HomeMy WebLinkAboutNon-Discrimination Ordinance Public Comment from Michael Ross 4-29-141
Michael F. Ross
April 28, 2014
Regarding: NDO public hearing remarks – suggestion to include a “religious expression and
behavior” definition to the ordinance – what’s fair is fair
Public Comment: I’m here in opposition to an NDO. For reasons outlined in an April 9th letter
hand-delivered to this body, I believe an NDO is unnecessary, unpopular, unlawful and
unconstitutional. I’m not here to argue the merits of my belief. I’m here to call upon this body to
live up to the NDO proponent’s slogan – “fair is fair in Montana.”
Please refer to draft definition (5) which reads “’gender identity or expression’ means a gender-
related identity expression, or behavior, regardless of the individual’s sex at birth.”
For reasons outlined in my letter, this definition is problematic and ripe for challenge under
vagueness doctrine of constitutional law. However, if you’re going to enact law that protects the
“expression” and “behavior” of a special class then I challenge you to live up to the “fair is fair in
Montana” sentiment by including the following provisions in your ordinance:
1. A definition of “religious expression and behavior” as “any religious-related expression
or behavior based of on an individual’s sincerely held religion.”
2. Inclusion of the “religious expression and behavior” term in definition (1) to read
discrimination is any act that unfavorably subjugates any person to different or separate
treatment “because of race, color, natural origin, ancestry, religion, religious expression
or behavior, creed, sex, etc….”
3. Inclusion of the “religious expression and behavior” term as an exemption to definition
(9) to read “’Public accommodation’ does not include any private individual or business
from expressing their religious expression and behavior.”
4. Inclusion of the term “religious expression and behavior” under Section D, Posting of
Notices, to read, “’Every employer, business or entity subject to this chapter shall post in
a conspicuous location a notice stating, ‘Discrimination on the basis of actual or
perceived race, color, natural origin, ancestry, religion, religious expression or behavior,
creed, sex, etc….’”
If the LGBT community is awarded protections for their “expression” and “behavior” then the
religious community ought to be awarded the same protections. What’s fair is fair.
If NDO proponents truly seek tolerance then they’ll support this suggestion. What’s fair is fair.
In conclusion, we’d all be wise to reflect upon the wisdom of our fourth president and father of
the U.S. Constitution, James Madison.
4364 Glenwood Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718 Mobile: (612) 232-0262
E-mail: mross443@gmail.com
2
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious
rights.
― James Madison, Federalist 51
Once again, I oppose an NDO. But if you’re going to enact laws that protect the LGBT
community’s “expression” and “behavior” then it’s only right that you do the same for the
religious.
What’s fair is fair.