Human rights law passed- Gays, lesbians get protection

Cincinnati Post ^ | April 30, 2003 | Mike Rutledge

[new cruelty]

Covington city commissioners Tuesday unanimously supported a new human rights ordinance which extends protections to gays and lesbians. "I guess the basic question that needs to be asked is should we allow discrimination in this community?" said Commissioner Jerry Bamberger. "The answer is no."

The new law, which Mayor Butch Callery hopes will be a model for cities across the country, will take effect in about a week.

"Some day, I think the entire nation will one day wake up and realize that guess what: Equal rights is something that should have been done 100 years ago," said Commissioner Alex Edmondson.

The law's implementation will be carefully watched by the Sharonville-based Citizens for Community Values which campaigned hard against it.

CCV said it intends to help find lawyers to represent landlords or businesses which feel their rights are infringed, the group's vice president, David Miller, said after the vote. It also is forming a political action committee, which can be used to fund tri-state candidates who oppose such measures.

Covington's new law bans discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, marital status and parental status. It applies to employment, housing and public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants.

It expands a city law which prohibited housing discrimination because of disability, gender, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, family status and place of birth.

"I'm just completely elated and pleased and so happy with the leadership of Covington," said Dean Forster of the Northern Kentucky Fairness Alliance. "The people of Covington clearly supported this ordinance, clearly made a stand that discrimination is wrong and all people should be accepted equally."

Frank Warnock, the lawyer Covington hired to refine the ordinance, explained how the law will work:

• Upon receiving a discrimination complaint, the city manager would have discretion to try to resolve the conflict before launching a city investigation into the allegation.

• If reconciliation is not possible, the manager or a designee would investigate.

• After the investigation, the manager could choose to dismiss the complaint or seek an amicable resolution. "I think that's probably one of the most important parts of this ordinance, is the idea that you're trying to educate, you are trying to correct a wrong, and one of the best ways to do that is reconciliation."

• Failing that, a hearing officer appointed by the city manager would reach findings of fact and conclusions of law, which would become an order of the human rights commission.

• Fines could range from $100-$250, and a business which willfully violated the law three or more times could lose its business license.

CCV spent $10,000 this month mailing 20,000 anti-gay booklets to Covington households and sent letters to all Catholic churches in Northern Kentucky because all five city officials who voted are Catholics.

Bamberger said the mailings did not sway him: "I didn't hear too many complaints from residents after they sent out their messages. I believe the city of Covington and the city officials here have a responsibility to deal with our own issues, and deal with our citizens."

After the vote, commissioners sat quietly during almost 30 seconds of a standing ovation.

Bamberger said his goal was that everybody be treated equally. "For the many people who opposed the ordinance -- and I received a lot of input from those people, and I appreciate that input -- I wish that they would take the time now. I wish they would review that ordinance, and look at it, and see if they still have any concerns about it."

"No one would choose to be discriminated against, no one would choose to be hated, no one would choose to be treated differently," Edmondson said. "And someday, I believe the city of Covington will have a small piece in that understanding, of creating tolerance, bridging the gap, and more importantly, allowing people to know that yes, a small city like Covington can show the entire region: Yes, we can."

[MHGinTN]

My gosh, you are brave to deal with the homo apologists, the stealth members of that little known declining species 'homo infectus', otherwise called the 'gay' lobby.

[EdReform]

"My gosh, you are brave to deal with the homo apologists, the stealth members of that little known declining species 'homo infectus', otherwise called the 'gay' lobby."

This pretty much sums it up for me:

"I would rather walk a mile barefoot on broken glass than endure a confrontation with homosexual zealots. However, that less painful path cannot be responsibly taken. What choice is there but to stand in opposition to homosexual activists with their in-your face arrogance, their malicious attacks on religion, family values and moral standards, and, in essence, their demand that American society be turned upside down and inside out to accommodate their sexual disorientations?"

-- Linda Bowles, Defending Dr. Laura and America, May 31, 2000

Besides, someone has to let people know that "Gay is NOT OK"

[biblewonk]

A private business owner should be able to discriminate however he chooses, it's his business.

Though I agree regarding queers, I don't agree to racial discrimination.

[biblewonk]

No, they didn't. And they still don't. Gays and lesbians are second class citizens in this country, unfortunately. They aren't allowed to marry. They can get fired from their jobs if their boss find out their gay. They can get evicted from their apartment for the same reason. It's all about the boss's or landlord's religious beliefs. However, you don't see heterosexuals getting fired for being 'outed' as straight.

Gays should be second class citizens in this country. It's not ok, it's not a "lifestyle" anymore than robbery is a lifestyle.

[Paloma_55]

It seems the homosexuals are targeting the FR. (the most common guise is to claim being a libertarian)

No. They don't claim to be Libertarian as that would render them politically impotent. Instead, they claim to be Republican or Neo-Conservative.

[nastypumps]

I can since I'm neither a demo or liberal.

[nastypumps]

When you post to me and use these words, you are associating me with them..otherwise why use them? As someone of Jewish heritage, your use of such references in mail to me is more than personally offensive. These are not words to be used lightly.

[nastypumps]

Can you point out the FReeping im"post"ers you referenced?
I'm real...Gay, pro-American, and more conservative than most everyone I meet and...yes...I vote for Republicans.
How do any of us know who is and who is not really who they say they are on any annonymous posting?
How do I know you are "real"?

[First Amendment]

When you post to me and use these words, you are associating me with them..otherwise why use them?

I assume you are referring to the word "Nazi". I am not calling you a Nazi. I am identifying the homo-activists as homo-Nazis because of similar techniques, ideology and self-identification. The founder of ACT-UP read Hitler's Mein Kampf for inspiration and guidance and used it for help with techniques to promote the homosexual agenda. Many of the Nazi heirarchy were homosexual ideologues.

Are you saying that it is offensive to say the word "Nazi" in a useful or historical context in the presence of a person of Jewish heritage? I am not calling you a Nazi.

[Paloma_55]

Real... Real what? Perverted?

If you are truly conservative, you shouldn't care what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and you should keep your own perverted behavior to yourself.

I could care less what you do if I don't have to hear about it.

As for "true conservatives" imagine that there are two major axes of political policy discussion. One being "social policy per se... voting age, drug policy, marriage laws, abortion, etc.." and the other being economic policy... taxes, trade, etc. If you believe the government should have nothing to do with either, you are not conservative, you are a liberatarian. If you believe the government should regulate both in a way that minimizes its impact on our freedoms, but ensures social and economic stability... you are a conservative. If you think government should control all to the greatest extent possible, you are liberal.

When LCR's try to tell people that they MUST hire homos or be penalized, they are not being libertarian OR conservative. They are being liberal. When LCR's try to tell people that they MUST accept homosexual marriage as an institution, they are being liberal.

GET IT?!?!?

[ZULU]

"You make an odd point with your question."

Hardly an "odd point". I was merely making an analogy between homosexuality, a sexual abberration and paedophila and rape, other sexual abberation.

"Are you a pedophile or rapist?"

No. Are YOU?? More likely you are a homosexual.

"Are you hoping to champion legislation that protects either?"

I don't champion legislation which protects any form of abberrant behavior. Do you?

[EdReform]

BTTT

[new cruelty]

No need to tilt at windmills, Zulu. Perhaps we are simply misunderstanding one another. And for no good reason, at that. Still in all, perhaps an explanation will clear things up.

The first sentence in your initial comment conveys that you are addressing something that I have stated regarding "discrimination".

So "discrimination" is wrong.

I do not recall saying discrimination is wrong (perhaps you are meaning to quote someone else), which made your second sentence question an odd point:

How about discrimination against pedophiles and rapists??

Plurium interrogationum. Combined with your first sentence, your question is a logical fallacy- if discrimination is wrong, then discrimination against pedophiles and rapist must be wrong. Nonsense. Follow this fallacy to the next illogical step. Only someone sympathetic to pedophiles or rapists (or a pedophile or rapist himself) would ask such a question. Ergo- "You make an odd point with your question. Are you a pedophile or rapist? Are you hoping to champion legislation that protects either?" Ad hominem (I had no stake in the matter to begin with) nonsense, to which your most recent reply would seem to agree.

Perhaps this clears things up, perhaps not. Either way, as I also stated in my reply to you, the point is moot.

[hocndoc]

This law restricts the liberty of citizens of the community who own property and businesses. It is religious discrimination, as well.

The right to rent or have a job is not equal to the right to have liberty in the use of your own property. If so, can I demand the property or job that I want?

This government has proven itself illegitimate because it has acted to infringe the rights of the citizens who give it its power.

[hocndoc]

Actually, isn't this ordinance religious discrimination?

[hocndoc]

The city ordinance restricts the liberty of individuals in the use and profit on their private property and discriminates against the liberty to practice their religion. Both of these are rights that may not be actively infringed upon by government unless there is a danger to the life or liberty of another.

Renting a given house or keeping a certain job is not a right.
This is "the land of opportunity," not the land of a guaranteed home or job.

[ZULU]

Thanks. I understand now.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

It appears that on top of the rights and protections all citizens possess, gays and lesbians now possess a higher level of rights and protections enabling the thought police to say what the motive for the crime will be, like homophilia and hatred, making any and all small infractions hate crimes against the gay community. Sounds fruity to me!

[EdReform]

"And in this "PUBLIC FORUM," I can and will most certainly object to having my attention drawn to such nonsense."

You can carp about it until your face turns blue. If you continue to post your bogus pro-homosexual claims in this forum, you can expect me to continue to refute them. And I will back up my arguements with ample documentation.