by jhwygirl

In April, Missoula City Council will take up a proposed city ordinance that will ensure equal protection for everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

See? Is that a big deal? Or maybe the question is Why is this a big deal?

This is such a no-brainer for me to support, my mind sometimes has a hard time “supporting” stuff like this because I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people can want to treat certain people differently based on who they are. How can people can think that way? Where to begin with such ignorance?

Tonight I first came across this. I’m reading the comments there, and frankly, I’m amazed at the openly bigoted and blatantly ignorant things people will publicly say and put their name and face to it.

Then I get to Missoula Red Tape where I read about a website titled, where the lies and misinformation continue. They purport – and notice the careful wording there – to be “an alliance of 17 organizations with members within the City Limits of Missoula as well as dozens of concerned citizens.”

Could that mean “An alliance of 17 organizations spread out over North and South American, with 2 members with the city limits as well as dozens of concerned citizens living in northern Idaho”?

These Mel Gibson fans even had the gumption to send out a press release.

I truly hope that the press picks up on that…someone like that, going through all that trouble to create two webpages and issue a press release deserves all the attention their little twisted brain desires.

  1. Big Swede

    “Under the Portland , Oregon Gender Identity Law, a cross-dressing sex offender entered a woman’s locker room and was arrested while changing clothes in front of children there. With this ordinance it appears that the police would be in violation of the law if they arrested the pervert. Without the gender identity law, the perpetrator would not have had such easy access to the female locker room. But with this unreasonable law, businesses could not question why he was there. If a business owner or parent was to keep out a cross-dressing man from a woman’s bathroom because of the safety and privacy of the women and children using the restroom three times within a 12 month period then this ordinance turns into a criminal law where the one protecting the children can be brought before a criminal judge and fined up to $500 per occurrence.”

    First of all this is a proposal.

    It’s not like they voted and passed legislation that would continue give Viagra to rapists and pedophiles.

  2. Ryan Morton

    “anti-discrimination ordinance leads to rampant crossdressing pedophiles scourging our city’s ladies rooms.”

    i couldn’t have imagined this shit in my wildest dreams. i don’t know to feel sorry for people who think this way or to just laugh at them. Well, they’re calling me a pervert, sinner, and pedophile – i’m sticking with laughter until they make nice

  3. Pronghorn

    I wonder what my government assigned sex will be?!!!? I’m all a-dither!

  4. MB

    Wow Missoula…let the name calling begin. I have been to a meeting and guess what. There is no name calling, hatred, fear, or most of the accusation being thrown out there. Most everyone involved (except for a few, I’m sure) are levelheaded concerned citizens. I am really shocked by the display of hatred from the side that apparantly is supporting this ordinance. Missoula is a very tolerant town, and if its true that people of the wrong sex are already using are restrooms with out a problem then what is the point of this ordinance. There are no letters of complaints of discrimination to our city administrative leaders from this group of individuals in our community, the only complaints have been from veterans. Maybe this oh-so tolerant bunch that wants an ordinance like this should be alittle more tolerant themselves.

    • people of the wrong sex

      Right there’s where you lost me. That is precisely name-calling, accusation and fear.

    • JD

      I went to the website. I was actually neutral on the issue, but I was persuaded by a the website’s central argument, which is very different that jhwygirl presented.

      The group’s main point is that the anti-discrimination ordinance is unconstitutional, and that the requirements it imposes upon unrelated parties–business owners, liability issues, etc.–are legally questionable. That was at least my take.

      Those central arguments don’t appear in jhwygirl’s attack on the thing. It seems like jhwygirl fell back on alot of mischaracterizations and polarizing rhetoric to skirt the group’s central claims. Just my thoughts MB.

  5. MB

    JD got it. I find it funny when the name was picked it was to draw attention to the matter. It worked, and worked very well. If you read the emails of letters coming into the city councils office it is bringing attention to the matter. The bathroom issue is only one of many problems with the ordinance. Its just the issue that gets people talking. Unfortunatly those supporting the ordinance can not see past “notmybathroom” as a problem for those that oppose the ordinance.

    • What are the problems you see with the ordinance MB? The stuff I read on notmybathroom isn’t true – stuff like it’ll force churches to marry couples (no one can force a church to do anything – hell, they don’t even have to comply with parking regulations).

      In all I’m reading, I’m not getting where there are problems with this ordinance.

      JD talks about constitutional issues, and right now we have laws (emphasis: “laws”) that prohibit treating people differently based on race religiion or sex. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that. In fact, government has a role in protecting those that have needed protection.

      Businesses currently can’t discriminate based on race religion or sex. If they do, they have a liability issue. This law adds to that – it tells them that if someone walks into a motel and they refuse them a room because they percieve that they are gay, that will be illegal.

      It should be. Why is that OK?

      I don’t understand they whole desire to think of gays (or lesbians or transgendered) people as different. What is it anyone’s business? That which defines them?

      Having any desire to treat someone differently because of who they are defies – on a very basic level – freedom.

      How do you justify that?

  1. 1 Bunk in the West

    […] long-time contributor to city planning and politics, a letter sent to Mayor Engen concerning a proposed city ordinance that will ensure equal protection regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, it is legal to […]

  2. 2 When Opponents of the Helena Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Make the Best Case For It | Intelligent Discontent

    […] notes, Missoula had firsthand experience with these argument just a short time ago and jhwygirl exposed their approach. MT Cowgirl also reminds us that the people pushing back against the ordinance need to be examined. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,887 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • March 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: