In response to Johnathan Lott's justifications for Charter Amendment 1 in his Thursday column, I think Benjamin Franklin phrased it best when he said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As with most legislation, there's plenty of pork to dissatisfy people on both sides of the issue.
Charter Amendment 1 promises to not only remove the rights of LGBT members in our society but also prevent sexual predators from invading women's restrooms.
The loss of rights of the LGBT community has been described as "collateral damage" in the march towards the "greater" good of removing predators from bathrooms.
I have to ask, though. What's preventing predators from walking into any bathroom now and committing a heinous act?
Lott would like to think that under current legislation, businesses would be forced to create new special bathrooms; however, even as a cynical libertarian, I don't believe the government could get away with such a massive overhaul on business infrastructure.
Proponents of the amendment would have you believe that under current law, some people might become "uncomfortable" at the act of a transgendered person entering their bathroom.
Last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution protects individuals and groups from outright harm or discrimination, not to not feel offended.
We must not forget who's at the source of this hate speech: Ultra-neo-conservative religious groups who want nothing more than to restrict the rights of people different from them.
It's classic homophobia, pure and simple.
