Proposal A: an Honest Evaluation

There is obviously a lot of controversy regarding Proposal A. Those against it say that there are many harmful aspects of the ordinance. There are a few major misconceptions that I’d like to talk about.

 Firstly, the “bathroom issue.”  Basically those that bring up this issue are concerned that if this proposal is passed, ill-intended men will claim to identify as women in order to get into women’s restrooms, or the other way around.  However, in other cities with a similar human rights ordinance, this has not been a problem. Also, in Royal Oak’s proposed ordinance, the “bathroom issue” is actually written in as an exception to discrimination policy. The ordinance says that “to restrict use of lavatories and locker room facilities on the basis of sex” is not a violation of the ordinance (http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/webfm_send/2342 ). So, bathrooms may be restricted just as they are currently.

Dissenters also bring up the issue of religious freedom. The ordinance does not attack religion, but simply protects people from discrimination. People can believe whatever they want. However, they cannot do whatever they want if it affects others in our society. Religious people can’t be denied housing or employment because they’re religious, so why should anyone be denied these things because of their race, sexual orientation, HIV status, etc.? Just as you can’t sacrifice people in the name of religion, under this proposal you can’t discriminate against people in the name of religion. However, the ordinance does give certain exceptions for religious institutions, which can “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,” under the ordinance.

Another issue commonly brought up is one of property rights. The idea is that the ordinance denies landlords the right to choose their tenants reasonably. Under the ordinance, landlords would still be able to choose their tenants, but not on the basis of race, sexual orientation, HIV status, etc. Once again, this is just to prevent unjust discrimination, and most would agree that this is a just and beneficial protection to have. The ordinance even grants business owners like landlords an exception:

"No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement which has the effect of creating unequal opportunities according to actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, source of income, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental limitation, gender identity or HIV status for a person to obtain housing, employment or public accommodation, except for a bona fide business necessity"

Except for a bona fide business necessity. So, when there is genuine necessity, business owners can make the same exact decisions that they’re allowed to make now.

Some people also think that proposal A will “tip the scales” in favor of minorities, with regards to employment. It is not true that anyone will be given an unfair advantage under this proposal. It is not an affirmative action proposal. It requires no one to hire people for being part of a minority. It simply prevents people from not being hired, or from being fired, for being part of a minority or a majority, once again “except for a bona fide business necessity.” The protection between minority and majority is intended to be equal, as is evident in the language of the ordinance, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race...,” not towards Latinos, or toward blacks, or toward any one race. So all races, all sexual orientations, all ages, all religions, all marital statuses, and many more will be protected equally.

Many have expressed concerns that the Red Cross would stop collecting blood in Royal Oak under the ordinance. The idea is that the ordinance would force the Red Cross to accept blood from gay men as well as HIV positive donors, both of which are not permitted by the Red Cross to donate blood. Again I’d like to cite the ordinance: “except for a bona fide business necessity.”  So the Red Cross can continue these policies if there is genuine need, and continue blood drives in Royal Oak. Also, there have been no problems with the Red Cross and blood drives in other cities that have a similar human rights ordinance (http://www.freep.com/article/20131018/NEWS03/310180020/).

Folks, there’s nothing to be afraid of in this ordinance. Please vote yes on Proposal A.