My city up and spoke to me last night. (Well this morning as I read the news.) The city informed me that my rights no longer mattered, that other people's supposed rights were far more important than mine. What happened you ask?
My city voted to keep an ordinance. It even has a nice sounding name. It's called a nondiscrimination ordinance. Now no one wants to be accused of being prejudice so many voted for it on that basis alone. But this ordinance does infringe on my rights and my safety.
Safety first. Right now any man that views himself as a woman can enter any public woman's changing room or restroom. Now here is how I see it. I'm a girl and I have girl parts. The ordinance is pretty subjective. Any man can claim he views himself as a female. How can we prove otherwise? So this takes away the scanty protection of the sign. Let's face it signs and locks keep honest people honest. If someone wanted in the bathroom or changing room they'd get in regardless. Just as they would your home.
But now this ordinance provides an opportunity for every peeping Tom and perv in the city to just say one day that he is a she and go into the public room to prey on the women and children in there. Women and children in some cases are now at greater risk of exploitation by criminals.
Think of it this way. You go into the girls locker room and in comes a 45 year old man and because he thinks of himself as a she it suddenly becomes alright for him to display his male parts? It happened to a 17 year old student in another state but could easily happen in my city now. And children as young as six use that locker room. I'm sorry but if a child had been in the room couldn't that fall under endangerment of a child, intentional or not? And prior to this incident there weren't even privacy curtains.
Christopher Holbrook a biological male used a similar law to my city's to gain access to two women's shelters where sexually assaulted two women. Think about the fact that many women going to the womens shelters do so out of need. They have already been abused and are promised a safe haven to get their life together to get away from the abuse. Then you're forced to share space with a man because he claims he is a woman. He follows you around, spies on you as you go to the bathroom watches you while you shower, makes you touch him and assaults you in the night. This is a man that had already preyed on a 5 year old girl and a mentally disabled woman. While happened in Canada, my city has made it a possibility here.
I used to do portrait photography. I say used to because with this ordinance I can too easily be sued for declining to take pictures of same gender couples. As a photographer I would no longer be able to dictate what my art represents. I'm sorry but I firmly believe that marriage is ordained of God and is to be between a man and a woman. I believe that family units are essential to God's plan. I believe that we have temptations and desires that we are to overcome to be perfected in Christ. I alsp believe every child has a right to a home with a mother and a father whenever possible. And as such I cannot through my art support othwrwise. I feel it is a violation of my rights for the very small minority to dictate what I am to photograph. And this i have heard happening a lot to other photographers. Our right to make a living in our chosen field is hindered because our right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech are being violated. But then in the case of one photographer in New Mexico, she was told by a justice in the New Mexico Supreme Court, "(the photographers) now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives...it is the price of citizenship." I shouldn't have to had my religious views because they might hurt someone's feelings. I have rights too.
What about the baker in Colorado? He told a gay couple that he would gladly bake them a cake or sell them any baked goods any other time. But that due to deeply held religious convictions he wasn't able to participate in their wedding. He lost in court. They said he was discriminating. I don't think he was. His religion forbids their members from participating in same sex weddings but he was willing to sell them baked goods for ANY other occasion.
You want to hear the big kicker? In the city's quest for fairness for all they will soon be effecting pastors, bishops, and other religious officials. With this ordinance when same sex marriages becomes legal for the state your favorite clergyman will face the same dilemma say no to marrying the same sex couple and be sued or have his/her religious rights/freedoms infringed on and say yes. Fun how we voted for this ordinance so that we could then limit ourselves right?
Might I point out that adoption agencies here are already facing this same dilemma? There are a few religious based services that are having their rights and their clients rights infringed on right now.
Blain Adamson a owner of a tshirt printing company was approached to print some shirts to promote the Lexington Pride Festival. He declined due to the message but found another printer that was willing to print the shirts for the same cost. He was sued. He wasn't against the people just didn't support the message. He had filled orders for others that he knew were gay and even hired gay employees. He just could not support their cause and his rights were seen as lesss.
Julia Ward a counseling student back in 2009 referred a couple to another councilor because she couldn't affirm a homosexual relatuonship. She was accused of violating the program's ethics and she was expelled from the Maters program. It took the 6th circuit federal court to rule in her favor to send the case back to court for the school to settle.
And all this so 2% of the population in this city can have their rights upheld. In this quest for greater tolerance the other side has forgotten that tolerance is a two-way street. We can have different views and opinions and religions. But don't go taking away my rights!
No comments:
Post a Comment