What century is this?

Do we expect that laws alone will change what is in the hearts of people? I have always had my concerns that measures like this just serve to divide and galvanize people more. What about my personal right to free-association? Where are our real civil liberties in this nation?

Now I am for banning government endorsed segregation (two sets of public bathrooms and water fountains? Now that is just plain insane and silly) - however I have great concerns that the real issues of bigotry is not addressed by legislation such as this and it will only serve to bury resentment deeper and increase the latent hostility.

The winning of hearts and minds about the virtues of equality, individuality, freedom of choice and expression will not be won by taking away people's rights of freedom of association. How far removed from the virtues of liberty and reasoned debate must the left be in order to find themselves holding business owners hostage at the end of a gun to enforce integration?

What ever happened to virtuous protest? Economic pressure? Boycotts? Public relations campaigns? Why must the answer always be, more government, more oppression, more dictatorial rule?

-Wes Wagner Candidate, Oregon House District #39

Mods, please remove the duplicate posts - there was an error over here as a result of the new optical character verification system for posting and some very serious network lag.

Protests? Boycotts? Economic Pressure? Against who, a few biggoted land-owners?

Sometimes this can work, but talk a walk around any college campus. If we were to boycott every single issue that is out there, we'd be eating bugs and never going anywhere!

Government's primary purpose is to protect people. It is NOT supposed to be the enemy. If anyone feels that way, then they should not be elected to office.

I suspect that if one were truly a part of a discrimated minority, they'd feel differently. Frankly, I am tired of it. 30+ years of endless biggotry. I pay higher than my fair share of taxes and get less civil rights.

I have no patience for protests or sanctions against those that really just need to get educated. When do we get the right to marry?... when I am 80????

So long as your battle involves using the government to take away the rights of other people, it is going to take longer for you to gain the right to marry than you would prefer.

You can't remain intellectually consistent if you believe people have some fundamental human rights but not others, and those holes in your rhetoric will be used against you even when you make a proper argument, such as advocating equality in human relationships. The right does the same when they argue that propertty rights, the rights to self-defense, etc etc are important, but the right to free expression or freedom of association, freedom of relationships, spousal choice, etc are not.

Be consistent in your view of freedom and liberty; then you can change people's minds and hearts.

Sincerely, Wes Wagner Candidate, Oregon House District #39

I believe in a world where a person has a legal right to be a complete jackass, because the alternative is far less desirable. I also will be one of the people who refuses to eat at a restaraunt run by a jackass.

If I were renting an apartment and I told one of my friends that the place next door was available and the owner didn't rent to him because he was gay, well the owner would have two vacant apartments to deal with instead of one, and maybe more after I told all my neighbors.

What exists of gay rights in this nation (albeit limited) does not exist because of legislation. It exists because a large portion of americans have learned from the past. Bigotry has no tangible value and you get further in life accepting people and treating them equally.

Yes, it should be the building owner's freedom to refuse service to anyone, even if he/she doesn't like the color of your shirt. There are better methods of dealing with issues such as those in our society than to turn more power over to our government, and they can be far more effective if people have the moral conviction to do the right and honorable thing. And if they don't, no amount of government will change that either.

Just because you use the threat of force by the government to force someone to take an ethical action, will not leave that person an ethical person, once that threat of force is removed or is no longer present when that person's ethics are challenged again. All you have done is become an aggressor, and taught that individual that force is an acceptable choice in human interaction.

Both parties in the end will most likely be worse off for it.

Sincerely, Wes Wagner Candidate, Oregon House District #39

As an afterthought, in case the general body of readership here has lost their way just a bit, I am going to provide the first entry for the definition of the word "liberal" - which can be found at one of my favorite sites (and helpful since I went to public school) www.dictionary.com

lib·er·al Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl) adj. 1. 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Equal protection under the law means that all laws that are passed must protect people equally. It is not a mandate that a law must be passed to regulate every form of commerce or human interaction to the point where all economic and human activities are goverend by law.

Your reference to a constitutional amednment that I agree with very strongly is inappropriate in this case. There is no mandamus that we must regulate the rental market nor set laws regarding who may or may not be rented to.

If the government owned and was renting the housing, I would agree with you. (Though I would consider that a sad state of affairs) Also I would agree with you that the current policy regarding gays in the military is unconstitutional due to said amendment. There are many places where government engages in hiring and economic activity where you would be correct, but the 14th amendment applies to the law and government activities, not private commerce.

If it did, you would not legally be allowed to have women-only health clubs, gay-only bars, or any other type of voluntary commercial/association discrimination.

Sincerely, Wes Wagner Candidate, Oregon House District #39

Living in a free country means freedom of choice and freedom of action for everyone. That being said, I would like to focus on electing people who will protect freedom, and not not focus on anyone's particular orientation or preference or whatever.

The Fair Housing Act makes it pretty clear that we've granted government the right to protect against housing discrimination based on someone's identity--race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth. So the precedent is there (unless you feel the Fair Housing Act is unconstitutional?), though unfortunately GLBT-identities were not included explicitly for protection under the act.

So don't parrot Goldwater in saying the government can't legislate morality. It's not about that. It's about equal access. The FHA allows exceptions for small-time landlords, for instance people renting a room out of their home. But when a landlord crosses the volume threshold where their renting practices impact the greater community, government regulation against discrimination can, does, and should apply. There is a compelling public interest in that, and in extending these protections to the GLBT community.

I hope Hillsboro does the right thing.

Since there is no discrimination going on in Hillsboro towards GLBT, it is Politically correct haymaking. Passing any such laws won't do anything for a GLBT person who was turned down for City services or employment for other reasons.

The only reason the City councel would ever pass such a resolution or ordance would be to increase thier own support for elections and to publish something in the city newsletters that they ended sexual orientation discrimination. Yeah, like it is really happening.

Discrimination in general happens. I have been discriminated against from many jobs because I was the wrong color, sex, wrong politics, wrong beliefs, wrong language, wrong sexual appeal. Laws cannot change peoples hearts and you cannot dictate how people are to believe and feel towards one an other....I sort of thought that was the job of relgion anyway.

Well the Fair Housing Act was a federal law - and I would love to see the actual constitutionality of it debated. I doubt it would stand up to genuine 9th and 10th amendment scrutiny. However that is outside the scope of what we can do as a State in Oregon (although it should not be ... a little more sovereignty would be a good thing).

Now this is theoretical, but if the Fair Housing Act were deemed constitutional, I would agree that it should apply to all forms of discrimination, not just those that had an influential lobby at the time it was written. Consistency in law is a very important thing.

I would hope that the Fair Housing Act would not stand however. Free association is a very important civil right. Imagine if a retirement community that has a 55+ age requirement were told by 100 people in their mid twenties and thirties with babies, young children, and loud teenagers that they wanted to and should have the right to rent any unit in their community and it is unfair to discriminate against them?

Rights need to flow in all directions, even those that we personally find distasteful. Otherwise we will lack the intellectual and moral consistency to argue for the protection of our own rights, which we deem important, when someone else with more power and force comes to take them from us.

Sincerely, Wes Wagner Candidate, Oregon House District #39

All this commentary by Wes Wagner is getting unbearably tiresome. I just waved my little fairy wand. I hope that makes him go away.

Mr. Wagner, your statement : "What about my personal right to free-association?" Is that paraphrasing from the U.S. constitution?

I figured it must have taken some creative thinking to inject fear over the theoretical loss of whom we're free to associate with in regards to efforts by the Hillsboro Basic Rights Action Team to get the non-sexual orientation or identity discrmination topic on the city council agenda.

No need to panic Mr. Wagner. The city doesn't have such a ban yet. Unfortunately, anti-discriminatory codes are neccessary, because even though people may oppose discrimination, they may not have the luxury of being able to turn down an opportunity to get an apartment as a personal statement against a landlord who discriminates against another person.

It's only the naieve, afraid, devious, and mean spirited people who are responsible for requiring such codes in the first place. Hillsboro seems to be on track regarding defense against discrimination. Below is Hillsboro's current equal employment policy:

2.36.050 Equal employment opportunity.

It is the policy of the city that all persons are entitled to equal employment opportunities and benefits regardless of race, religion, color, sex, marital status, political affiliation or national origin. Discrimination on the basis of age, relationship or mental or physical disability is also prohibited except where a particular position requires a valid occupational qualification. (Prior code § 1-18.5)

If the good people of Hillsboro want to include sexual orientation to the classes of people they are protecting from abuse in a citywide civil rights ordinance, then let them do it.

The real solution would be to include sexual orientation in the state's civil rights statutes, but this has not happened. By municipalities such as Hillsboro enacting local ordinances like this, it sends a signal to Salem to get working on such legislation.

Once more states have passed similiar legislation, we will see federal civil rights statutes changed to include sexual orientation as a class of people protected from inappropriate descrimination.