In the Sun Journal on Oct. 25, an article defined sexual orientation as “a person’s actual or perceived homosexuality or gender identity or expression.” If the orientation is possibly perceived, then couldn’t the impression that one is being discriminated against also possibly be perceived?

My husband, the CFO of a small company, is in the process of hiring for a position. If he has two good candidates, he will choose the one who has both the best experience and the right temperament. (Bosses routinely hire those who they think will work well with other employees, thus exercising some “discrimination” in the hiring process.) But if the other candidate happens to be a homosexual, the new law could allow him to pursue legal action, based on a perceived discrimination against his homosexuality alone. This candidate may have chosen to reveal his sexual orientation and then claim proof of intentional discrimination.

As it stands, the law condones special treatment for a perceived minority, which can only lead to affirmative action. In that scenario, employers could be forced to hire to fill quotas, or at least de facto quotas, instead of hiring the most qualified and suitable candidates.

In addition, this referendum is proof that the governor and the Legislature have politically thumbed their noses at the citizens of Maine who have voted down similar referenda before. We should be furious that they have trumped the democratic process in order to satisfy the wishes of a very small constituency: the homosexual lobby.

Susan Strickland, Lisbon