In order to eliminate bias susceptibility, it is important for me to state that I am homosexual, atheist and a tenant in an apartment complex. The city is going to decide this week on a bill that bans housing discrimination as a result of sexual orientation. I will attempt to show the moral wrongness of such a law from a gay and non-religious perspective.

The goal of any anti-discrimination law is to use force to impose decisions upon individuals. Let’s use a hypothetical: Let’s say I want to purchase an apartment complex and I only want to have LGBT (Q, A, I, etc. is assumed) people living in the complex. There could be any number of reasons for this. Maybe I want to use an “LGBT community” slogan to target a specific consumer demographic, or maybe I just want to get to know other LGBT people. The reason doesn’t matter. Following the ethical logic of this proposed law, I would be effectively discriminating against heterosexuals and should be civilly punished for my crime.

But wait, is this really a “crime?” This law is essentially saying that I am not the sole proprietor — not really the full owner of my own property. Instead, it is saying that government, “society,” and third parties somehow have a stake in how my land is used and, more importantly, how my preferences are expressed and oppressed. In order to satisfy a basic principle of freedom, one cannot control one’s personal methods of association. I don’t want people telling me how to handle my affairs on my property.

The LGBT community believes that other people are somehow obligated to support them, to the point where they use the brute force of law to impose their will on how others run their lives. The fact that LGBT people generally support the idea of living free without hassle is absolutely ironic.

Mark Salter

commercial aviation major