Back in 1998, I was a 14-year-old high school freshman in small-town Maine. That February, voters passed a ballot measure repealing a state law that protected gay people from discrimination in employment and housing. At the time, I was newly out of the closet and the only out gay teen in my high school.
What I remember most from that time isn’t the sting of losing that vote. It’s actually a simple TV ad. Then-Gov. Angus King looked into the camera and said, “I don’t think it’s OK to fire someone just because they’re gay.” That moment stuck with me. In the middle of a loud and polarized debate, someone in power chose clarity over calculation. He didn’t wait for better polling. He just said what was right.
Most people agree that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is wrong. But that doesn't mean that this should violate other rights.
Think back to the bakery issue, which I think has been resolved in favor of the bakers. Gay activists would demand that religious bakers create cakes for gay weddings even though the bakers objected. These test cases were meant to push the law in one political direction.
You mention housing. I don't know the specifics of the bill you mentioned, but did it require landlords to rent to people who "lived in sin"? So if you are a Christian and object to the lifestyle of prospective tenants, you would have no control over who you rent to? What gives the government the right to dictate this?
Marijuana is now becoming legal. Can a landlord prohibit drug users from renting their properties, or would that be discrimination against a legal activity?
These and similar issues do have a common thread. The Left wants to take private property and control how it is used. And these controls are often "retroactively" applied, meaning that the costs (financial or otherwise) are born by the property owners, not the state.
Let's say you own a home and statewide rental restrictions are enacted. You have to either comply or sell. What if the value of the housing goes down because of these changes? Who compensates you for that loss?
In NYC, a Socialist is likely to become the next mayor. His platform includes many objectionable goals, including freezing rents and allowing the City to take over buildings that don't comply with various government edicts. I guess that's just too bad for the owners.
The worst is that the rules that Socialists want to apply to us often do not apply to them.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
Most people agree that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is wrong. But that doesn't mean that this should violate other rights.
Think back to the bakery issue, which I think has been resolved in favor of the bakers. Gay activists would demand that religious bakers create cakes for gay weddings even though the bakers objected. These test cases were meant to push the law in one political direction.
You mention housing. I don't know the specifics of the bill you mentioned, but did it require landlords to rent to people who "lived in sin"? So if you are a Christian and object to the lifestyle of prospective tenants, you would have no control over who you rent to? What gives the government the right to dictate this?
Marijuana is now becoming legal. Can a landlord prohibit drug users from renting their properties, or would that be discrimination against a legal activity?
These and similar issues do have a common thread. The Left wants to take private property and control how it is used. And these controls are often "retroactively" applied, meaning that the costs (financial or otherwise) are born by the property owners, not the state.
Let's say you own a home and statewide rental restrictions are enacted. You have to either comply or sell. What if the value of the housing goes down because of these changes? Who compensates you for that loss?
In NYC, a Socialist is likely to become the next mayor. His platform includes many objectionable goals, including freezing rents and allowing the City to take over buildings that don't comply with various government edicts. I guess that's just too bad for the owners.
The worst is that the rules that Socialists want to apply to us often do not apply to them.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.