Started By
Message
re: Fayetteville's Anti-Discrimination Ordinance... repealed.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 11:55 am to GoldenSombrero
Posted on 12/12/14 at 11:55 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:You are really uninformed. The ordinance protects all people from discrimination, not just LGBT people. Here's text from the actual ordinance:
1. Yes it does give special rights. Employment protection and housing protection are already included in the current law. This addition allows for criminal charges to be filed. So discriminate against an ethnic group and face civil charges...but discriminate against a gay and face criminal charges. Yep no special rights here.
Furthermore, why should a religious organization or private school, daycare, etc...be forced to hire people that don't align with their beliefs? If you have kids, would you be ok with their daycare being forced to allow gay people to work there. Cause I sure as hell wouldn't.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to be free from discrimination based on real or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, marital status, socioeconomic background, religion, sexual orientation, disability and veteran status. This chapter's purpose is also to promote the public health and welfare of all persons who live or work in the City of Fayetteville and to ensure that all persons within the City have equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations.
As you can see, the ordinance does not grant special rights or protections to any particular group of citizens. It protects all citizens equally, and the penalty for discriminating on the basis of either ethnicity or sexual orientation is the same. You are absolutely wrong on this point, and I hope you learn to inform yourself before judging the value of such legislation.
You ask, why is this law even needed if these people are already protected? Because they aren't! There is no law at the federal or state level (in Arkansas) that extends civil rights protections to people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That's why the law is necessary.
As for your second point, the ordinance also explicitly states that it does not require religious institutions to employ people for non-secular positions if they do not conform to the institution's religious or denominational principles.
You should read the ordinance before you post anything else about it.
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 12:01 pm
0
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:04 pm to Numberwang
quote:
Please tell me which law includes these protections for gay people. You won't find it, because there is no such state, federal, or city law. That is the whole fricking point of this law.
LINK
quote:
The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
quote:
The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011),
Any other questions?
quote:
The reason the penalty is criminal is because the city can't make its own civil law per state statute. Speeding tickets are also criminal penalties, fyi. zomg
So why isn't it a criminal offense to not hire based on color or ethnicity?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:08 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Cause their are certain things i don't want my children exposed to, and that's my right as a parent. Some people wouldn't want their kids to attend daycare/school where the bible was taught, that's their right to. I also wouldn't want an alcoholic, drug addict, etc working at my children's preschool. Does that make me a bad person?
Equating gay people to drug addicts and drunks shows exactly why such an ordinance is needed.
Have you given all the daycare workers that watch your children the gay test? Does your daycare guarantee 100% hetero work force?
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:17 pm to Person of interest
quote:
Equating gay people to drug addicts and drunks shows exactly why such an ordinance is needed.
I didn't compare the two, just using as an example. Being a drunk isn't against the law, btw. Neither is dropping F bombs or saying the Lord's name in vain. Again, things I wouldn't want my children exposed to. If a daycare wants to hire those people, fine with me, but should face charges for failing to do so.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:20 pm to GoldenSombrero
The EEOC has interpreted some cases as being "sex discrimination" as in the case of a man marrying another man and anger at that by a superior led to the man's firing. There are no explicit protections for LGBT people in title VII of the Civil Rights Act. You can legally fire someone for being gay, and tell them that, and it is not illegal.
There are no Fair Housing protections for LGBT people.
The law attempts to bridge the gap in existing federal law to give people explicit protection based on their sexual orientation, period.
Those are not special protections.
And there is no need for criminal law protections for ethnic minorities against discrimination because those categories are explicitly protected by Title VII of the CRA and civil remedies exist. In other words, you can claim civil rights violations under title VII and sue.
There are no such explicit protections for LGBT persons in federal law.
There are no Fair Housing protections for LGBT people.
The law attempts to bridge the gap in existing federal law to give people explicit protection based on their sexual orientation, period.
Those are not special protections.
And there is no need for criminal law protections for ethnic minorities against discrimination because those categories are explicitly protected by Title VII of the CRA and civil remedies exist. In other words, you can claim civil rights violations under title VII and sue.
There are no such explicit protections for LGBT persons in federal law.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:22 pm to Numberwang
It'd be one thing if Christians would attack this law based on its merits or their beliefs. They instead choose to lie about the law itself. Something about casting the first stone comes to mind.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:25 pm to Numberwang
i consider myself a christian yet believe in equal and fair for all.
for instance, i would never say that stupid shite about daycares. that's one of the dumbest things i've ever read on this board. he may as well have equated all gays to child molesters.
for instance, i would never say that stupid shite about daycares. that's one of the dumbest things i've ever read on this board. he may as well have equated all gays to child molesters.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:41 pm to piggilicious
quote:
i consider myself a christian yet believe in equal and fair for all.
for instance, i would never say that stupid shite about daycares. that's one of the dumbest things i've ever read on this board. he may as well have equated all gays to child molesters.
First off, you all are the only one's who brought up the pedo issue, I didnt mention that. My point was from a moral, ethic, lifestyle choice. I still have the right, albeit not by much, to send my kids to places who believe, practice and teach the same morals and values I do. Why is that I crime?? Not saying all have to, I don't care what others do. But don't infringe upon my rights of choosing to disagree.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:45 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:Cool. Ordinance 119 wouldn't have changed any of that. See my post at the top of the page.
First off, you all are the only one's who brought up the pedo issue, I didnt mention that. My point was from a moral, ethic, lifestyle choice. I still have the right, albeit not by much, to send my kids to places who believe, practice and teach the same morals and values I do. Why is that I crime?? Not saying all have to, I don't care what others do. But don't infringe upon my rights of choosing to disagree.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:02 pm to wmr
quote:
quote: You can't appoint a person to have unchallenged power to instigate witch hunts and lynch mobs, which is precisely how this ordinance would have been policed. Very scary. Bear in mind, the MAX penalty under the ordinance was a $500 fine. And it was only classified as a "criminal" offense, because the state does not allow cities to create civil offenses or civil penalties. It had the same burden of proof of any other infraction. Imagine it like a speeding ticket or a parking ticket. You can challenge those in court if you like, and a situation where discrimination is alleged would actually require the accuser to provide some kind of proof. I have confidence that frivolous claims would be thrown out before even reaching the prosecutor, because there was a built in, required mediation section before a charge could even be pursued. The problem with this ordinance, which I voted against, BTW, is that it was too broad. The mayor and Petty tried to address every concern of every victim class represented down at the Omni Center all at once. Go back and extend fair housing and employment non-discrimination protections to gay people, and I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. I feel that there are many people who share my view.
Financial penalty would be irrelevant. As soon as you bring public charges of racism against a business, they would be boycotted out of town.
Burden of proof? That's for court, this is not regulated or checked like the court system, unlimited power.
There are stories of people false accused of child momestation and how their lives were ruined for doing nothing wrong. You have to be very careful with this stuff. It's a terrible idea.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:05 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Cool. Ordinance 119 wouldn't have changed any of that. See my post at the top of the page.
Maybe I'm wrong but not from how I read it. It allowed exemptions for ministers(not forcing them to administer same sex marriages), but not private schools or "non-secular" church positions.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:10 pm to GoldenSombrero
I went to a catholic school from 1-12 grades- there were some gay students, there were gay parents* and even a gay teacher*. Shockingly, I managed to survive such savagery.
*the parents and teacher I'm referring to were known as gay even if it wasn't necessarily something they personally advertised. This was also 20+ years ago.
I'll just never understand why anyone gives a crap what someone's sexuality is- unless of course you're wanting to bed them yet you aren't their type.
*the parents and teacher I'm referring to were known as gay even if it wasn't necessarily something they personally advertised. This was also 20+ years ago.
I'll just never understand why anyone gives a crap what someone's sexuality is- unless of course you're wanting to bed them yet you aren't their type.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:17 pm to piggilicious
quote:
I went to a catholic school from 1-12 grades- there were some gay students, there were gay parents* and even a gay teacher*. Shockingly, I managed to survive such savagery.
Congrats. Sorry for having a different opinion, I didn't realize Fayetteville was no longer part of America.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:19 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Fayetteville was no longer part of America
tRock 2-0 in this thread
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:21 pm to GoldenSombrero
I'm not for taking away your right to an opinion, but I can state my own too. 
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:22 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Congrats. Sorry for having a different opinion, I didn't realize Fayetteville was no longer part of America.
Did somebody take your opinion away?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:29 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:From the ordinance:
Maybe I'm wrong but not from how I read it. It allowed exemptions for ministers(not forcing them to administer same sex marriages), but not private schools or "non-secular" church positions.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to prohibit a religious or denominational institution from selecting or rejecting applicants and employees for non-secular positions on the basis of the applicant's or employee's conformance with the institution's religious or denominational principles.
I'm under the impression that a private religious school or daycare would be considered non-secular since religious instruction is typically part of the curriculum. I guess if a janitor came out as gay then the daycare couldn't fire him since I'm not sure how one would argue 'janitor' is a non-secular position.
You're correct about religious organizations not being forced to open their doors for ceremonies or meetings, like marriages. That part is really explicit in the ordinance.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 2:09 pm to Hog on the Hill
I'm pretty sure that children are far more likely to be molested by religious fundamentalists than by gay people.
That's a big reason that the religious groups want all the sex talk hushed up and not taught to children... so they can keep fricking them and not worry about getting caught.
Case in point:
LINK
but they'll go "muslims blah blah blah" well, religious fundamentalists are the same fricking people no matter what religion
That's a big reason that the religious groups want all the sex talk hushed up and not taught to children... so they can keep fricking them and not worry about getting caught.
Case in point:
LINK
but they'll go "muslims blah blah blah" well, religious fundamentalists are the same fricking people no matter what religion
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 12/12/14 at 2:47 pm to Killean
Yep I'd agree. I wouldn't want any cult leaders around my kids or involved in their activities.
Again I don't think anyone who opposees this ordinance thinks all gay people molest kids. But if you were being objective you'd have to agree the original ordinance created huge loopholes for sexual predators.
The people that really want this to pass should only blame themselves. Had they not wrote it in such a poor manner most people would not have even been aware it was being discussed.
Again I don't think anyone who opposees this ordinance thinks all gay people molest kids. But if you were being objective you'd have to agree the original ordinance created huge loopholes for sexual predators.
The people that really want this to pass should only blame themselves. Had they not wrote it in such a poor manner most people would not have even been aware it was being discussed.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 2:58 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:LMAO no.
But if you were being objective you'd have to agree the original ordinance created huge loopholes for sexual predators.
edit: that is the dumbest thing that's been said in this thread
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 2:59 pm
Page 5 of 6
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News