Friday, March 6, 2009

"I wouldn't rent to a homosexual."

Out of Missouri, Kirkville City Council recently passed a law 3-1 protecting sexual orientation in its housing laws. Everyone thinks it's a great idea... except for the one dissenter.

Everyone on the council voted to add in the “sexual orientation” wording except Councilman and Pastor Aaron Rodgerson.

He says gay rights are a slippery slope and that the majority of people in Kirksville do not support them. “They (gays) should not be protected by an anti-discrimination law. That person made a choice. A person that is black did not have a choice. A person that is female doesn’t have a choice because they are female. A person does have a choice as to what their sexual orientation is,” Rodgerson said.

When asked if he would rent to a gay person, Rodgerson said, “No. If I knew they were gay, no.”
Real sensitive, Mr. Rodgerson. That's real cool. *sigh* So many battles to fight, so few swords to wield, so small an army to fight with. (The natural progression would be "so much blood to spill," but I'm not that violent. I'm rude, crude, argumentative and bitchy... but not violent. Or murderous.)

Thanks to @gaysdotcom for the heads up.


Anonymous said...

But stereotypically, what happens when gays take over a neighborhood? They gentrify it. They fix what's broken, remodel the rest, and property values go up.

I have an uncle who's a landlord and he's said, "I wish some gays would move in!"

valereee said...

Here's what I find so very hilarious about religious leaders calling sexual orientation a choice and therefore not deserving of protected status: I know a LOT more people who have changed their religion than have changed their sexual orientation. Therefore clearly religion is even more of a choice and even less deserving of protected status, no?

Strangely, I haven't heard a lot of religious leaders saying that religion should cease to have protected status. Hm.