“Gender-Identity and Expression”: Let’s add this to our anti-discrimination ordinances!

A gay member of our local city council wants to add “gender identity and expression” to our anti-discrimination housing ordinance.  At first I thought it was covered under “sexual orientation,” but he explained that it refers to transgender individuals–not the same thing at all.

Now, I have my own opinion on whether or not we should be tampering with our genes, but there is absolutely no reason why my opinion means that such people should be tossed out into the cold.

If they are decent tenants, paying their rent, keeping up the place, etc., then you shouldn’t be able to evict them just because they believe they should’ve been born a woman/man.

I’ve seen the same response from enough people that I have to ask: Did the local Republican party put out a flyer with talking points on this issue?  Basically, focus on bringing jobs to our area, not on this guy’s agenda.

Um……..The job of the city council IS stuff like this.  It’s their JOB to deal with such things as garbage, street clearing, water rates, anti-discrimination, ordinances, etc. etc.

And as my husband says, if they take care of that well enough, that attracts more jobs because businesses can attract workers who want to live here.

Should we have told this to the ones who fought for Civil Rights: “Focus on jobs, not ending discrimination”?  This is civil rights for the LGBT community.

I may not be part of that community, and my husband does not agree with it, but we are united on the importance of fighting discrimination.  Our religious beliefs should not infringe on another’s right to live as they wish.  Isn’t that what freedom really is?

If freedom is so important to you, then why deny it to the LGBT community?  According to the city council member who wants this, people do lose their homes over this.

Now I found a blog (which I do not wish to link to) complaining that this policy is dangerous and will violate our “safety, privacy and religious objections.”  The writer is upset that another city has already added the clause, and now our city is talking about it.

How does it violate our privacy to not get tossed out based on what we do in the privacy of our homes?  How on earth is our safety compromised by this?  And why is it okay to allow our “religious objections” to force some law-abiding citizen out of his home?

Some things about this town are so backward that it does get very frustrating.