Sunday, January 30, 2011

Will Haverford's New Anti-Discrimination Law Cover Pedophiles?

The Haverford Township Board of Supervisors is boldly moving to create a law and a board that will protect people based on their "sexual orientation." Or rather, some people's "sexual orientation." It will ignore the sexual orientation of people who suffer from pedophilia. The board will not protect their "right" to housing, employment, or public accommodation.

Havertown will protect the rights of a man who chooses to wear women's clothes to work. That's called transgenderism. But if you are sexually attracted to children and anyone finds out, you're on your own. That is, unless a discriminated-against pedophile sues the township for refusing to enforce its own ordinance fairly and consistently across the board. Or unless the upcoming Haverford Human Relations Board slips its leash and decides that pedophiles have to be covered under the new law. At which time, the board would be dissolved because of public outrage. Residents of Havertown would not tolerate a law that banned them from being intolerant of pedophiles.

There was never a real need for Haverford to pass this law. Gays face no significant discrimination in the township when it comes to housing, employment or public accommodation. The worst the law's promoters have been able to suggest is that a guy man was whispered about 15 years ago. Today, some "gay" kids are bullied in the high school. I bet some ugly kids are bullied too. That's a problem for school administrators, teachers, and parents to deal with. Not local lawmakers.

This whole process reeks of moralistic showboating. It is local government busybodyism at its most simple-minded. If put to a township vote, I have no doubt the setting up and empowering of a township Human Relations Board board would be rejected.

This is the pet project of only a handful of people devoted to the idea that gay people continue to be the benighted victims of an ignorant and superstitious society, desperately in need of their saintly protection.

Of course, probably the dumbest thing said during the public hearings on this question was the claim made by the mayor of Lansdowne that's its new anti-discrimination law has been a "boon" to the local economy. Is there a person in the county that actually believes that ridiculous claim?

Anyway, if I were a pedophile, I'd be gearing up to challenge the soon-to-be formed HHRC to stick up for my rights.

My print column is up.

UPDATE: From the comments section a mixed reaction:

sassychick wrote on Jan 30, 2011 8:34 AM:
" LOL!!! Points out perfectly how ridiculous this ordinance is. But it's easier for the commissioners to sit around and blow hot air about something stupid like writing an ordinance that's already covered by multiple laws on the books than it is to look at the Township and see how to fix the real problems. "

joe clark wrote on Jan 30, 2011 11:37 AM:
" Even for Spencer, this has to be one of a doozie of "Stupidity senerios" of the day? Always reaching for crap that will never happen to scare people and try in a lame way to make an idiot point. It is the lack of intelligence and believing that people who can read, will actually believe your fantasy comments of the day. Personally, I don't live there and what does this have to do with anyone who doesn't live there. That is what juries are for if there is a further dispute. The "Needing some work" is a tatic that was used to delay rights to African Americans, but eventually it happened and this is going to happen to. The world changes, you either change with it in a positive way or be left behind. "


Anonymous Anonymous said...

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$> <$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

November 29, 2012 at 7:57 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home