San Francisco Supervisors prohibit prejudiced remarks

San Francisco Chronicle [via SF Gate] ^ | 11 may 2005 | Suzanne Herel

[45Auto]

Speakers at San Francisco public meetings can be angry, passionate, even disagreeable in their remarks -- but they can't utter discriminatory comments, the Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday. The 11-member board unanimously approved a resolution sponsored by President Aaron Peskin that stemmed from an April 4 Building Inspection Commission hearing in which some members of an influential builders group said a female city employee was not fit to run a department because she is pregnant.

The employee, Amy Lee, has since been appointed acting director of the Department of Building Inspection. "The intent of this resolution is to make a clear statement that discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, weight, height or place of birth will not be tolerated in San Francisco city government," said Peskin,

[45Auto]

San Francisco - the morons leading the idiots. The hallmark of San Francisco city government is that "you can never too stupid to work for us."

[Semper Paratus]

Apparently they don't discriminate based on intelligence.

[Gunrunner2]

>>San Francisco Supervisors prohibit prejudiced remarks<<

Unless, of course, uttered against hetero-Christian-white-males.

[ambrose]

1984...

[Question Liberal Authority]

Does this include remarks which are prejudiced against Republicans?

[tdewey10]

I used to think there was such a thing as the First Amendment...

[tdewey10]

I used to think there was such a thing as the First Amendment...

[martin_fierro]

Only in 'Frisco could a mincing poof failed comedian get elected to the Board of Supes.

[reagan_fanatic]

American society is fast advancing towards a point in time where 'hello', 'goodbye' and 'republicans are evil' will be the only words or phrases allowed to be spoken without risking fines or incarceration. 1984 is alive and well.

[martin gibson]

Speakers at San Francisco public meetings can be angry, passionate, even disagreeable in their remarks -- but they can't utter discriminatory comments...

...unless, of course, the remarks refer to white, male, heterosexual, gainfully employed Christians.

[Lancey Howard]

San Fransicko... LMAO!!!
I maintain that anybody who deliberately takes a child into San Fransicko should be charged with child abuse.

[Doctor Stochastic]

With such niggardly language allowed, one couldn't celebrate Christmas even if Don wore gay apparel.

[MeanWestTexan]

Who gets to decide if the statement is discriminatory?

[newgeezer]

The hallmark of San Francisco city government is that "you can never too stupid to work for us."

At the very least, they need a proofreader. ;O)

[45Auto]

that's, "you can never be too stupid to work for us."

[edcoil]

Next up is a new law to prevent discussion of the agenda issues. You see, since people with ADD cannot concentrate it is unfair to discuss the issue on the agenda so, agenda's are unfair so all future meetings with be free-wheeling, open discussions on any issue.

[theDentist]

the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, weight, height or place of birth

Are they sure they want to limit those basis' to only those 12? They forgot about intelligence (as someone mentioned earlier) hair color, glasses, baldness patterns, the genitally endowed, or not, vegetarianism, hempist, scatologically inclined, or those wearing ties designed by Rush Limbaugh (to name but a few).

[Millee]

Hetro-Christian-White-Males----in San FranFreakShow????

Surely you jest! :-)

[Jaysun]

I maintain that anybody who deliberately takes a child into San Fransicko should be charged with child abuse.

Now that's funny Lancy, and true.

The thought police are destined to crawl out in a society that discourages moral judgment and tries to fill the gap with legislation.

[Lancey Howard]

The thought police are destined to crawl out in a society that discourages moral judgment and tries to fill the gap with legislation.

Very well said. This type of "legislation" will never end as long as somebody says something new that somebody else finds "offensive".