Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Unless it’s a Trojan horse, of course. A Trojan horse should get a thorough inspection.

Some myths and axioms have been around so long that we’ve forgotten their meaning. Their wisdom might still apply, however.

The Trojan horse comes from Greek mythology. It was a giant wooden horse, left outside the gate of the city of Troy in the midst of a 10-year seige by Troy’s enemy, Greece. Thinking it was a peace offering, the Trojans took the horse into their city, not knowing there were Greek soldiers hidden inside it. After sundown, the soldiers came out, opened the gates to let more Greek soldiers enter Troy and sacked the city.

Today a Trojan horse refers to any strategy designed to trick an enemy into causing his own downfall. There’s even a series of computer viruses called Trojan horse malware.

Opponents of a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance for Butler might compare the ordinance to a Trojan horse. They say a promise of equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or sexual identity, seems innocuous enough, but they suspect hidden snares waiting to spring shut on the hiring rights of businesses and religious organizations — intentional or otherwise.

But is it really a Trojan horse? Are hidden threats lurking within the proposed ordinance, or are they just imagining the worst?

That’s no longer the question; rather, the question now rests on the probability of unseen consequence, and the relative risk of passing a bad ordinance versus rejecting a good one.

Councilwoman Kathy Kline has agreed to pull the proposed ordinance from tonight’s meeting agenda to give the factions for and against it more time to work through their disagreements privately.

For now that’s the will of the council majority. It’s also the path the Butler Eagle encouraged as early as three months ago: we suggested that the parties who are pushing the anti-discrimination ordinance should try to resolve objections before bringing their proposal to council.

But that was three months ago. Discussions have shown little progress since then — and there has been plenty of discussion, particularly during council business meetings.

Mayor Tom Donaldson is anxious for a vote. He opposes the ordinance, calling it unnecessary. He appears confident it would be defeated if voted on in its current form. So, vote it down and be done with it.

Donaldson’s anticipated outcome is the likely one — and that’s why the proponents of the antidiscrmination ordinance should see their best strategy in continuing to negotiate modifications that would eliminate or ease worries in the business and religious community that the new rules might discriminate against them.

The opponents say they need more assurances that the ordinance will not turn out to be a Trojan horse: that it will not come back to bite them in some unexpected way.

Assurances would entail a clearer understanding of the commission appointed to review complaints under the ordinance; how individuals are appointed to the commission; and how the commission will be accountable to the public.

Additionally, the mayor says he’ll clamp down on general discussion at meetings.

In essence, council and the mayor have delegated the proposal — which has not yet been presented as a formal motion — to a de facto committee. Let the committee deal with it and come back when it’s ready.