Once again, the social infra-structure of our native Cincinnati is under attack from a most unlikely source. Once again, the formerly respected Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce has embarked on a course designed to alter, rather than affirm, traditional community values. Let us hope that the result this time is different from that obtained three years ago, when we addressed an earlier foray with our internet note, "An Expert Is Not Someone From Out Of Town" (below).
The issue, then, was an unfortunately successful effort by the Chamber to demonstrate their contempt for local culture and talent, by promoting Issue 5, to undermine morale and esprit de corps in the Police and Fire Divisions of our Department of Safety; authorizing the Cincinnati City Government to fill upper echelon positions with imported personnel, rather than from the ranks of dedicated career officers, native to our city. Now, the battle is over Issue 3, intended to repeal Article XII of the City Charter, handily adopted by voters in the previous decade to prevent City Council from passing any Ordinance which could require an employer or landlord, against his will, to hire or rent to an avowed Homosexual.
The arguments of the proponents of Issue 3 take three principal tacks: First, that Article XII prevents Chamber of Commerce member companies from hiring qualified personnel outside the City. Second, that the Article hurts the City because we are losing potential Convention business, because Homosexuals are offended by the provisions, and the vote of the people which adopted them. Third, that the Article treats Homosexuals unfairly, and puts them at a disadvantage with respect to other Cincinnatians. These arguments are all disingenuous, if not flagrantly dishonest.
Since no one is breaking down doors to spy on private conduct, these issues really only arise with respect to those who choose to deliberately flaunt practices which they know offend others. They have, then, no reasonable complaint if others are offended. To demand that the rest of us be stripped of our right to reject offensive conduct on our own private property, is to take the Socialist assault on basic freedom to a new low.
Nothing in the present law prevents any member of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce from hiring anyone who is sexually deviant. Again, what the proposed Issue 3 would do, is to enable City Council to pass an Ordinance to deny basic freedoms to everyone else: The Freedom to not hire those whose personal conduct is deemed offensive or immoral; the Freedom to determine who will come on one's own property; the Freedom to practice Biblically based Western Religion.
We are not suggesting reviving the stoning pits of the Old Testament. But one certainly has a right not to be forced to spend one's money to hire someone who flaunts an intention to act in a manner that for at least 3,000 years has been considered an abomination in Western theology. This is obvious to anyone not suffering from the most pathological and subjective form of "Tunnel Vision."
Compassion for the sexually dysfunctional is understandable. It is in our sexuality--the distinct interactive roles of being men and women--that we participate in the dynamic of God's ongoing Creation. But compassion for the less fortunate is no reason to strip away the most basic right of property, nor the right to maintain moral standards in one's patterns of association.
The myth that Cincinnati suffers from a loss of Convention business, because it is not seen as friendly to Homosexuals, begs several carefully ignored questions. Few people with principles will put making money ahead of all other considerations, and turning Cincinnati into a second San Francisco, New York, Miami or Houston, is not something most rooted Cincinnatians consider a reasonable price to pay for a few extra dollars in Convention business. Put another way, most Cincinnatians would probably prefer it, if the particular Conventions, supposedly lost, never came here anyway. But the whole question of what is good for local business has been completely distorted by the propagandists for the forced acceptance of flaunted deviancy.
Cincinnati retail businesses hardly depend upon Conventions to draw business from out-of-town. A great deal of business comes into the City because of its two Major League sports franchises, excellent Zoo, etc.. It is also a magnet--declining perhaps, because of the superior development of entertainment in Northern Kentucky--for a large area in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana: For rural and small town folk, simply looking for a change of pace--a place to take the family--to shop or dine, or whatever. Does anyone really think encouraging homosexual exhibitionists to flaunt their "lifestyle" in our midst, is the way to build this reservoir of potential business? Has anyone in the Chamber actually thought through their proposal?
Finally, consider the absurdity of the idea that Article XII treats Homosexuals unfairly; that it is somehow unfair to allow employers and landlords to prefer not to associate with those whose conduct is offensive, if that offensive conduct involves "sexual orientation." Clearly, the "unfairness" aspect is on the other foot. To strip away others' rights to reject a particular group, in their own private affairs, is unfair. Freedom is not.
No one would argue that an employer should be forced to hire someone suffering from a disease that left their body oozing foul smelling discharges from numerous open sores. That is both offensive and a likely source of contagion. But if those sores are the result of a "lifestyle" reflecting "sexual orientation," the rejecting employer might have to defend himself.
To put this upside down "logic" of the proponents of Issue 3 into still another perspective, consider the consternation over the local Archdiocese's former retention and cover-up of child abusing, homosexual Priests. Why would anyone want to weigh in, legislatively, with an ordinance that might put other Cincinnati employers in the same unfortunate position? The Archdiocese, trying to be compassionate to both Homosexuals and victims, made a mistake. They appear to have learned from it. Not so, the Chamber of Commerce. "No," we are told by the proponents, "It is wrong to discriminate." But we have already answered that argument, as to all such attacks on individual freedom, in our Conservative Debate Handbook:
To "discriminate" or be "discriminating," was always considered a virtue . . . up until the late 1950s or early 1960s. It meant to exercise deliberate judgment; to make essential distinctions--to make choices based upon reason and taste. In outlawing discrimination, you outlaw freedom. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom. An American discriminates when he attends one Church, rather than another; when he buys one newspaper, rather than another; chooses a particular style of home; eats steak rather than fish, or fish rather than steak. An American discriminates when he votes for one candidate and rejects another. And it has never mattered whether that choice was based upon issues or appearance, family tradition or a whim of the moment. . . .
An American discriminates in the choice of entertainment--in what stations he tunes to, or what channels he watches. He discriminates in the choice of friends; in the names he gives his children; in whether he sends them to a public or private school; in all of the most important of life's choices. . . in deciding which woman he should court; or in the case of a woman, with whom she will consider a serious commitment. We do not deny that the exercise of basic freedom may cause suffering among those not chosen in the deliberate decisions of others. That . . . changes nothing. Those who would justify the destruction of freedom in the guise of abolishing economic privation or hurt feelings, are on an absurd tangent. The most grievous pain comes in the primal human pursuit; and it simply cannot be seriously contended that anyone denied employment because of the superficial whim of a particular employer . . . suffered half so much as the poor girl who had to live all her days a spinster, because she happened to be ugly. Nor is the agony of the unaccepted male any less.
The typical . . . answer to this argument is that people remain free to discriminate, so long as they do not do so on bases legislatively determined to be "unjust." But a people free to manage their private affairs only "so long as" they accept the judgment or criteria of Legislators catering to varied interests, are not free at all. "So long as" is the negation of freedom. . . . the answer to concern over the pain of rejection lies not in the antics of politicians, but in a spirit of civility--in the encouragement of good manners and kind feelings. You cannot legislate manners or feelings. You can repress freedom. [Chapter 19--"Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society]
Forty-Five years ago, the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce was an ally of local Conservatives--on the side of freedom. But since then, sophistication has set in! Yet this is not about changing sides. There need to be consequences for those who would use their money and influence to undermine a community's values. The contemporary Chamber, both as to the hiring of personnel and promoting value systems, has chosen to identify with interests and values alien to those of traditional, rooted, Cincinnatians. They will have no one to blame but themselves, if traditional Cincinnatians choose to patronize businesses that do not choose to participate in the Chamber's games. That is our right.
William Flax
Attorney At Law
414 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202