HomeMy WebLinkAboutNon-Discrimination Ordinance Public Comment from Barbara Lee 4-30-14From:Rebecca Lee
To:Agenda
Subject:NDO Comments
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:14:26 AM
Importance:High
It is my opinion that the city will be opening a ‘can of worms’ if the NDO is passed.
I have been a landlady for over 30 years. During that time, only 2 tenants were legally
evicted for not following the lease agreement which was based on the current
landlord/tenant laws and any other applicable laws of the state and federal governments.
The tenants committing these infractions of the rules were informed ahead of renting the
apartment and had agreed to the terms of the lease. If the NDO were in effect today and
these tenants were LGBT, would they now be able to bring charges of discrimination against
me?
This ordinance is indicating a special group for protection and will have consequences that
we cannot predict. The LGBT community says "live and let live, we are just people living in
our community and want to be treated like everyone else." If they truly mean that, they
would not be pushing for the NDO which, as I said, sets them apart as a special group for
special treatment.
Throughout the evening, the LGBT was presented as ordinary, good citizens, very good
tenants and so on. In fact, one man stated they were the best tenants he’d ever had, ". .
.clean and paid rent on time . . .". I wonder if a landlord had said the same thing about
straight and/or religious people at this meeting, would that have been perceived as a
discriminatory remark against the LGBT?
These special laws and ordinances for special groups actually sets them apart from the
common ground they claim to seek. Things are becoming more divisive and I think this NDO
will create even more discord. None of us goes through life unscathed by something. We
have all been teased, bullied and harmed in some way by others. But this trend to be
politically correct, which is what this is really about, is leading to nonsensical decisions that
are not producing expected outcomes.
We are supposed to believe everything any ‘victim’ group tells us in toto. And this sentiment
was evident at Monday’s meeting -- no questions concerning why a LGBT was fired or lost
their housing. We are just to assume they are telling the truth, and that it is not just their
perception of things. Their employer or landlord did not get the chance to defend their
actions. No. Perhaps the person was fired because of poor job performance, or evicted
legally based upon the lease agreement they signed.
You heard the story about the 46-year-old trans gender who removed his clothing and laid
down, exposing his clearly male genitalia to young girls in a locker room. Parents still have
the right to protect their young children? Because of the NDO in that state, the outraged
parents were told that the trans gender person was protected and they could not do
anything about it. What idiocy is this?
If the NDO is passed, fear of being labeled as a bigot, homophobe, or hater, (a word
commonly used to describe anyone in disagreement with this ordinance), will place a great
burden on a landlord who can never feel safe in evicting someone, or a business from firing
an employee, or a school board from firing a teacher, regardless of legitimate reasons for
doing so. Lawsuits will be the eventual outcome of such an ordinance, the burden being
time, money and emotional tolls that such lawsuits will impose by their very nature. I look to
see frivolous lawsuits being filed to purposely create such burdens, and like it or not, there
are judges that will allow such suits to proceed because they are worried they might be
labeled a bigot, etc. Look at the lengths this young gay man went to in order to file what
turned out to be a false police report in Missoula:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/joseph-baken-montana-gay-man-false-attack-
guilty_n_1756215.html
Barbara Lee
Bozeman, Montana