Owensboro Fairness Ordinance – Response to Kali Speaks – Part 1

A few days ago, Kali Speaks wrote a blog that responded so some points I made on a post in the Owensboro Fairness Campaign facebook group. In the blog below (and 2 to follow), I want to respond to her counterpoints. Kali was very thoughtful and many have praised her words. I do not presume that I will convince my opponents, but for those watching on the sidelines, I hope you find my reasoning persuasive both morally and logically.

Here is the excerpt from my post…the first point I made:

Many people said “you can’t legislate morality.” This is both right and wrong it seems to me. All laws make moral judgments, so in that sense, you are legislating morality. If this ordinance passes, it makes moral declarations such as the following: sexually alternative lifestyles are morally acceptable and publicly opposing such lifestyles is wrong if it includes housing, jobs, or goods and services, etc. So in this sense, morality is being legislated. However, when people kept saying you can’t legislate morality, what they mean is that you can’t use a law to force people to be nice or fair. As I listened to most of the stories of LGBTQ individuals, what seemed to be the common thread is that people feel unloved, not accepted, looked down upon, etc. That really sux and is not right morally. However, this is not the sort of thing you can fix via law. It’s like trying to pass a law to stop greed. Given that nearly all the stories were of this sort, it seems to me that the opposers have a valid point in asserting you can’t force via law the type of moral change that causes the hurt and pain.

Here is her response (in red) and my counter (in black):

It is impossible to have a genuine, constructive dialogue when one or more of the parties involved come to the discussion dishonestly. Repeatedly, opponents to the ordinance have dismissed the legislation as an attempt to illegalize beliefs, to impede on religious liberties, and to do something that is simply unprecedented. How many times must this be debunked before it is heard?

You say that this has been debunked time and again, but it has not. I’m am completely aware that many are saying the Owensboro ordinance would prevent lawsuits such as the ones that happened to Hands On Originals or the baker in Colorado. Fair enough, maybe it would. But such lawsuits do in fact illustrate that religious liberty is at stake. Far from being debunked, the FACT of such lawsuits due to local ordinances shows there is a legitimate fear. Whether or not the Owensboro ordinance still makes room for a threat to religious liberty is up for grabs. I am of the opinion that there is still a threat for three reasons: (1) The criteria for this “deeply held religious conviction” exemption is too vague. (2) The burden of proof lies on the accused to justify his “deeply held religious conviction.” This is wrong, it seems to me. (3) It is up to a human rights commission to make the judgment on such cases, yet we don’t know what kind of worldviews those who sit on this commission will have.

You have placed NICE and FAIR together as if they are either the same thing or mutually inclusive. While you cannot use a law to force people to be nice, many laws are put into place to maintain a more fair society. Civil Rights Acts are the first that come to mind. The Equal Opportunity Act is another. Others have the word FAIR in the name, such as the Fair Housing Act. Many have “fairness” included in the official text of the code. America has legislated fairness for quite some time without criminalizing being less than nice to disenfranchised groups. Your interpretation of the capabilities and intentions of American law are ahistorical. The moral declaration that would be made is that our home will no longer tolerate discriminatory practices.

I acknowledge there is a difference in being fair vs being nice. However, as it relates to law, the goal is justice, not fairness. So for instance, the civil rights act created a more just society. The reason I made the point about niceness was due to my attendance at the local forum at OCTC. Nearly ever person who spoke in favor of the ordinance talked about how they “felt treated” or how they were viewed by others. This is instructive because it shows what the motive behind the ordinance is for many. This motive is validation.

It is also worth noting that we need to be careful how we use legal history to validate our views. The knife can cut both ways. Just and unjust laws can be passed and have been passed. Each law must be assessed on its own merits. As a general rule, I appeal to the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as most hold both of these in high regard. However, it should be noted that both documents are rooted in God’s universal law for mankind. It makes people uncomfortable, but there is a theological component to all laws, and the founders understood this. Is a law just and does it adhere to God’s universal moral law? These are questions that must be wrestled with.

Our founders knew that you can’t compel religious belief and some matters of religion and morality are a matter of conscience. Therefore, they limit the powers of government and provide significant freedom of conscience/religion so long as those freedoms don’t deprive others of their life and liberty (i.e. negative rights). The order is clear, and the proposed fairness ordinance inverts this order.

While feeling “looked down upon” is certainly a symptom of discrimination, it does not in any way diminish that discrimination to a mere unpleasant collision of contradictory ideas, to getting one’s feelings hurt. If you and other opponents cannot hear the full breadth of the complaints of the LGBTQ+ community, then you are not yet prepared for discourse; yet, you are one of the most vocal and proactive opponents to the ordinance. How can this be when you cannot hold the conversation or your stance without omitting critical components of the experiences being shared with you?

I actually agree with this paragraph. I don’t think the stories that have been shared are only about getting feelings hurt. That would be incredibly naïve. Once again, I was just responding to what most of the stories were about during the most recent fairness ordinance forum. I left about 30 mins before the ordinance ended, but I don’t recall any individual discussing mass (or minimal) injustice in our city that would actually be affected by the ordinance. I could be wrong, but this was my observation.