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 statusThe 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|
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.