Dear Editor:

During this past week, history was happening again in Hillcrest. The San Diego City Council voted 6-1 in favor of a strict Interim Height Ordinance (IHO) within the Mission Hills and Hillcrest communities until the Uptown Community Plan can be updated. In past letters, I have been very hard on Toni Atkins, Councilwoman - District 3, for always siding with the developer interest in our neighborhood, but this past week she showed incredible strength, courage and sophistication when leading her peers to this victory for Hillcrest. At the end of the day, we are hard on our leaders because we want them accountable, not because we don’t like them. On Tuesday, July 8, Toni certainly proved that she listened to the community needs in the face of special interest.

Besides Toni and the many brilliant talented leaders from our community, Lori Saldana, Todd Gloria and Stephen Whitburn were all present and spoke on behalf of a strict height limit within these two great neighborhoods. With both Todd and Stephen, we know that we have two advocates who will work to support the community interest over special interest. I’m proud of both of them and very thankful for their commitment at the City Council hearing.

I believe my experience with Toni, Todd and Stephen shows that we don’t need to share hateful messages to respectfully disagree, but we can voice our opinions so that our leaders are tough, courageous and held accountable. You have made a believer out of me, and I love that you guys represent this community. Happy Pride.

John Taylor

Dear Editor:

Once again, the GLT demonstrates its inability to construct cogent arguments by including multiple logical fallacies in “County employees cry religious conviction.”

Your editorial begins by claiming that “79% of readers” opposed County Clerk Gregory Smith exempting county employees from same-sex marriage duties based on their religious objections. You misrepresent the statistic.

The majority of GLT readers neither read your on-line version nor participate in your polls. Many who do read your on-line version also don’t answer your polls. The set of people both reading the GLT on line and participating in your polls is a small, unrepresentative sample of your overall readership. The best that can be said is that 79% of RESPONDANTS to that poll, not READERS, answered no to the question posed. Which brings me to your first logical (rather than statistical) fallacy: appeal to the people.

An argument that something is correct because “most people” so believe is called a bandwagon argument, and it is fallacious. The mere fact that 79% of respondants believe something proves nothing and does not support your argument.

Your editorial immediately follows its first appeal to the people fallacy with a second one by citing readers posting their own fallacious arguments (ad hominem, in these cases) calling employees requesting marriage duties exemptions bigots. Conformity and name calling: fine examples of rational argument!

Your editorial includes another fallacy, which you yourself actually name: the slippery slope fallacy. You suggest dire and fantastic consequences will result from exempting some county employees from performing same-sex marriages. Here’s a subtle hint: if your argument includes the phrase “slippery slope,” unless you’re discussing Winter sports your argument is fallacious. Always.

“County employees cry religious conviction” has other fallacies including those of accident, false analogy, false dichotomy, red herring, and division. It also states, contrary to law, that people must sometimes tolerate hostile work environments. I don’t have space to cover every instance of irrationality it contains.

Maybe someone should put me on a pony and send me tilting at windmills, but I can’t help thinking how nice it would be to have our community’s major print publication making cogent arguments for a change instead of spouting off like a lot of Queer James Dobsons. You claim to be journalists. For the sake of all the gods, learn to think!

The public has the right to services without discrimination, and that includes Gay folk. It also has the right to employment without discrimination, and that includes religious “bigots.” An employee is an agent of its employer and must provide services within the scope of their job without discrimination. Employees are entitled to reasonable accommodation of their religious beliefs. A reasonable accommodation respects everyone’s rights. The rights of the Gay public and of employees-of-faith are both respected by allowing those who object to Gay marriages to seek reassignment to other positions within the county where performing same-sex marriages is not a part of their job. Job reassignment is a logical, reasonable accommodation.

Rev Keith W Ramsey

Dear Editor:

In the July 9 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, staff writer Craig Gustafson wrote a story titled “County releases workers’ protests on gay marriages” with the subhead “Only six transferred or were reassigned.”

Interesting story. What the county should have done was release the workers and release their names to the public.

Since these county employees are paid with taxpayer dollars – both homo and hetero – I believe the public has the right to know the names of the bigoted and intolerant folks. That said, why isn’t this particular office that is supposed to serve all of the public held to the same anti-discrimination standards as all the others in the state?

And why is Delores Jacobs, CEO of The Center, noted in the story commending County Clerk Greg Smith for an outstanding job? Didn’t Smith and the county lawyers blur the lines a bit to make the acts of discrimination more palatable to all involved?

Lee A. Schoenbart