One Royal Oak's "5 Facts" Aren't

They Say

1.) Proposal A is Constitutional and Proven to Work
There has been misinformed talked about Proposal A. 27 other cities in Michigan, hundreds of other cities across the country, and nearly 30 states have similar laws to Proposal A.  These laws have passed constitutional muster. In fact, recent Supreme Court rulings have said that gay and transgender people are entitled to equal protection under the law, laws like Proposal A.

My Response

Of course, ALL people are entitled to equal protection under the law. That principle is enshrined in the Constitution. The trouble with Proposal A is that groups not specifically protected by the ordinance will find that their constitutional rights—including freedom of religion, freedom of association, privacy rights, and property rights—are curtailed. There are many examples from across the United States of Christian business owners who have been penalized financially or even driven out of business for refusing to provide services that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. When a landlord or business owner cannot reject a client or employee whose beliefs or behavior contradict his/her own, that is forced association, not free association. Proposal A will trample on the rights of those not specified in the ordinance.

They Say

2.) Proposal A Protects Privacy
Proposal A does not alter laws related to privacy and sex-segregated facilities. Opponents of the ordinance are assuming voters don't know much about transgender people or the specific, medical treatment they undergo. Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies support transgender people in the workplace while protecting privacy rights, and Proposal A does, too.

My Response

Yes, the ordinance allows for sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms, but it does NOT mention transgendered people (who have undergone surgery and hormone therapy to change their sex). What is mentioned in the ordinance is “gender identity,” which may or may not correspond to a person's sex (as defined by DNA and anatomical features).  The ordinance defines “gender identity” as “a person's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth as being either female or male.”

What Cathy Brennan, a lawyer and longtime lesbian activist in Baltimore, Maryland, and Elizabeth Hungerford, a lawyer in Massachusetts, say about similar definitions in a number of state laws is true about the one in Proposal A. “This definition of ‘gender identity' does not require any objective proof.  Rather, it merely requires the person seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.  Further, because Title 11 [in Rhode Island, like Royal Oak's Proposal A] only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex, a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid ‘discrimination' must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen ‘gender identity'—without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology.” Brennan and Hungerford note that “These definitions would allow all males—including registered sex offenders or males subject to a domestic violence order of protection—to assert ‘gender identity' as a means to invade female-only space.  Indeed, these laws provide a legal basis for males to be in sex-segregated space.”

Most women I know do not want someone who is biologically male sharing restrooms and locker rooms with them, and I certainly would not want schoolchildren placed in this situation. It seems likely to me that a woman who had been raped would be traumatized to find someone with male anatomy in the same restroom or locker room.

They Say

3.) Proposal A Protects Religious Freedom
Royal Oak has deep respect for religious freedom, a right guaranteed in our first amendment. Thoughtfully written and modeled after other similar ordinances that protect religious freedom, Proposal A allows individuals to maintain their religious beliefs and exempts religious institutions.

My Response

Proposal A does offer some exemptions to religious organizations and institutions, allowing them to “restrict any of its facilities of housing or accommodations which are operated as a direct part of religious activities to persons of the denomination involved or to restrict employment opportunities for officers, religious instructors, and clergy to persons of that denomination.” The exemption is NOT absolute, as the One Royal Oak spokesperson seems to claim. It does NOT allow these organizations an exemption for other facilities they might operate if they are not “a direct part of religious activities” (a food bank, clothing exchange, etc.) or for other employees who are not “officers, religious instructors, and clergy” (custodian, secretary, etc.). It also does not protect landlords and business owners whose sincerely held religious convictions would be violated by hiring or providing services for a person or group with opposing values or objectionable (to the religious convictions) behavior.

They Say

4.) Proposal A is Clear
Opponents have taken to highlighting the terms “actual or perceived” in the ordinance as if that is surprising. These terms mean the ordinance applies if a person chooses to discriminate because they assume someone is gay or transgender, not if the victim is actually gay or transgender.  Discrimination is wrong. Firing someone because the employer thinks they are gay—even if they are not—is still wrong.

My Response

Opponents of Proposal A believe that the ordinance is deliberately vague to encourage legal action against Royal Oak businesses and property owners who don't bow to the will of special interests. We object to the inclusion of the term “perceived” because no one can directly or objectively determine what another person perceives. Who is to determine that a person has “perceived” a job applicant or potential renter as a member of one of the protected groups, and how would they do it? Even the City Attorney, under questioning by former Commissioner Patricia Capello, acknowledged that it is only by someone's words or actions that another party could determine what he has perceived. Words and actions are observable and objective and would fall under the category “actual.”

They Say

5.) Proposal A is Good for Business
35 Royal Oak businesses came out in favor of Proposal A because Proposal A is good for business. However, if Proposal A loses it will send a message that our city does not believe in treating all people equally and could cost us jobs and tourism dollars.

My Response

There are many more businesses in Royal Oak which have not come out in support of Proposal A. Indeed, given what has happened to other business owners who have not been supportive of LGBT causes (see the justroyaloak.org website), we can hardly blame them. Opponents of Proposal A may choose not to patronize businesses which support it, but you will not find us picketing and bringing in fellow activists from other cities and states to harass them. Royal Oak is already attracting businesses, young people, and families without the ordinance, and there is no objective evidence (as Commissioner Poulton has pointed out) that enacting the ordinance would improve the city's economic growth.

You will find these points posted on the justroyaloak.org website--along with a lot of information about how Proposal A will harm our city based on what has happened around the United States under similar laws--and I am the one who drafted them.