I was quite irritated to see that a successful homeless center in Los Angeles (originally opened to much acclaim in Hollywood) will have to close. Reason? The center's opperater -- homeless activist and former Democrat Ted Hayes -- came out of the closet as a Republican, and the rent was raised from $2500 to $18,330. Everything is being packed off or sold:

Such is the unceremonious end to Dome Village _ activist Ted Hayes' model of a self-governed, self-sufficient community for the homeless. Since its founding in 1993, the village has been visited by celebrities but has gone largely unnoticed by thousands of commuters buzzing past on the freeway nearby.

Hayes said a big rent increase _ from $2,500 to $18,330 per month _ is forcing the village from its site near the downtown Staples Center. The partnership that owns the land said the increase reflects soaring downtown property values.

Residents were saddened by the decision to sell. They must leave by October.

"We have such a family here," said Graham Foster, 51, a former nightclub manager who arrived three years ago after living several months in a battered motor home. "Closing down is almost like an explosion."

When Dome Village was founded 13 years ago, Hayes envisioned a cooperative of 30 homeless working and living together, and counseling each other through tough times.

About 450 people have occupied the village over the years, living in the domes and using community kitchen, laundry and bathroom facilities on the site. Families and singles alike planted gardens, paid $70 a month in rent and divided chores on the 1.25-acre lot, which was once choked with weeds that grew neck-high through cracks in the asphalt.

Proceeds from the eBay auction will help replicate the village elsewhere in Los Angeles, Hayes said. In the meantime, families have been placed in shelters across the city.

Bids started at $3,000 per structure. The domes can be broken down to fit into the back of a pickup truck.

Hayes, a Republican, blamed politics for the village's demise. He said Democratic landlords raised the rent two days after he appeared at a meeting of a Bel Air Republican women's club. A lawyer for the landlords denied politics were at play.

American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo--the list of slurs is long.

But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being "evicted" from privately owned property after 12 1/2 years--apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.

Here's how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women's Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change, and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our "eviction" was "because you are Republican." He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.

And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance.

Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land--it is only a few blocks from the Staples Center--is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.

Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say "absolutely" without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.

[Black Republicans]... are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative--and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, schoolmates and even churches.

While the closure of the center is current news, Hayes' Republicanism is now well known; Evan Coyne Maloney had a post on this back in December:

Los Angeles Times published an article [typical LAT link to nowhere] earlier this month that mentioned Hayes's political leanings. Perhaps Milton Sidley--a partisan Democrat who contributed $4,000 to the John Kerry campaign in 2004--noticed the article: all of a sudden, the landlord has announced that Dome Village's rent will increase by over 630% when the lease comes up in late 2006. Each month, Dome Village will have to come up with $18,333 plus property taxes in order to stay afloat, or the residents will face homelessness once again.

According to a recent press release from Dome Village, when asked about the rent increase, Sidley replied, "This Democrat is tired of supporting Ted and his Dome Village."

But this is politics, and there's no law against political discrimination. Indeed, the very idea is absurd, for that would mean that every time we voted, we'd be discriminating.

Still (and notwithstanding yesterday's posts) I do understand the temptation. If someone took legal action against me because he didn't like my politics, I'd be outraged. And, of course, the more the line is blurred between personal issues and politics, the more a political attack will seem like a personal attack.

Or a religious attack.

When I was a kid, one of polite society's rules was that you never discuss politics or religion. Either one can lead to trouble, but both? A merger of the two as one? The only thing I can think of which would be creepier than that duality would be to throw in sex.

What an unholy trinity that would be.

< sarcasm >I hope we're not there yet.< / sarcasm >

Still, I hate to whine about these festering problems without offering a solution, and I've been thinking long, hard, politically incorrect, sexually incorrect and even religiously incorrect thoughts. While such thoughts constitute triple heresy, it makes no sense to me that only one of them -- the political -- provides a loophole for those who wish to discriminate against me.

Why should that be?

Should it really be OK to discriminate against me because of my politics, but not because of how or whether I worship God or gods or (god forbid) what I might do with my dingaling?

I say, definitely not! So in the interest of fairness, here's what I propose: simply add politics as a category to be officially protected against discrimination. Via yesterday's post, I already have the text of Dobie Gillis's lesbian girlfriend's bill (AB 1441, which recently added "sexual orientation"), and here's how the official Classical Values version (amended language in bold):

11135. (a) No person... shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, politics, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.

End of argument. That's because arguments discriminate on the basis of politics.

I hope you agree, because if you disagree, you might very well be guilty of discrimination!

AFTERTHOUGHT: Is the above satire, or are we already there? Seriously, if all personal issues are political, then aren't all political issues personal? And if identity politics means being part of a protected identity group, doesn't that require protection for all political identities?

MORE: I think this calls for a new definition of identity politics.

Identity politics: an ongoing rhetorical process in which disagreement is transformed into discrimination (or persecution).