As Traverse City was debating this issue three years ago, there were arguments on both sides.  One openly homosexual man made it clear he disagreed with the ordinance of the day that conferred Special rights to a group identified by its specific activities. A manager at a local restaurant chain, he openly admitted he was 'gay,' yet argued that the ordinance under discussion was a violation of the Rights of business owners.

And he was correct.

In that same meeting, a woman who by today's standards has every claim to special considerations painfully pleaded for the commission to reconsider allowing such a thing to go forward:

And some folks just call the cries for this ordinance "whining."  It seems one wheelchair bound Traverse City resident understands "rights" better than most of those who were present and are truly able to enjoy real liberty, yet cannot accept the cost for their choices.  TC Resident Laura says:

"I am in a wheel chair  I am not going to whine about it.  I am not afraid of anyone.  I have two brothers that are gay and I am not afraid of gays, friends etc.. I feel its my obligation to speak, and I am against this ordinance .. it shouldn't be a special selected group of people..  If i get fired I am not going to find a lawyer and sue.  Its LIFE and that's my feeling on this."

Indeed..  Our litigious society has made it so easy to become a victim.  A cross-eyed look in the wrong environment can render a business owner's personnel decisions moot, if made while making a hiring or firing.

Voters in Royal Oak will face this as so many other communities in Michigan have.

They will be chastised for bigotry if it fails or applauded for their willingness to embrace all manner of diversity if it passes.  To 'normalize' in the minds of Royal Oak generational youth, a deviant activity of choice, its citizens will give up their own choice of belief and morality.  They will cede their Right to make decisions on hiring, associations, leasing, religion, and morality to yet another government regulation.  They will allow outside influences to proselytize acceptance of THEIR morality as an acceptable alternative to one that promotes true freedom and choice of consequence.

And failure to do so, will invite other attempts in future votes until they have been made complicit with the ongoing agenda of breaking down family institutions; a place where government serves its people no more, but becomes the enslaver, punishing the 'Thought Crime' of leaving the plantation of neo-morality.