Yet another rant about legislated bigotry(long)

The BBQ Pit
1

As I have mentioned before, I’m from Topeka, Kansas. It also happens to be the city Fred Phelps calls home. So I’ve ranted about him before,

Last year the Topeka City Council passed an ordinance disallowing discrimination against city hiring based on sexual orientation. This was much watered down from the original proposal, which would have added orientation to the other factors(race, religion, etc) in anti-discrimination laws which prevent discrimination in hiring or renting, either in the city or public hiring.

Not too long after petitions were being circulated to repeal even the watered down version. Those who are FOR equal rights started their own campaign to keep it.

Well, by using misleading wording on several petitions, enough names of registered voters were gathered to put on the ballot a proposed ordinance which would not only repeal the city law preventing discrimination in city hiring, but specifically prevent any legislation being enacted that, in their words, would grant gays and lesbians “special rights” I’m told it is the same as a law that was enacted in Cincinatti in the early 90’s, although it was later revoked.

The vote is on March 1, and I’m not sure that enough people are going to vote NO!
If it passes Topeka will have specifically made discrimination against gays and lesbians legal.

The scare tactics go on. Permit me post the letter to the editor of our newspaper, the Topeka Capital-Journal, that I wrote this afternoon and submitted by email.

*Dear editor:

On Sunday morning, 2/20, I was in my Sunday School classroom, getting it ready before the children arrived. I glanced out the window and saw two people hurrying through our church parking lot, slipping fliers under the windshield wipers of the cars. Hurrying away, looking guiltily around them, they were gone in a maroon van before I could get outside and prevent my own car from getting a flier.

What I found was a flier from and organization styling itself the Vote YES! Topeka Committee, Mara Jones Treasurer. Of course there was no address, so that I might protest their invasion of my privacy. The flier was urging me, in hateful language, to vote yes on the March 1, City of Topeka Ballot question. That’s the one that would prevent ordinances being passed to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Well let me tell you Mara Jones, whoever you and your committee are, that even had I not already decided to vote NO your ugly flier would have made that decision for me. How DARE you touch my private property to spread your hate and fear mongering? And to those who place the fliers, just be glad I didn’t get your license plate number, and sue you for whatever I could.

Topekans, an earlier letter writer said it better than I could. “If you vote YES on this issue, you will be voting the way Fred Phelps wants you to.” So I say, remember that when you go to the polls on March 1, okay?*

At a Vote NO! rally this afternoon I heard from another person whose church was also targeted by these “hit and run” flier folks, as was my parent’s church. You wouldn’t believe the outright lies, and sanctimonious garbage about “preserving the sanctity of Kansas families” in them. And I found out that “Mara Jones” is the maiden name of a daughter-in-law of Fred.

I’m going to find out if the parking lot tactic is legal. I mean, can they touch my car like that, without my permission? Much less come onto private church property?

Sorry this was so long. I’m still steaming, and really, really, REALLY needed to vent. I’m glad I have the SDMB, so I don’t do something stupid.

2

Let us know if the newspaper actually publishes your silly rant, because I doubt it. You want to sue someone over a flyer? Give us a break.

3

Baker, you’re on the right side of the debate, but flyering is an accepted, common tactic of political campaigning and has been for yonks. I suppose I had to “touch people’s private property” in order to distribute my party’s fliers into people’s mailboxes during the last three elections, as did all the other parties in my riding.

Unless the campaigners damaged your windshield wipers, you should probably just recycle the flyer, give a donation or volunteer for to the NO side, and get on with life.

4

It’s a more than equitable arrangement, when you think about it

5

I don’t think your rant is silly, Baker, and I hope the paper prints it. I would be surprised if you have any legal cause of action against the flier distributor, though. Most parking lots are private property, and placing fliers on windshields in parking lots is pretty common.

I hope the people of Topeka are fair minded enough to vote the measure down. Even people who think homosexuality is wrong are not likely to want to be associeated with the likes of Fred Phelps. Anyway, if the measure passes it can be challenged in the state and federal courts. Deliberate institutionalized discrimination is unconstitutional, or should be.

6

matt, I guess I am just so peeved that this issue might actually pass that I’m not seeing straight. It just makes me want to wash my brain when I see stuff like that. I thank you for your reasoned, well thought out comments.

But I still hope my letter gets published. I don’t suppose I really mean I’d sue, but it might possibly make those bozos think twice before trying it again.

7

I hate windshield flyers, even when I agree with whatever ideas are on them. As far as I’m concerned, everyone who uses this technique should be prosecuted under the city’s littering ordinances.

Note: I do not agree with Fred Phelps. He is a deeply icky person.

8

It may be important to find out the constitutionality of that proposed ordinance. I’d ask our esteemed Dopers-at-law to say what they can about the jurisprudence in the Cincinnati case, particularly in reference to Romer v. Evans. What I can find as a layman seems to indicate that it was sent back for a decision in conformity with Romer but that a little chicanery brought about a Sixth Circuit decision (which was denied cert.) upholding the Cincinnati ordinance on dubious grounds.

Taking Baker’s word that the proposed Topeka law is closely parallel to the Cincinnati one, it might be worth her while (or that of other Topekans standing in opposition to it) to make the public aware of the litigation associated with the Cincinnati ordinance.

9

Why? Is the Topeka Capital-Journal in the habit of publishing drivel?

10

At the rally I attended this afternoon there was discussion of the constitutionality of the proposed law. From the Washburn University of Topeka’s Law School there was a law professor who spoke, and he was the one who equated Topeka’s proposed ordinance with that of Cincinatti. He said Ohio’s law had been upheld in lower courts, and finally, the US Supreme Court had declined to hear it.

This gentleman said our best chance to avoid a long legal struggle against the ordinance was to defeat it at the polls on March 1. :frowning:

Let’s just hope that we can vote it down.

11

milroyj, please, what I done to you that’s got you so upset?

12

In the US, putting anything in someone’s mailbox is a crime, unless you’re a letter carrier. I think it’s a felony, though I’m not sure.

I think that people are getting increasingly tired of advertisements being presented at every oportunity. Getting telemarketing calls used to be an incredible annoyance in the US, but now we’ve got a national Do Not Call list, and just about everyone’s happy about it except the telemarketers. Internet popup ads are the bane of many sites, and many people are now using popup blockers. I see fliers infrequently, but I still don’t like them, and apparently quite a few people feel the same way. I don’t mind seeing ONE ad on a street post, for a garage sale, perhaps, but having the whole post covered with ads looks incredibly tacky, especially when the ads start getting tattered. I think that advertisers will find more and more limits put on their outlets, since they are incapable of restraining themselves.

13

Nothing, please accept my heartfelt apologies. I got carried away, and I was wrong. I, also, hope that the ordinance does not pass.

14

No problem, we all have our days!

15

Baker, although I support your efforts and loathe the likes of Phelps, I hope your letter doesn’t get published. Threatening to sue someone over placing political flyers is excessive in my opinion, and for those who don’t think gay rights are particularly important, you want to avoid associating the fight for rights with excessive use of the courts (a meme that hatemongers are already trying to encourage). While your outrage at their deceptive and cowardly practices is in the right place, I think your letter may do more harm than good.

16

Further information:

In today’s Topeka newspaper , at www.cjonline.com the lead article on the front page is “Time article focuses debate” It’s about one of our primary election races for City Council. It references an article in Times magazine, 2/21, about the race. Two of the people running are Tiffany Muller(incumbent, openly lesbian) and Jael Phelps, a granddaughter of Fred.

The upcoming vote on March 1, is detailed, if you care to read about it. In case you can’t read it, the proposed ordinance, backed by the Phelps and the fundies, reads.

*"Shall the following be adopted?

The city of Topeka, Kansas and its various boards and commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation or gender identity or expression;status, conduct or relationship; constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference,or other preferential treatment.

This provision of the City Code shall in all respects be self-executing. Any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy enacted befoe this provision is adopted that violates the foregoing prohibition shall be null and void and of no force or effect.*

If the above ordinance passes it will be specifically legal in Topeka to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I find it ironic that one councilperson quoted in the article, who “takes issue” with the idea that voting “Yes” on this means you are in agreement with the Westboro Baptist Church. is already protected by law, in anti-discrimination ordinances, on two counts, her gender and her race.

BTW, I got a phone call this morning from the newspaper. It’s their practice to contact letter writers before printing letters to the editor, to be sure the signer really wrote it. It usually means the letter will be printed soon. So maybe tomorrow! :smiley:

17

Sorry, I forgot that even to read the front page online you have to register. I know it’s free, but I realize some don’t care to do it. I can provide information from the article if anyone wants to know.

Or if you read Time magazine, check out the article mentioned, titled “In Topeka, Hate-Mongering is a Family Affair.”