South Bend Council Rejects Pro-Homosexual Employment Discrimination Bill

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | October 28, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

[topher]

Thursday October 28, 2010

---

South Bend Council Rejects Pro-Homosexual Employment Discrimination Bill

By Peter J. Smith

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, October 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The South Bend Common Council has decided to vote down a proposed bill which could have forced employers, especially those of faith-based companies, to hire homosexuals.

The Council voted 6-3 to defeat Bill 30-10, which would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the city’s employment non-discrimination code.

The city’s Human Rights Commission unanimously supported the measure, which was sponsored by homosexual activists under the banner of South Bend Equality.

Had Bill 30-10 passed, the Human Rights Commission would have been empowered to conduct investigations into allegations of anti-homosexual discrimination in the workplace.

Five Democrats joined with one Republican to vote down the measure, which exempted religious institutions but not employers of faith-based companies.

Only the bill’s three Democrat sponsors voted for the legislation.

“I appreciate the fact that the council has continued to uphold traditional values and has continued joining us lovingly opposing special rights for homosexuals,” said Patrick Mangan, executive director for Citizens for Community Values (CCV) in Indiana.

Public comment was not allowed, since the Council already had a public hearing on the ordinance earlier this year.

A coalition of pro-family groups spoke out against the bill in July, arguing the law was vague and could undermine First Amendment constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

Also in July, the Common Council voted 5-4 to table Bill 30-10 after hours of heated debate before a standing-room-only crowd of about 200 people.

Homosexual activists, however, have pledged to bring the matter up again at a later time.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

South Bend Council Tables Homosexualist Ordinance
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080408.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102805.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

This would have some impact on Notre Dame University, I think. It depends how it is classified.

There was only one Republican.

The rest were Democrats. Only the Democrats that sponsored the bill voted for it (3 of them). The other 5 voted against it.

A previous vote was 5-4 (only one vote defeated it).

It is unclear if Notre Dame dodged a bullet or not...

[topher]

It appears it would have affected Notre Dame University.

Thank God there were 600,000 prayers at the time of the Obama (May 2009) appearance to get folks to change their minds.

Maybe God took heart (as well as others) not to allow homosexuals to run rampant in South Bend...

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

We’re headin’ there in a hand basket....

[a fool in paradise]

Could an employer be forced to hire onanists and celebrate "Onanist Pride Month"?

How about S&M tolerance training?

[Pearls Before Swine]

“South Bend”, nyuk, nyuk.

[traderrob6]

Good grief.

[brivette]

my wife was born there......

[topher]

This is good news. By defeating the legislation, faith based organizations do not have to hire homosexuals.

But the real problem is that there is only Republican on this committee with 8 Democrats.

That sounds like trouble.

But that is South Bend's problem...

[traderrob6]

Being born and raised in SB I know that Notre Dame overules everthing and everyone.

[Mr. Lucky]

I think you’ll find that Notre Dame is near the City of South Bend, but not in it. So that even if the ordinance had been adopted, it would have applied only to the little people.

[Sola Veritas]

“The South Bend Common Council has decided to vote down a proposed bill which could have forced employers, especially those of faith-based companies, to hire homosexuals.”

Since when does someone’s desire for employment usurp the 1st Ammendment? No religious/faith based organization should EVER be forced to hire persons not in keeping with there moral code. They talk about the “wall of separation” that Jefferson wrote to the Danburry Baptists about. This is an example of how that should be interpreted. The government will NEVER get in the business of telling churches who they can or can’t hire based upon their systems of belief. ONCE it does, there is NO freedom of religion anymore.