Creating a new class of people with special rights adds a layer of burdensome bureaucracy.

Supposedly, with good intent, our state Legislature passed a law to ensure that homosexuals are treated fairly. Maine residents, hopefully, with equally good intentions, now seek to repeal it.

It is unfair for our Legislature to limit protection to a single group. The overweight, most especially when they are teenagers, experience severely unkind treatment. Short adults are subjected to numerous jokes and for their lifetime, disadvantaged because of their diminutive size. The ugly, that is those that are far enough removed from being handsome or pretty that they comprise an unattractive minority, suffer unkind remarks and are continuously passed over in favor of those that are only a little better looking. The not-so-bright are frequently subjected to eye-rolling and not-so funny jokes. Other groups perhaps equally worthy of protection are blondes, the balding and the perpetually clumsy.

Perhaps there is a real need for legislation to protect every special-group member that is mistreated by society. If so, do we have enough lawyers (themselves derisively treated) to prosecute and defend against society’s prejudices? Would we eventually arrive at a place where everyone except tall, white, handsome, bright, heterosexual males would have some special protection?

Without anti-discrimination legislation, an employer selfishly seeking to hire the best possible employee for his business, if he is not a bigot, will hire the best possible employee. All things being equal, his choice will not be influenced by the applicant’s membership in a particular group. It will be influenced by the applicant’s attitude and ability – by his final product.

Understandably, an employer selling a weight-loss program might hesitate to hire an overweight receptionist or an overweight dietician. A store selling big men’s clothing might prefer a large salesperson to a very small one. A store selling ladies intimate lingerie might want to employ female salespersons whose body shapes most resemble the mannequins displaying the product, or perhaps not. Protective legislation will restrict these choices. Hiring and discharging employees are decisions best made by the employer whose business will succeed or fail because of those decisions.

With anti-discrimination legislation, a landlord wishing to justifiably evict a tenant for behaving badly may be surprised when the tenant, a member of a protected group, brings the weight and power of the state to bear upon the landlord. A female salesperson hired in the lingerie store might or might not cause concern should she decide to favor the masculine side of her personality when dressing for work. Her employer might have to decide whether to surrender his image for his salespersons or risk contesting an anti-discrimination law.

In short, employers who may prefer some other job applicant may place themselves in jeopardy if they pass over a homosexual.

Time, and not constrictive legislation, is required to cause a change in the public’s perception of homosexuality. The signs of this change are evident; homosexuality has come to the forefront of discussed topics. Today, popular athletes, actors and even clergy admit to being homosexual. There is open discussion and depiction on television. Instead of disparaging remarks there is humor. The public, through popular exposure and a new understanding, is becoming accepting of homosexuality.

Passing a law prohibiting the mistreatment of homosexuals is a permanent cure for a temporary problem. It will be more harmful than curative. Instead of flawed legislation, let’s treat people fairly; let’s speak up for fairness.

Voting against the Legislature’s attempt at fairness does not require that the voter be a bigot. It only requires that a voter be opposed to creating oppressive laws and more taxes in a state already overburdened by both. Our community is not bigoted.

Dick Sabine is a retired federal employee. He lives in Lewiston.