The Human Rights Ordinance in Irvine

Like others, I’ve wrestled with the pros and cons of Irvine’s Measure N, the “sexual orientation” issue. On the surface, I wondered, “Why not?” Fair housing and employment seem so basic to America. Nagging questions caused me to reconsider the “sexual orientation” clause.

Is it necessary? Is blatant discrimination taking place? To my surprise, the Irvine Human Rights Committee, in its yearlong study, found no discrimination taking place regarding sexual orientation. What can Irvine add to the Bill of Rights, Constitution, national and state laws?

Is it fair? Protection granted to one group may restrict or remove the rights of others. What about the rights of employers? Is it in conflict with current state law? All child-care centers are required by law to screen employee applicants on the basis of sexual history. According to an attorney specializing in this field, suspected illegal sexual behavior is sufficient cause either to not hire or fire an employee. But the employee can claim discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” The result: Child-care centers may choose to ignore state law rather than risk legal action.

I’ve changed my mind. I’m going to vote yes on N.

DAVE SCOTT

Irvine