Holladay Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Proposal, Talking Points & ResourcesOn Feb 12, 2014 Comments Off on Holladay Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Proposal, Talking Points & Resources
Here’s a copy of the anti-discrimination ordinance Holladay is reviewing and will vote on Thursday, February 20, 2014
Mayor Rob Dahle, Council Members Pat Pignanelli and Jim Palmer all favor this proposal and are misleading citizens on a few points, clarified below, especially the point about the LDS Church endorsing Holladay’s anti-discrimination ordinance.
Talking Points – Use these only as a guide, re-write in your own words.
Unnecessary. Holladay has never had any anti-discrimination ordinance at all; Federal and State laws cover standard anti-discrimination. No discrimination complaints of any kind have ever been filed in the City of Holladay. Under recent anti-discrimination ordinances that have added sexual orientation/gender identity, only three complaints have been filed statewide, and all have been dismissed. Holladay has demonstrated it is a city of civility, a peaceful and safe community without such an ordinance. If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it!
Intended LGBT consequences. Communities around the nation that have adopted anti-discrimination ordinances covering sexual orientation and gender identity have experienced the consequences of men believing they are women demanding to use the women’s bathroom or locker room. While this may not be anticipated, the LGBT community does intend to radically transform society into an unsafe place full of havoc. This is happening in public schools and is harming minor girls when the school, under these laws, are required to allow a boy who thinks he’s a girl into the bathroom/locker room.
Trans-gender bathrooms have been costly to businesses, and still the LGBT community has not been satisfied and does not want to be “singled out” and has sued in other communities to be treated “equally,” invading privacy and creating an unsafe environment for women. Under this ordinance, those who sincerely believe they are a female when they were born male, can and do force their way into women’s locker rooms and public bathrooms – protected by law. How will the Cottonwood Country Club respond in this situation, a Holladay business where the Mayor has served as President?
Harm to business, community and religious liberty. What will religious and privately-owned Holladay catering businesses or wedding and photography services do when they are asked to cater, host or photograph a gay wedding and it’s against their religious beliefs? Suppose they have minor employees and they do not want to expose those minors to a lifestyle they believe is immoral. How does this ordinance protect the first freedoms of assembly, speech, religion, and the right to earn a living and own property in a free market? Are there options such as gay-owned catering companies that the client could select? Should these businesses be forced by law to serve clients that require them to violate their religious beliefs? Experience in other states with anti-discrimination laws show these protections are lost. This is really a reverse discrimination law. Anti-discrimination laws have created huge lawsuits in the schools and businesses.*
This proposed ordinance goes against its very preamble which states that Holladay promotes prosperity, comfort and convenience and safety.
The LDS Church Endorsement Myth. At least two members of the Holladay City Council and the Mayor are mistaken that the LDS Church is endorsing this anti-discrimination proposal – or any of the others that have been passed outside of the Salt Lake ordinance.
While it is true that the LDS Church did support the Salt Lake City ordinance, it first exempted itself. This proposed ordinance provides similar exemptions, but neither ordinance protects the adherents of that faith – or any faith whether Jewish, Muslim or Mormon.
After this flaw was brought to its attention, the LDS Church has been silent on anti-discrimination ordinances since the Salt Lake City ordinance. It also opposes the proposed anti-discrimination legislation in the state legislature.
In fact, the LDS Church stands boldly against “gender identity” as defined in these ordinances. That definition is found in the Proclamation on the Family at www.LDS.org. To pass this ordinance will be a violation of religious liberty against the very religion that founded this state in search of religious liberty.
Bad timing. Wait until the 10th Circuit/US Supreme Court has ruled on Amendment 3. The Utah State legislature has decided not to entertain any anti-discrimination related bills until the court challenge to Utah’s Amendment 3 is decided so as not to negatively or positively influence that outcome.
Utah’s Amendment 3 is clearly written: “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.” The state legislature or City Councils cannot introduce the idea that sexual orientation or gender identity is simply an emotional state or, an ” internal sense of gender, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth,” [state proposal, line 83] without destroying our state law Amendment 3. Passing this ordinance would be unconstitutional.
*Resources and Examples
Mass Resistance Video and Summary
In Depth Background of Holladay’s Proposed Ordinance
What Is “Gender Identity?”
Paul Mero and Senator Stuart Reid on Anti-Discrimination and Religious Liberty