The issue with this is that all such issues affect more than the one person applying for the exemption. They live in a society, no matter how close or loose-knit, and those laws and ordinances are enacted either by the preference of, or for the (perceived) safety of the whole. In either case, if the majority supports, why should the individual have "superior rights"?
The major issue here quickly becomes "equality of rights"...there are procedures in place for creating legal amendments, or "doing away with" laws and ordinances, and, if we are to remain a society of "every man (and woman) is equal to every other, under eyes of law", then exemptions can't be allowed, only amendments or repeals that apply to ANYONE, even if circumstances are narrowed to the point that they effectively affect only this one person. In other words, the amendment can say "unless a citizen applies at city hall for a license to house "exotic pets", defined as X, X, X, or X, and is granted such license after review by [body to review application]" and blah blah blah, making it so anyone who wishes to can own such an animal, or at least apply to.
If you fail to approach it in this manner, what you are, in essences, doing, is placing an Orwellian "all animals are created equal, only some are more equal than others." situation. Exempting one person, or class of people, based on any particular criteria beyond their own efforts, is anathema to what this country stands for. Try putting your proposal into another light...assume your person seeking an exception is Caucasian, and his attempt at exemption is placed like this "Caucasians may own such animals, while others are still bound by city ordinance". Do you like that? Well, that's what you are, in essence, doing, if you allow HIM a special exemption. You are creating a "special class" based on whatever factors, and shutting out all outside that class, thus granting "special rights" to one class of citizen. |
|