Talking Points to oppose House Bill 369 and Senate Bill 11, Ohio's “Sexual Orientation”/ “Gender Identity” bill (the so-called "Ohio Fairness Act")
Why does Ohio NOT need this bill? Here's why.
1. All citizens in Ohio are already protected against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, age, religion, national origin, ancestry, familial status in housing, military status and retaliation. https://crc.ohio.gov/FilingaCharge/ChargeFilingProcedure.aspx
There is no need for protections based on sexual behavior or discomfort with one’s anatomy. These are personal preferences and attitudes, not “rights,” and where such legislation has passed, there’s a track record of harming the freedom, status and current rights of other people.
2. Sexual orientation and gender identity encompass ever-changing definitions, which means moving points of legality. There is no clear evidence these are inborn traits and much evidence these are fluid, changeable preferences. So these terms do not deserve legal protection and have proven so broad that inevitably, they become a tool to suppress free speech, freedom of religion, and well-established rights of others.
3. Homosexual behavior and gender confusion are highly controversial, with demonstrated health and social risks, and millions of Ohioans have deep concerns about validating these identities and behaviors, especially when impressionable children might be taught to accept them inaccurately as normal and uncomplicated.
4. People of many faiths have objections to homosexual behavior and gender confusion. Mandating Ohio’s embrace of these behaviors puts people of faith at best, in difficult positions and at worst, in jeopardy of losing jobs, businesses, parental authority and more. The long-established Ohio civil right of “religion” is automatically in conflict for thousands of Ohioans with the any rights accorded under SB 11, and that in itself makes this bill highly unworkable and even, discriminatory in and of itself.
5. This bill would allow open and unquestioned access for any Ohio male to any female private space-- restroom, locker room, shower, or dressing room. The notion that there will never be males who misuse this new open door policy is reckless and unrealistic. And there are many women and girls who would be extremely stressed and fearful if forced to share such spaces with anatomical males, even males dressed as females. The reality of biology and the instability of many of these confused males, should prevail over careless agendas. Women and young children are endangered by SB 11.
6. Laws like SB 11 in other states have been weaponized to initiate punitive, harsh lawsuits against people who don’t publicly affirm homosexual behavior, same sex ceremonies, “pride” celebrations, or use pronouns that defy reality. These laws have unleashed hammers of punishment and tools of bullying. In one case in Oregon, a Christian couple with five children lost their family-owned bakery and their home after months of harassment, picketing and threatening calls. They were ordered by the state of Oregon to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for that couple’s “stress.” The issue? The bakers had declined the women’s wedding cake order.
7. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission under SB 11 would have authority to develop “educational programs” for primary and secondary schools to “eliminate prejudice” and “emphasize the origin of prejudice against those groups, their harmful effects and incompatibility with American principles of equality and fair play.” This sounds like state-funded permission for pro-“LGBTQ” propaganda. How balanced do we think this report would be in accurately reflecting the religious beliefs of thousands, perhaps millions of Ohio citizens who do not deserve to be accused of “hate” and “prejudice”? And Ohio families don’t deserve to have their children indoctrinated in schools with inaccurate information that unfairly stigmatizes and misrepresents faith.
8. This law treats “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as if these are neutral behaviors. However, the Centers for Disease Control and many other researchers provide facts showing the harm and risk involved.
“LGBTQ” behaviors carry high risks and potentially serious medical consequences. HIV/AIDS data reveals that males who have sex with males account for two-thirds to three-fourths of new infections. There’s also a high correlation found in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (CDC) between 9th to 12th graders who identify as ‘gay, lesbian or bisexual’ with early sexual activity, substance abuse and other behavioral risk factors. Children who are given puberty-blocking medications, and adolescents prescribed opposite sex hormones face serious potential health hazards including irreversible sterility and compromised growth and development; and a ‘transgender identity’ carries a high risk of overall negative life circumstances including the higher prevalence of suicide ideation.
9. Claims of a widespread need for “protection” because of rampant incidence of discrimination and harm are simply not substantiated by a body of verifiable evidence. Surveys of people’s feelings, testimonies of wishful thinking, and touching anecdotes make lousy public policy and this is no different.
SB 11 solves few problems but creates a whole host of new ones.
10. There will not be a positive long-term result in Ohio from people with open homosexual, bisexual, transgender and “queer” behavior. History will show the opposite. Children especially will be impacted as they are encouraged to initiate and identify with high-risk, socially and medically-compromising behaviors.
SB 11 will prompt “LGBTQ” programs in Ohio schools with a suppression of other viewpoints. Far from “protection,” this discriminatory “non-discrimination” bill is likely to have a very detrimental impact on public health, teen risk behaviors, family dynamics and prompt unnecessary and costly litigation.