(Most of the Orlando Sentinel articles linked in this post are behind a paywall.)
While Exodus 2005 keynote speaker Jerry Falwell claims to support equal housing, Exodus president Alan Chambers’ position has been a bit less kind — but perhaps evolving.
He once told Ex-Gay Watch that antigay discrimination doesn’t happen. But we pointed out that, a year earlier, he had vowed to discriminate against tenants if they were gays or witches:
“But as a property owner of Orlando, I wouldn’t rent to someone who is gay any more than I would rent to a person who is a practicing witch.”
“I am opposed to special rights for gays just as I am opposed to special rights for heterosexuals or smokers. I can attest to the fact that sexual orientation is not immutable and I urge the city council to vote no on this amendment [in 2002 barring discrimination based on sexual orientation within the Orlando city limits].
Chambers’ active opposition to gay rights became apparent soon after the organization moved to his home city of Orlando. In addition to heading Exodus, Chambers became the leader of People for A United Orlando which, with the Liberty Counsel, sought to defend antigay discrimination in the city. A 2002 city ordinance sought to prohibit large businesses from denying jobs or promotions to people on the basis of sexual orientation. Property owners could not refuse to lease or sell property to someone because of sexual orientation, and public accommodations such as restaurants and hotels couldn’t refuse to serve gays — or heterosexuals or bisexuals. Churches, religious organizations and private clubs were exempt, as were small businesses and landlords with only a few units.
According to the Orlando Sentinel on Oct. 18, 2002, Chambers’ group
paid about $14,000 for a full-page ad scheduled for publication in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday. The ad is signed by about 500 people, including pastors, business people, a few politicians and others.
The ad says gays and lesbians don’t need to be protected from discrimination because there is none in Orlando. Gay workers aren’t being turned away, and neither are gay renters, Chambers said.
Chambers’ ad got ugly:
The ad also says the gay-rights ordinance is being pushed by “militant national gay and lesbian organizations that have targeted Orlando as a key conquest.”
The real aim, opponents said, is the legalization of same-sex marriages and mandated job benefits for the partners of gay workers.
Similar claims were made in a flier mailed to some Orlando homes last week by the Christian Coalition of Florida. The flier bears a photo of two groom figurines atop a wedding cake, above a headline saying, “Orlando Could Be Next! Unless You Act Today.”
On Nov. 24, 2002, as official support for the gay-rights law and opposition to Chambers’ tactics rose, Chambers softened his sales pitch in a Sentinel puff piece:
“Would I rent to gay people? Absolutely. I have numerous gay friends who I would absolutely let rent my property. I don’t think people should be fired. I don’t think people should not be allowed to vote or have the same rights as everyone else. But I don’t think we should give special consideration based on behavior. I don’t think [gays] should be mistreated; I think they should be treated fairly. But I don’t think they should have special rights.”
The Orlando city gay-rights law passed.
Flash forward four years:
In hearings this month on a more limited fair-housing ordinance for Orange County, which encompasses Orlando, Chambers again joined the LIberty Counsel and the Florida Family Policy Council to defend antigay discrimination by landlords.
This time, Chambers’ contribution to local media coverage was low key, his intent clouded:
“Orlando is not a typical place. We have diverse groups and diverse beliefs,” said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International. “When it comes to these issues, it’s the most organized, the most passionate, side that wins.”
On July 11, 2006, the Orange County Commission passed the fair-housing ordinance, which defines sexual orientation as “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender identity or expression.”
I have to say that I think anyone has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Those who suppport anti-discrimination laws deny freedom of association and contract. There’s nothing “fair” about using government coercion against people.
I’m not so foolish to say that gay people are not sometimes discriminated against, but that’s not relevant. There is no “right” to compel someone to make a contract against their wishes. That’s the sort of “offer you can’t refuse” that the mafia is known for.
So yes, I’ll defend antigay discrimination, anti-hetero discrimination and anti-Christian discrimination. Name your discrimination and I’ll defend it. That is not, however, to be mistaken for agreement with it.
Mark, I think opposing antidiscrimination laws is the proper role of a libertarian group, not religious-right groups that seek to apply existing antidiscrimination laws selectively.
I believe the exemptions for small-scale renters are fair. However, if we’re talking about a large corporation that owns a third of the apartment complexes in town, “freedom of association” goes out the window, I think. Some companies are so big they may as well be governments.
And I’m glad Alan didn’t get his way, even though I don’t live there anymore.
I sort of agree with the first Mark. If I, as an individual, owned a rental property I certainly would not rent it to a screeching moron like Chambers. I would prefer not to rent to proven liars.
However, if a corporation, an entity which exists not by any natural process but only by the state, tries to do the same thing, then it’s a problem.
I tend to echo the last two posts. However, as someone who was once turned down for an apartment from an individual renter strictly because I am gay I have my doubts as to whether free association and renting an apartment have anything to do with each other. No one HAS to offer a property for rent, it’s a business proposition even on a small scale. I have a lot of Libertarian leanings, but a no holds barred Libertarian society would likely be a miserable place to live if you weren’t in the majority. Some regulation is necessary to keep things as fair as possible, which is one of the primary goals of this country, even if we don’t always hit the mark.
David Roberts
My libertarian leanings cause me to hesitate when it comes to non-discrimination laws.
In government, I think it completely wrong to discriminate (unless we get to pay less taxes) and it should be illegal to take gay people’s money and then discriminate against them with it. It’s immoral.
In the private sector I think it idiotic to discriminate against gay people (ask any major employer) but I’m not sure it should be illegal. For now, I support non-discrimination to the extent that other groups are protected.
If you can’t be fired or passed over for promotion for being Latino, a woman, single, handicapped, ever having had cancer, a Republican, or a devote fundamentalist evangelical Christian, why should being gay be about the only attribute excluded from the list?
If Chambers et al wish to uphold their right to discriminate, it is hypicritical of them not to also support the right to discriminate based on religion.
When honest and fair people start eliminating priveleges, they start with their own. When selfish people eliminate protections, they start with others.
Guess which one Chambers is.
Tim, your last post…right ON, bro!
Does anyone know where Wayne Besen is getting his Alan Chambers anti-gay housing quote from? Besen doesn’t reference it on his website.
As a property manager, I support non-discrimination laws for large and small landlords. There are plenty of legitimate ways to avoid renting to someone — assuming you have legitimate reasons. I think the only exception would be in a roommate situation in which you would be cohabiting with someone.
The following publications for Orange County, Florida are available for free online viewing: Orange County Code of Ordinances This publication is current through: Supplement 57 Codified through Ord. No. 2006-06, enacted May 23, 2006.Purchase: Orange County, FL – Code of Ordinance (Includes Zoning) – $314.70 (for PDF formatted document)–Chapter 22 HUMAN RIGHTSSec. 22-26. Common title.Sec. 22-27. Declaration of policy; construction of chapter provisions.Sec. 22-28. Scope of effectiveness.Sec. 22-29. Authority.Sec. 22-30. Definitions.Sec. 22-31. Penalty for violations.Sec. 22-32. Additional remedies.Sec. 22-33. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.Sec. 22-34. Exemptions and exceptions to section 22-33. —Hey — I’m not paying $314 to find out what the municipal code says are the exceptions to the anti-discrimination rules, but I’m sure there is a limintation based on the number of units in a property. EQFL would likely know, if a local wants to contact that organization. –A–
If you think it should be legal to discriminate, think of it this way: An apartment building, large or small is a business. There are legitimate reasons for not doing business with someone – which is what renting a unit is, poor credit, bad references, etc. Your main concern as a landlord is making sure the premises are not damaged, rent is paid on time, and other tenants are able to have what’s called “quiet enjoyment” of their units. But letting a unit sit empty is poor business practice, because you’re not making money from it when you could.
Imagine now, if your local supermarket decided they didn’t want to do business with a certain group and let it be known on the street. Perhaps put a sign in the front window, “this business caters to straights only,” or “we cater to caucasian clients.” Think they’d lose business? You bet they would. Employees would be laid off, etc.
Bigotry has a high economic cost.
Still think it should be legal?
Mark said “I have to say that I think anyone has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Those who suppport anti-discrimination laws deny freedom of association and contract. There’s nothing “fair” about using government coercion against people.”…”There is no “right” to compel someone to make a contract against their wishes.”
I don’t know how there can be a society with that kind of unmitigated law of the jungle mentality. Freedom of association and contract will still be mostly up to the individual despite discrimination laws, but if that individual benefits from and participates in society by running a business then it behooves him/her to follow society’s rules which should require justifiable reason (such as harming others, or inability to perform, pay rent, etc.) before rejecting anyone. Something immaterial to being a good tenant or employee, like prefering blue when the boss/landlord prefers brown shouldn’t be a good enough reason to terminate or refuse a contract. Above all society requires balancing individual and group interests, it can’t be all the individual’s or society’s way.
Mark your unqualified support for unrestricted freedom to discriminate and to be “free from being compelled to make a contract against one’s wishes implies to me unqualified support for ignoring all laws. Government coercion can be fair, its fair for govenment to coerce people attempting to murder or harm others. Discrimination can be harmful.
David said “Some regulation is necessary to keep things as fair as possible, which is one of the primary goals of this country, even if we don’t always hit the mark.”
Ooohh, I get to wholeheartedly agree with your summation!
Timothy said “In the private sector I think it idiotic to discriminate against gay people (ask any major employer) but I’m not sure it should be illegal. ”
Doesn’t the law commonly require just cause before terminating employment? Shouldn’t it be that one can’t be fired for reasons irrelevant to job performance/business requirements, reasons like being gay, religious, a certain colour, or liking the colour blue or a particular style of clothing?
I was a landlord once, if Alan Chambers had showed up and looked like the best equipped to be a long term no problem tenant who wasn’t harming anyone else I’d have felt morally obligated to rent to him. Admittedly I couldn’t see him and me as landlord and tenant as he is currently and unlikely to stop harming or attempting to harm others who hurt no one.
“I was a landlord once, if Alan Chambers had showed up and looked like the best equipped to be a long term no problem tenant who wasn’t harming anyone else I’d have felt morally obligated to rent to him. Admittedly I couldn’t see him and me as landlord and tenant as he is currently and unlikely to stop harming or attempting to harm others who hurt no one.”
Randi,
you have just argued against your point. You justify not renting to Alan because he is “unlikely to stop harming or attempting to harm others”. Yet your definition of “harming” (pushing an anti-gay message) is just as subjective as Alan’s definition of “harming” (promoting a “harmful” lifestyle).
And that’s the problem I have with excessive government control. Some bureaucrat gets to decide what is good, healthy, harmful, or bad. And they all walk in with one bias or another.
In some places (like California) legislators want to promote positive images of gays who contribute and also outlaw any criticism of gays whatsoever. In other places, legislators want to pass laws requiring condemnation of homosexuality in public schools. I don’t trust either of them.
I feel that his (Timothy’s) eloquent defense of personal liberty leaves me with little to add. So many people on the ex-gay side throw around words like “choice” and “self-determination” without actually believing them. If they did they would support the choices of presently-gay people to exercise their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, I guess I have conflicted feelings about the issue. What I meant to say is that as a landlord I might be at odds with an anti-discrimination law protecting all meaning Chambers as well. I might feel its justifiable discrimination but the law might not. I’d support the law in principle, but perhaps disagree on this specific case. Just trying to be realistic, being in that situation might be a moral dilemma for me. But I would feel obligated to seriously consider Alan’s tenancy.
My definition of harming with regards to Chambers is for example Exodus opposing the repeal of Carribean laws punishing gay sex with jail or trying to keep it so gays can be fired from their jobs or evicted from their residence. I wasn’t thinking specifically of his anti-gay message.
Timothy I might add that even with minimal government control at some point some government bureaucrat is going to have to decide with their inevitable human biases whether its what’s good, healthy, harmful, or bad. Law enforcement for example. We can’t stop trying to make things better just because the effort is inevitably imperfect.
Randi said, “Yes, I guess I have conflicted feelings about the issue. What I meant to say is that as a landlord I might be at odds with an anti-discrimination law protecting all meaning Chambers as well.”
Well, that’s rather the key to the whole process, and I’m sure you realize that, even if Chambers doesn’t: participating in a society means recognizing that sometimes the rule of law will seem distasteful even when it is being fair.
I am personally unconvinced by the argument, because while it sounds good on the surface, it ultimately collapses when we approach laws that we do favor. Why stop simply at nondiscrimination? Why not apply the same logic to copyright and patent laws, for example? The only thing that guarantees ownership of intellectual property is the government’s recognition of who owns that property. If we don’t accept government meddling as regards to discrimination, why do we then place authority upon who government says owns a piece of intellectual property? I could call into question every arena in which the government has the authority to affect business dealings. What we are willing to accept as the valid role of government in business dealings seems to me to be the extent with which that involvement affects us personally.
“Doesn’t the law commonly require just cause before terminating employment?”
In New York State, a person can be fired for any reason or no reason. On the other hand, also in New York State, it is illegal to fire someone for being gay, black, Jewish, etc. I’d love to see how these two contradictory laws are reconciled.