Manifesto - Secular Faults of the City Council Ordinance of Sep. 5, 2013, City of San Antonio, TX

MANIFESTO

Regarding the ordinance passed by the San Antonio City Council on September 5, 2013, entitled (parentheses added):

ADOPTING A CONSOLIDATED NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY WITH EXPANDED PROTECTIONS; ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE; ADOPTING A NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND RELATED STATUTES (which?); AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES (!) AND DIRECTING PUBLICATION.

We, the undersigned, proclaim:

1. Special protections for a particular social class is not a privilege a governmental body can bestow without justification. There are general protections by the law, and separately SPECIAL protections by the law or by a regulative body. Equality would mean we are all equally protected by our government, something not possible if some people are protected or are privileged more than others by the same governmental body.

2. All discrimination is not unconstitutional. When judging discrimination and the Constitution, the courts consider whether the discrimination is based upon a "suspect classification". When the classification is not "suspect", then the courts judge whether there is a rational basis for the discrimination. Marital status, for instance, is not a suspect class, and neither is "gender identity".

3. The government has the constitutional authority to discriminate — as long as (1) there is a rational basis to do so and (2) the basis of the discrimination is not a "suspect classification".

4. The US Constitution permits discrimination and inequality if there is a Public Interest involved. This is highly misunderstood and unmentioned aspect of our State and Federal Constitutions, and the source of many disagreements regarding social values, and counter to the notion of equality.

For instance: handicapped people have been favored in the architectural and safety design of many public and privately owned buildings. We make an exception for them, because they were politically almost powerless, and they can be useful to society. It exemplifies:
a) Equality has exceptions.
b) Government can discriminate against all people who are NOT handicapped, by not allowing them to park in parking slots marked "HANDICAP".

5. The primary markers of race are obvious physical traits. In sharp contrast, so-called "sexual orientation" is a psychological trait that is usually hidden and rarely apparent. That is why the two classes are (rightfully) treated differently in law.

6. The racial talking point advocating homosexuality in spite of its well documented health risks avoids logical reasoning, ignores constitutional jurisprudence, and attempts to hitch the "gay rights" bandwagon to the Civil Rights Movement with a cynical emotional appeal. That is manipulative. Upon asking "Which rights?" the non-reasoning advocate launches a personal attack. Irrationality cannot be questioned, and cannot be discussed. Democracy is not necessarily rational, but eventually meets the consequences.

7. Privacy is a Constitutional right. Intimacy, including sexuality, is protected by the laws of privacy. The government interferes with our privacy when it has reasonable cause that someone is breaking a law. Otherwise, it cannot legally interfere. Intimacy is therefore not in the domain of government to define, protect or recognize.

8. Religion is a "suspect class" because the history of religious persecution goes back thousands of years, and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution provides those rights to all (and everyone has a religion or philosophy). A religious hierarchy is not allowed to participate officially in government, as in England, for fear it would discriminate against other sects or religions. Morality is to be legislated through majority vote, as long as it does not conflict with the State and Federal Constitutions.

9. Persecution on grounds of homosexuality is not a modern problem — because homosexuality has already been socially validated as accepted, though not to be promoted if we as a society would minimize health risk. (See Lawrence v. Texas, for example.)
Note the lack of cases of discrimination on the basis or "sexual orientation", or "gender identity" filed against the City of San Antonio:
"With regard to your question about discrimination and the complaints within the city. They are not for sexual orientation. To my knowledge or since I have been city manager there have not been any complaints regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation." (SHERYL SCULLEY, City Manager, September, 2013)

10. The purpose of this ordinance is heightened social validation — just to satisfy the political goals of a SPECIAL interest group with its own viewpoint. But there's a contrasting majority viewpoint to protect, regarding the scientific terminology, From Page 3 of the PASSED ordinance TEXT:

QUOTE:

"Gender Identity means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.
Religion means all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that the employer is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.
Sex includes both sex, the biological differences between men and women, and gender; and encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity.
Sexual orientation means an individual's real or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.
Veteran status means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable, as specified in 38 U.S.C. 101(2). "Active service" includes full-time Federal service in the National Guard or a Reserve component. "

END OF QUOTE

There is a distinct difference in the verifiable, falsifiable, concise, documented, transparent characteristics and qualifiers describing a Veteran, or someone of age 40, COMPARED to the vague and indistinct characteristics that define the other social groups in paragraphs above!

11. Therefore "sex", "sexual orientation" and "gender identity", as defined above, are essentially just one more type of ideology. And note the "Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes", protected only on the grounds of verifiable characteristics, but this ordinance adds protections not based on verifiable characteristics.

The government is explicitly prohibited in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from protecting one single ideology or religion. Religion is a suspect class at the State and Federal levels, so it is unconstitutional for the said San Antonio ordinance to penalize people of certain religions for saying or acting against the opinions of a group to which the government has bestowed SPECIAL protections.

12. The ends do not justify the means; the ends are the means in the making. If certain social classes achieve their ends through violent means (whether rhetorical, disrespectful to the law of the land, or physical), they will create more violence in a society already marinated in the same. This ordinance could result in the intended, SPECIALLY protected classes becoming purposefully avoided in society, due to their rhetorical and sometimes physical means of achieving their personal ends. It is an attempt to acquire political power at the expense of the public interest.

13. The definitions in the illegal-discrimination-ordinance are vague, biased, and without base, but in vogue and accepted by many uneducated on the subject. But, no one can speak out against them without being publicly scorned. Comments are filled with hatred against people who question the idea that "gayness", an invented meaning, is natural. Others are discriminated by this ordinance, pretending to be non-discriminatory.

14. Legal Discrimination simply means business people have the choice of dealing with some people and not others, for they will experience the consequences in their own business. Aside from the protections established by the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in employment and housing is a right, and is critical in protecting a business from detrimental situations they wish to avoid. For instance, a business might want to avoid hiring or dealing with someone who is prone to frivolous law suits.

15. We all agree on the concept of Equal Opportunity, a federal requirement for federal entities. But providing SPECIAL protections to a special interest group is FAVORITISM. Even then, it is absolutely not enforceable, evidently unconstitutional.