Article Tools
Jeanette Zentgraf, 75, is on a mission. A member of the conservative policy group Concerned Women for America, Zentgraf says she aims to persuade the Missoula City Council to nix a proposed law that would make it illegal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The law would be the first of its kind in the state.
"It's a hard sell," Zentgraf admits.
The diminutive Zentgraf was the only person to testify against the ordinance during a committee meeting last week. Though the odds are stacked against her in socially progressive Missoula, she says she'll continue speaking out against the law.
That's because Zentgraf believes an anti-discrimination law would open the door to a range of unjust and frivolous claims. She points to similar legislation on the books in New Mexico that enabled a lesbian couple to file a claim against a photographer who refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony.
The photographer, Elaine Huguenin, said her religious beliefs prevented her from taking pictures of the ceremony. But that didn't fly with the state's Human Rights Bureau, which held her responsible for the plaintiff's legal expenses. In December, a district court judge upheld the findings.
"[The law removes] the right to make a decision based on personal faith and belief," Zentgraf says. "I believe that the business owner should have to decide what's best for their company."
But LGBT advocates say Zentgraf's logic is deeply flawed. Neither the basic tenets of fairness nor Montana's Constitution grant the right to deny housing, employment or services to anyone, says Jamee Greer of the Montana Human Rights Network, one of several groups sponsoring the Missoula ordinance.
"What if she was saying this about people of a different race or a different religion? Would that be acceptable? No," Greer says.
He believes the City Council will ultimately agree.
"I think that we can feel confident that members of the Missoula City Council will do the right thing, and that's pass this ordinance," he says.
Still, Zentgraf says she'll remain vocal, even if it seems no one is listening.
"It's like whistling in the dark," she says.
Showing 1-2 of 2
It is an exciting time both for the body politic and the Church. For those of us who have been baptized into a Chritian faith community it is an opportunity to reach beyond judgment and intolerance and do just as Jesus asked us above all else - to love one another. I still beleive that and suspect that once the smoke clears, there will be many Christians and non-Christians alike who beleive the same.
God Bless you Missoula as you work together to change the world.
Bobbie Zenker
Some see Jesus as a "Peacenik" who was full of their own brand of "tolerance" for sin and sinners. Do you recall reading about the two times he whipped, or at least threatened to whip, the money changers or bankers that had defiled the temple?
This ordinance would require any business dealing with youth, in any respect, to hire homosexuals and cross dressers and others.
It would allow homosexuals and those who may be "confused" about their gender to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex. Men could use the little girl's bathroom. It could be called the Peeping Tom Protection Ordinance.
These are just two of the things this ordinance would do.
Candi Cushman, education analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said "Americans can expect to see more of this problem if schools are forced to surrender to the "whims of gay activist groups – which seem more interested in scoring political goals than in protecting the innocence of children."
"In addition to the risky situations these policies would create – by allowing boys to use girls restrooms – you are talking about complications with biological males being allowed to compete on girls sports teams," she said, "which brings up all sorts of fairness in competition issues.
"We know studies show many children in middle and high school are still developing and processing their sexuality during these vulnerable years," she explained. "So, it's irresponsible to introduce policies that will put them in risky, sexually confusing situations."
Tolerance and support of laws that take the privacy and the safty of our children wives, daughters and sisters away are not "Christian ordinances" and should not be supported by Christians or anyone else.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (2) RSS