Ordinance only assures special LGBT treatment

Consider this scenario:

You're the manager of a multi-unit apartment complex. You also live at the complex. One beautiful summer day you are out in the front yard picking weeds out of the landscaping. From some distance away you hear the sound of a vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed, with a boom-box radio pulsating loudly. Moments later, a boy-racer 'Fast and Furious'-type vehicle bounces into your parking lot and comes to a screeching halt in front of the 'OFFICE' sign. The vehicle is parked diagonally across two spaces, including the 'handicapped' space. The driver shuts off the engine and exits the vehicle, leaving the radio blaring. He heads for the office, and you trail along behind him, noticing the baggy pants, tats, piercings, and spiked hair.

Before you can address him, he's in the office, banging on the bell. You enter, go behind the counter, and ask how you might help him. He says, "You advertised an apartment for rent; I want to look at it." Your second mistake, you say, "let me get the key" even though you already know that he is not going to fit in with your existing residents: retirees, middle-aged couples working toward retirement, families with children; all are people living quiet and unobtrusive lifestyles.

You take him to the apartment, he goes in and takes a cursory look around, says "OK" and heads back to the office. "I'll take it," he says, and starts digging into various pockets and depositing crumpled bills on the counter. Finally, you gulp, and try to tell him, as diplomatically as possible, that you don't believe that he would feel comfortable at this complex. He objects, and argues, so you reluctantly offer that the other residents wouldn't feel comfortable with HIM. He leaves in a huff.

Three weeks later, you receive a certified letter in the mail from the appropriate authority tasked with investigating complaints that allege violations of Coeur d'Alene's ordinance that forbids discrimination in housing against members of the LGBT community. The individual described above has perjured himself in his complaint, swearing that you refused to rent to him because of his status in a group defined by its behavioral characteristics.

You did in fact discriminate against him, but not because of any perceived LGBT status.

In fact, the thought that he might be LGBT never crossed your mind. You discriminated against him because he seemed disdainful of the rules of polite society: in the way he drove, the way he parked, the disturbing loudness of his music, the pushy, arrogant way he treated YOU. You have pity for others that have to deal with him.

Yes, you were discriminating (Webster's definition: to observe or mark the differences between; to make a difference or distinction). You observed a difference between the way he acted and the way the rest of your residents acted.

So what happens now? You are summoned to a hearing where an accusation has been made. How that turns out is anybody's guess. But you will not be unmarked by the encounter. At the least there will be an emotional consequence. Legal defense could involve substantial financial consequence. Even if you have insurance that would indemnify you against such expense, what happens at the next renewal? Increased premium? Cancellation? What about the notoriety? How will you be perceived afterward in the community? Will LGBT sympathizers target you with threats, or pickets at the complex?

All this is the result of giving a group of people preferential status based solely on behavior. Not because of a condition from birth, or a medical malady acquired since birth, but because of the way one acts. Or status derived from the way one claims to act.

By the way, what do you do, as a father, away at a public function with your 9-year-old daughter, and she has to go to the bathroom? You don't want to take her to the men's room. Do you want to take the chance that the ladies' room is being patrolled by a male transvestite who could claim that he is an in-the-process-of-becoming transsexual? After all, the ordinance prohibits discrimination in accommodations. And your daughter need not be kidnapped to be emotionally scarred. It makes me glad that my children are all adults. But wait! I have a 9-year-old granddaughter!

Of course, the ordinance should be repealed. Unlikely that the council that passed it would repeal it. And given these politically correct times, unlikely that a subsequent council would repeal it. Unless something so traumatic should happen as to galvanize the community into demanding its repeal. But of course, someone must first be traumatized.

Nothing written here should be construed as condoning harassment of members of the LGBT community. I write only to object to legalized special treatment.

A 'second mistake' was mentioned earlier. What was the first? Not having a security camera in the office. But then, one would need a camera everywhere, or on one's person all the time. And everyone would need a camera, everywhere and every time. And a defense attorney on speed dial ...

Big Brother, anyone?

Timothy Ward is a Coeur d'Alene resident.