On June 15, 2011, Holland City Council voted against a basic anti-discrimination ordinance that dozens of Michigan cities have adopted. This vote made it legal to fire and evict people just because they’re gay.

We’ve focused on how awful that is. And it is.

But let’s try to understand the reasons why they voted this way. Perhaps this will reveal a remedy.

Here are ten problems that resulted in the vote against the anti-discrimination ordinance.

Problem #1: The Holland HRC recommendation was ignored.

As Mayor, the honorable Kurt Dykstra appoints the Holland Human Relations Commission (Holland HRC) – a regular feature of city government, that advises on diversity issues.

Mayor Dykstra and members of council instructed the Holland HRC to make a recommendation about protecting the LGBTQ minority from discrimination, following the lead of dozens of Michigan cities that have done so. The Holland HRC researched the issue for almost a year, then recommended unanimously that Holland protect the LGBTQ minority the same as any other.

The Mayor proceeded to vote against it the commission he appoints on the recommendation he requested they make.

Problem #2: Evidence of discrimination was presented and ignored.

At the request of the Mayor, the Holland HRC presented data and evidence of discrimination. Residents and workers told lawmakers firsthand that discrimination exists.

The following clips contain evidence of discrimination. There are more compilations of video demonstration discrimination here, here, here and here.

The five members of council who voted “NO” either concluded that discrimination doesn’t exist, in spite of the evidence… or they chose essentially to preserve business owners right to discriminate (against gay people.)

Problem #3: They chose essentially to preserve business owners right to discriminate against gay people.

The evidence being so clear, it’s hard to imagine (concluding that discrimination does not exist.)

Furthermore, some members of council, including the honorable Todd Whiteman, explained they voted “NO” specifically in order to side with business owners. This establishes the idea that there are two opposing sides, business owners and a minority class of people. And it presumes that business owners ​want​ the right to discriminate.

Problem #4: Business owners widely declared they do not want the right to discriminate.

Preceding, during and after the 6/15/11 vote to legalize discrimination, numerous businesses in the Holland area listed themselves in our Equality Directory, and/or published statements opposing the vote, saying they support the anti-discrimination ordinance. All of the Holland area business that trade publicly have equality policies that far exceed the standard ordinance language. published and presented official statements in support of the anti-discrimination ordinance. Many businesses listed themselves here, on our website.

And we’re talking about the vast majority of employers in the region. Johnson Controls Inc., Herman Miller, Haworth, New Holland Brewery, and dozens (and dozens) more. They don’t want the right to discriminate.

So if (siding with businesses) were the justification for voting against the ordinance, this presumed need has been refused.

Problem #5: Mayor Kurt Dykstra contradicts himself.

Mayor Kurt Dykstra, an attorney, submitted a lengthy statement as justification for his “NO” vote. He quoted 18th Century British lawmaker Edmund Burke, who points out that a representative owes his constituents “not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

This quote virtually begs (Mayor Kurt Dykstra) to do the right thing, in spite of public opinion. It’s something you’d quote before voting “YES” on the anti-discrimination ordinance, in Holland, MI (USA). It almost seemed like the Mayor changed his mind at the last minute, and forgot to eliminate the Burke quote.

Why include a quote like that, if you’re going along with public opinion?

Problem #6: Public opinion was dominated by hate speech, justifying the need for protection.

Is public opinion exclusive to those who supported Mayor Dykstra, the honorable Brian Burch, Todd Whiteman, Myron Trethewey and Nancy DeBoer?

Their supported were loud, but few – here are examples:

The vitriol expressed against the LGBTQ minority revealed a worldview where gay people have no place, other than getting “treatment” for their “condition.” Public testimony included statements by people holding Bibles and saying that “God hates (homosexuality).”

Awful things were said in public testimony, for weeks preceding and following the vote.

This past summer, when the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) conducted hearings in Holland, MI (USA) regarding state protections, additional testimony took place at Holland City Hall. The MDCR Staff and volunteers said (off the record) that the vitriol expressed by opponents of equality in Holland, MI (USA)… exceeded anything they’d ever heard before, and they found it shocking and disturbing.

Problem #7: Supporters of the five who voted “NO” turned this into a referendum on homosexuality.

The conversation was controlled by those who supported the five councilors who voted “NO.” The bigots set the terms.

The framework as established by the bigots went like this: “If you vote to eliminate legal discrimination, you’re voting to approve of homosexuality.”

And there were veiled threats: chaos, ash, brimstone, raining fire, wrath, fury, hellfire, eternal damnation, being turned to salt, and the eternal vengeance of the One Holy God. We were all supposed to take it on faith, that such supernatural things would take place, if Holland City Council voted to protect a minority against discrimination.

Meanwhile, these same people of faith said they required further proof that discrimination even exists. Proof, it should be pointed out, that’s pretty much impossible to come across… so long as discrimination is allowed by absence of any laws to prevent it.

And even proof was offered, it was rejected, denied, refuted and disbelieved.

It never was about the ordinance. It was about Jesus Christ, God, Satan and sodomy.

The ordinance itself is pretty basic. On the other hand, the “wrath of God” stuff is very complicated.

The “sin” stuff got debated. The ordinance never stood a chance, because it was never discussed.

Problem #8: The ordinance was never discussed.

While we grieve the 6/15/11 vote for its cruelty and unfairness, it’s worse than you may think.

What Holland City Council *actually* voted on 6/15/11 was *not* the basic protections for the LGBTQ minority. They were voting on whether to take it up for consideration.

In other words, they voted 5-4 against *even looking at the ordinance.*

They didn’t even want to *see* it.

That’s the dirty little secret about the 6/15/11 vote in Holland, MI (USA).

Problem #9: The evolution of the packaging of hate, by people of a particular faith.

If you’ve been paying attention over the past six months, the messaging for intolerance by Evangelical Christians has evolved, all at once.

There are two overlapping parts of the new packaging for intolerance. And we’re not just talking about a worldview (of intolerance): these people are trying to change laws to dehumanize and subjugate the LGBTQ minority. They are actively trying to oppress a minority through political action.

But “oppression” doesn’t look good on paper, especially since churches are charities, and charities aren’t supposed to get political.

So they have given “oppression” a different name.

If you in any way oppose their efforts to oppress the LGBTQ minority, YOU are doing the following:
1. Taking away their First Amendment rights.
2. Denying them their right to their beliefs.
3. Persecuting them.

Free speech and religious freedom used to be comprised of thoughts, words, expressions, songs, prayers, etc. Nobody could take those away.

But “beliefs” have become synonymous for “action.” Which is technically… “politics.”

It might be proposed that some churches either need to reclassify as Political Action Committees… or just be secure in the knowledge that their beliefs are protected (in contrast to Americans who identify as LGBTQ.)

Problem #10: The minorities should just get their own protections.

The honorable Brian Burch (a “no” vote) said LGBTQ minority members and supporters should “take the conversation to every man and woman in the city and place this on the ballot.” Which entails going “door-to-door” to prompt conversations with people who may despise you. Asking them to vote to protect you from themselves.

This is ludicrous. The scenario is malicious. Imagine knocking on a door, to encounter one of the community members sickened by the sight of you.

Who would suggest that a disenfranchised minority do such a thing?

No other minority group has been told to go organize a public vote, go into unfamiliar neighborhood, and ask the majority, “Will you vote on my equal status in your community?”

No actual minority has been expected to do earn its own protections. Historically, elected representatives and courts have done that. Not the majority.

So why the variation from the entirety of American legislative and judicial precedent, relating to minority rights? What is different?

It can only be the qualifications of the minority in question. There’s no other explanation. Members of council, and some citizens, do not consider LGBTQ an actual minority – they believe the primary characteristic of the group (same sex attraction) is a chosen behavior. A sinful or illegitimate “lifestyle choice.” There is no other explanation.

Even so, even if that perception were reality, it changes nothing: this is a group of law-abiding Americans, whose inclusion in a minority is absolute based on defining characteristics. *And* because of those characteristics, this minority is discriminated against – documented, proven.

The discrimination is real, and it requires a correction. It requires protections.

The city of Holland, MI (USA) protects the basic rights of Islamic residents, as they should – but no rational person mistakes that for a citywide endorsement of the Quran.

The LGBTQ minority, on the other hand, had to realize a much higher threshold: the conversation was controlled to such a degree by those who oppose equal rights, that Holland’s lawmakers seemingly entertained the idea that “protections” equal “endorsement.”

In Conclusion

The problems identified above demonstrate bad thinking on a level that should compel reconsideration of the outcome. The outcome itself was bad enough. The process that led to it was chaotic, deceitful and fundamentally flawed.

As Ghandi said so famously, “The means are, after all, everything.” The way we got here was as bad, if not worse, than the destination. West Michigan is fractured and it’s critically important that we move forward by resolving this.

And it seems to have been forgotten: if lawmakers did their jobs and protected this vulnerable minority, and a majority of the citizenry disapproved, they could create a ballot referendum to overturn an affirmative anti-discrimination ordinance vote. Our democracy is robust. It does not leave us at the whims of our elected leaders. We are powerful. We have a say, every step of the way. Such referendums have taken place in several cities where lawmakers did the right thing (by voting to protect the LGBTQ minority.) But it shouldn’t go the other way around. The minority that is disenfranchised should not have to initiate the ballot initiative – that would violate centuries of precedent in America, and there is good reason for the established precedent.

Either way, it was and is the sole responsibility of the lawmakers in Holland, MI (USA) who voted against the anti-discrimination ordinance. It was a 5-4 vote, so each of them was the deciding vote. At any time, any one of them could initiate the healing of the region, by doing the right thing.

They are good people, leading one of the most beautiful cities in all of Michigan, and there’s every reason to believe their hearts and minds are open to seeing what must be done. There is, always, reason for hope.