Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Carmel City Council Schedules Quick Vote on Controversial Human Rights Ordinance

The Carmel City Council has scheduled a quick vote on a proposed human rights ordinance. While I haven't seen the exact wording of the ordinance introduced on Monday, according to the Indianapolis Star the measure protects the following classes from discrimination:
gender identity or expression and sexual orientation as well as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, family or marital status, ancestry, age and veteran status
The ordinance opens the door to applications its supporters probably never thought about.  What about men's or women's clubs or groups that limit membership by age?  Or companies that prefer veterans over non-veterans, or try to hire the disabled?  What about a Carmel Chuck E' Cheese that wants to boot out an older person hanging around the kids?  

What the sponsors of this measure, and Mayor Jim Brainard do not understand is that these types of measures have to be carefully written because often in the course of trying to eliminate discrimination you can open the door to more discrimination.

Carmel Councilor Sue Finkam
Of course, unforeseen problems could be made foreseen through the committee process, with public testimony and other constituent input.  The council and the Mayor obviously are not interested in public input as they have scheduled a vote on the measure next week, barely a week after it was originally introduced.

That Carmel elected officials are dismissive of the public's opinions on this HRO is evident from Councilor Sue Finkam's highly snide retort to her constituent Betsy Johnson Harvey.  When the Carmel resident expressed strong objections to the ordinance, Finkam replied that she would help her find a mover.

At least Finkam's response was coherent. Mayor Brainard's legal justification for the ordinance ...not so much:
The ‘free exercise of religion’ guaranteed to U.S. citizens in the First Amendment to the Constitution does not give one the right to discriminate. If one were to claim that their religion allows discrimination in treatment of certain groups does it not follow that one can then be exempt from being charged with murder, robbery, theft and other crimes so long as it is done under the auspices of some ‘religion?
There is just so much wrong with this statement.  Unfortunately I don't have time to address all the problems.  Obviously Mayor Brainard's long abandoned legal practice did not include dealing with constitutional law.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having lived and owned in Carmel under the Reign of King Jim Brainard, I can attest that not only did Mayor Brainard's long abandoned legal practice not include dealing with constitutional law, Mayor Brainard's habitual everyday practice does not include common sense or much of Truth either.

As for that snide, rude, underserving of public office Carmel Councilor Sue Finkam to a citizen, well... the haggard-looking Finkam should be run out of office on a rail. She is a mirror of Brainard... haughty without basis, arrogant, "in charge" of the little people, dismissive of citizens.

I am one person who is pleased beyond words to have moved out of that close-minded, politically incestuous Peyton Place where Brainard-induced tax debt will some day send shock waves beyond even Brown County. Valerie and Matt Tully are now exactly where they belong.

Pete Boggs said...

Wow- this is spectacularly stupid! Are people in Carmel aware of the First Amendment? They'll have an edge-ucation figuring out gender fluid facilities in the shiny indoctrination centers they call schools...

John Accetturo said...

Brainard has choosen political correctness over God. Now he wants to force it on the residents of Carmel. Councilwoman Finkam is just obnoxious.

Moniqo said...

If the actual problem does not exist, why make it artificially? It seems as if sometimes they just know what else to do. Too much attention is being drawn to the problem of discrimination.