This presidential election is unlike most others on many levels, but this is the first time in our history that allegations of sexual abuse have been levied against a candidate and we are naturally anxious to see how they play out and what possible sanctions will be levied against the accused if they are proven correct.

As a registered citizen, every move we make for the rest of our lives is suspect. We can’t live certain places, we can’t go certain places, we can’t engage in certain forms of speech, we can’t travel to certain countries… heck, many of us can’t even vote.

Presumably, as a president of the United States, the individual would need to live in the White House, attend events at public venues where children may be present, communicate through multiple channels, travel to foreign countries as THE dignitary of our country and not only vote for, but be THE decision maker on government matters.

In recent weeks, several women have brought forth serious allegations against one of our presidential candidates. The allegations include far more offensive conduct than many of our members have been convicted of. They involve actual physical contact that is non-consensual and recurring.

We acknowledge and support everyone’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and our position is not to indict someone based on accusations. However, if the job of President of the United States involves living, going, traveling, doing and saying, and based on public sentiment (and law) people who have engaged in sex offenses cannot be trusted to live, go, travel, do or say, how can we consider a candidate for this important job without assessing their qualification? If we so restrict these rights when it comes to someone performing the duties of a landscaper, shouldn’t we be concerned about one’s fitness to perform the duties as the leader of the free world?