriminate against them.
Certain behavior will bring discrimination. It is a fact of life. If you are fat and you apply for a job as a personal trainer, should the health club discriminate against you and reject you as an applicant? Of course they should.
If you live a gay lifestyle, you will be discriminated against by people who find it offensive. Is the Anchorage Assembly saying we can no longer find the gay lifestyle offensive, even if our faith teaches us that? Is the assembly making certain religious views illegal to hold and practice? You bet they are. What about the young couple not wanting to expose their kids to a gay lifestyle by renting to a gay couple next door? The Assembly is taking away their freedom to practice their religion.
It's no surprise the ACLU wrote the ordinance. The ACLU has been trying to wipe religion out of our culture for years. And the socialist six on the Anchorage Assembly are more than happy to take away your freedom and advance the agenda of the ACLU.
This issue is not about gay rights. It is about religious freedom- the very thing this country was founded on.
naperville dentist aurora dentist chicago movers buy backlinks backlinks online pharmacy make money online make money internet tips free online tips online tips tips online tip online tips work from home video tips Shopping Tips Car Tips Computer Tips Travel Tips Finance Tips cash gifting cash gifting programs gifting free online psychic chat psychic hotlines psychic powers psychic counsellors psychic acadamy psychic jobs free psychic phone call different types of psychic powers free psychic readings online psychic aura colours psychic ability work at home psychic jobs pet psychics psychic chat rooms psychic predictions psychic chat rooms
Being gay is a matter of personal choice and preference by an individual. I dont any one of us has the right to bann them from anywhere! Its just going to creat rifts between people.
<a href="http://www.grand-national.me.uk">Grand National</a>
I am against gay couples. They should be banned everywhere. Nice article
mothers day gifts
buy lasix online, lexapro order online
clomid buy online, buy amoxil
buy lasix online, generic lexapro
buy zithromax online, buy cipro
generic soma
buy cialis
buy cheap tramadol
buy cheap viagra
plavix
Great post, You can't tell most peoples religion by looking at them. Find cheap auto insurance quotes online, with tips and cheap auto insurance rate information for leading car insurance companies.
Dan, I have to say that many of your arguments are completely irrelevant/illogical, including (to begin with) your examples meant to prove that "discrimination" is unavoidable. Discrimination, in the sense of choosing, is of course unavoidable, as you mentioned - you will not choose a sex offender to provide child care, nor will you choose an unhealthy person to provide personal training. Those people can be considered to be disqualified, or unfit for those jobs. You have a proven record of abusing people sexually = we will not put you in a position of trust. You have a proven record of unhealthy behavior = we will not allow you to advise others on their health. But how exactly does being gay disqualify someone from a job, or a home, or anything else? You have sex the wrong way so you can't work here? Makes no sense.
migraine relief
Great post
Girly games
Fashion games
Online pharmacy
Buy Kamagra tablets
Impotence
kamagra 100mg
kamagra uk
kamagra generic viagra
good
Essay Topics
UK Term Paper
UK Research Paper
UK Essay
As a veteran please leave us "Vet's" out Live sport scores football live score cricket live scores live scores basketball hockey live scores
You can't tell most peoples religion by looking at them. cheap designer clothing wholesale brand clothing ralph lauren clothing mens polo t shirt Wholesale Lacoste polo shirts wholesale lacoste t shirts
If you're going to be worried about the future of children and children growing up and staying at the top, you ought to be a heck of a lot more worried about deadbeat dads and broken homes and inner-city America. We've got a whole lot of people and kids that are growing up that don't have parents that love them. ejaculare precoce
I have heard that many who worked in the Civil Rights Movement back in the 60's are rightly offended that the Gay Rights Movement is riding on their coattails. You can't leave your black, brown, or white skin in the closet when you go out, but you certainly can with your sexual expression. That's because one involves choices, and the other does not.
The genetic aspects of sexual orientation are still very much open to study, however even if it is proven that sexual orientation has a genetic component, does this automatically suggest that we all should embrace, accept or even endorse this behavior? Or that we should pass laws protecting it? The answer lies with how we respond to other behaviors that mix genetic identity with personal choice; some forms of alcoholism, substance abuse, violence, or sexual misconduct. In those cases, the behaviors are not endorsed, but are recognized as requiring intervention. It would be absurd for an alcoholic or a drug addict to assert that they were born that way, therefore we should accept their behavior as "normal", and treat them the same as everyone else. Under that scenario, we would be looking at laws and ordinances forbidding discrimination based on alcoholism, drug abuse, violence or any other behavior demonstrated as having a genetic aspect to it.
Homosexuality is a complex issue involving a mixing of certain genetic components with choices made by the individual. The same is true of the behaviors I mentioned earlier. This should not, therefore, be treated as a "normal" behavior or as one that should be afforded protection under the Equal Opportunity laws of this country. It is a behavior, not a genetic birthright.
I am not saying these things without personal experience in this area; my son is homosexual.
-KW
You can't tell most peoples religion by looking at them.
I'm failing to make the connection at all here.
"This issue is not about gay rights. It is about religious freedom- the very thing this country was founded on."
Whether or not YOU personally like homosexuals or not is a moot issue. The issue is about providing equal protection under the law. The correct solution is to remove reference to ALL specific groups or identities. The ordinance already has language in the first line which reads: "The public policy of the municipality is declared to be equal opportunity for all persons."
All persons seems fairly inclusive, why not just stop there?
Strictly speaking if you are defending the Christian faith, it's your duty to love everyone, showing compassion, care and even inviting those you consider "unclean" or "unwanted" into your OWN homes. God is the judge, not you.
In regard to the debate of choice versus natural born, no study, survey or poll will ever capture the whole truth about every individual. Nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive, and to believe so is both naive and ignorant.
We are a nation, people, state and municipality that treasures rugged individualism and the freedom to choose our own destiny. You're way of living, worshiping, love making or eating has no impact on me, my family or the way I live my life.
Only YOU can allow someone else's "lifestyle" to impact your own. You are the weaker person for perpetuating irrational fears of a so-called gay assault on the family, society, culture, religion, etc. If your God and your beliefs are so superior, then you should have nothing to fear.
Timely Twitter update from Ann Curry:
@AnnCurry - Night. "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." -Eleanor Roosevelt
There's an exemption for renting the other half of a duplex that you yourself live in. So no worries everyone who owns one of these, you're safe.
There's still the matter of the inconsistancy though. The second you agree that any christian working any job can be fired for /no other reason/ then their religion then fine, so can gay people, but what you're after here is ensuring protections for yourself while denying them to others. That is the tyranny of the majority and no argument can justify it.
As a veteran please leave us "Vet's" out of this issue. This is so stupid. It is what it is if you want to live a "Gay" life so be it. I do not need ther assembly to put me in a class by its self, I served my nation and that was enough for me.
If the assembly it wanting to class me in the needy section, then the assembly needs more input from the vets. The "Gay"'s" I have hired and as long as they could do the job that was fine. Like anyone else if thay failed on the job I fired them. As well as anyone else that failed to job requirments.
Going back to "Vet's" leave us out of this stupid assembley end run to gay rights. The assembly has better things to deal with.
GREAT NEWS FAGAN & RYDELL
FACE-BOOK HAS A NEW (RADIO-FACE-BOOK)!
ONLY FOR PEOPLE WITH FACES FOR RADIO!
It's about morality. People who refused to rent to blacks (in the past) did not do so because they felt that the behavior of blacks was Biblically immoral; these people were prejudiced against blacks and did not want to rent or sell to them. This was wrong, Biblically and morally. However, people who do not want to rent to gays feel that way because they believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. This belief comes from the Bible, and many of those who believe homosexual behavior to be immoral are Christians; there are some who are not Christians but still hold this moral belief. The government should not try to legislate morality; morality is personal, and we should all have the freedom to choose our own beliefs. If a person does not want to rent to someone whose behavior he feels is immoral (gays or unmarried heterosexuals, for example), he should not be forced to do so. Much is made of "the rights of gays," but little is said about protecting the rights of those whose moral beliefs find homosexual behavior to be immoral.
"People who refused to rent to blacks (in the past) did not do so because they felt that the behavior of blacks was Biblically immoral; these people were prejudiced against blacks and did not want to rent or sell to them. "
This is not supported by the historical record. Racism and slavery here was supported by Biblical teachings and from the pulpit. Verses about slavery are not hard to find in the Bible, after all. Part of the story, if you will, about blacks was that they were loose, sexually immoral, partly so that white men could "justify" raping at will. This flawed picture is still part of the public dialogue - remember "nappy-headed hos" did Don Imus in.
Many of us have moral problems with our neighbors. Mine don't recycle and drive 2 blocks to the store. Yesterday a dad was on my street with his 4 year and walking in the middle of the road about 10 paces ahead of the little fellow, who had a scooter and kept teling his dad "you promised you'd carry it" while the dad mocked the boy and told him to keep up, never looking back to make sure no cars were coming. I have moral problems with that. But these are choices these folks are making.
Fagan's dead wrong about "gay by choice". Just ask them - not Fagan. God made them that way, but as long as people believe it's a choice, they're denying God's creation. As long as people believe it's a choice, they can say "it's immoral". But it's no more immoral than you living straight.
This is about human rights. Period.
Yes, slave owners used the Bible to try to support slavery, but they MISUSED it in an effort to control their slaves. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that skin color is to be used as a measure of worthiness. Nowhere does it say that being black (or white, or any color) is a sin. It does, however, say that being homosexual is a sin. For those who believe in the God of the Bible, homosexuality is immoral. Those people might not want to rent to gays, or to others who the Bible teaches are acting immorally.
We cannot always choose our neighbors, but I was referring to those who do not want to rent a duplex or apartment where they, themselves, live to someone they considered to be immoral.
re: gays being born that way...The most recent research shows that they are NOT born that way. Sometime during the first 1-3 years of age, their relationship with their parents affects them emotionally in a way that causes them to prefer members of the same sex. It happens so early in life that gay people only remember feeling "different," or gay. Because people usually cannot remember that early a time in their lives, gays feel that they have been gay since birth. Christians believe that God created each of us Himself, and since He says homosexuality is a sin, He would not create a gay person. We are all born heterosexual; it is in early childhood that the person is changed. IMO : )
Check it out!
Police, Fire, Parks and Rec, all Dept.s from the tops to the bottoms!
And our City is being run by THESE Gay people NOW!
Why wouldn't they all want special LAWS to potect SPECIAL PEOPLE?
And screw the normal People....... or Not?
Assuming being gay is a choice, which I'm not saying (unless you assume that all the cases of homosexuality in nature, ranging from insects to primates is also a conscious choice), but making that assumption there is still hypocrisy here. For example, if I chose not to rent to a family because they go to church or fired a teacher for being a christian I'm sure you would rally to their defence. There are ligitimate forms fo discrimination, like not renting to or employing convicted felons, but basing that discrimination on who someone loves or how they worship is illigitimate and should be illegal.
Very interesting post to read i agree with the above.
car games
games 2 girls
Ben 10 games
before you speak. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 called Mrs Murphy's exemption. If you are an owner occupier of a single family residence up to a for plex, you can deny gays all day long. Do not mislead the public, you have that stubborn nature about you. You convince yourself you are right and the rest of us are idiots.
This is not an issue of civil rights. Homosexuals have made a choice to practice their lifestyle. It is outside the boundaries of what is normal. They are trying to force their perverse lifestyle on citizens and to normalize it. Should they choose not to engage in homosexuality, they wouldn't experience any discrimination. Hyphenated-Americans faced real discrimination in the 1960s, and NOT by the choices they have made. Homosexuality it not natural, you can't put two female parts together and pro-create. Its not possible and its abnormal.
so - you only have sex to procreate?
"They are trying to force their perverse lifestyle on citizens and to normalize it."
That's how I feel about your low-information, disrespectful attitude, but you still have human rights.
LOVE isn't *JUST* about procreation slack...
and LOVE isn't abnormal in any form...
and homosexuals no more made a CHOICE about it than YOU didg
Blacks didn't CHOOSE to be born black, are you saying they deserved the discrimination they bore for sooooooo long? And that gays deserve to be discriminated against???
Let's turn that scenario around... where heteros are not ~ahem~ the norm....
That is just mean thinking on your part. Just plain mean. I hope you grow a heart some day.
The analogies used are flawed, but evoke an emotional response. And I find it somewhat suspect that you used a sex offender as a analogy when talking about homosexuality. Interesting choice. Gay does not equal sex offender. Thinking people have already covered this with research. (98% are heterosexual, which means being gay makes you a slightly less risk of being an offender. So please have the gay guys move in next door, let them get married, so your kids won't have to see that unmarried couple and your kid will be safer.)
A sex offender is a criminal, has broken a law, and yes they are discriminated based on behaviors that directly impacted others. A gay persons actions affect only him or herself. [Please spare me the diatribe about how it makes you feel uneasy or angry to have to witness gay people holding hands (you are a little gay), or they place the blood supply at risk (fear-mongering), or they are too promiscuous (jealous?)]
There are two levels of discrimination here. One we have all agreed should be criminalized and the other that is denying rights to citizens. You are confusing the legal definition of discrimination. That would require rigor and thought. Instead just use a backward emotional plea, put forth a weak argument and rely on ignorance and hate to move your agenda forward. Or maybe ignorance and hate are your agenda.
And the cut the "lifestyle" label. It sounds like Martha Stewart Living. And thanks for the Alaska Standard, it really is one of the better places in the Alaska Blogsphere to get good liberal opinion and have it challanged by the opinion leaders of the Alaska conservative movement.
I didn't equal being gay with being a child molester. Better glasses.
These are very good arguments on both sides. No sex offender equates to someone and their sexual preference. Business Credit
"If Claman were hiring a nanny, would he choose a sexual predator with a criminal history? "
way to stay classy, Dan
by the parents' antiquated attitude, in your hypothetical example. you wouldn't write that the kid's fragile psyche would be damaged to see a black guy kissing a white woman, would you? but the issue with gays is the same -- it is a civil rights issue. most people realize this.
there are gay people everywhere, and there always have been, in the same proportion as today. the kid is going to have to deal with them in a reasonable way, at one time or another. we're not going back to the 1950s, or even the 1990s. the republican party is only going to continue to rapidly fade away, if you don't come to grips with the fact that gays are contributing members of society and deserve equal protection under the law. period.
i agree. this kid needs to understand. cheapest voip calls