Skip to comments.Human rights law passed- Gays, lesbians get protection
Posted on 04/30/2003 6:50:25 AM PDT by 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."
That sure is a bury-your-head-in-the-sand argument. LOL! That's like saying if there was a law outlawing white people to marry eachother and you saying "it's ok.
Since when did homosexuality have anything to do with race?
A better comparison is people who feel inclined to have sex with animals, or children, or close relatives such as would constitute incest. Homosexuality is no different and deserves no protections, particularly as it pertains to government mandates, as it will lead to attempts by all these other interested groups to normalize their perversions through similar contorted applications of civil rights laws.
All are perversions of the natural order of human behavior and should be legislated against. If people who practice homosexuality want to feel like second class citizens, that is entirely up to them. They have as many human rights as the next American does...however, they, like pedophiles, beastialists, and those practicing incest should be granted no license to just do anything they want to do, just because they want to do it.
And what about protection for the man who proudley announces to everyone, daily, with bumper stickers, proclaimations, references to his "partner" Mr and/or Mrs. Hand, etc., that he beats off three times a day in the privacy of his home. The man that does the IN YOUR FACE yelling at you tht you had better like it too? There is a good possibility that he would be discriminated against. Where is the law to correct this travesty??? Ugh...
You're LOL!? About a serious subject?
As a matter-of-fact no it isn't. It has basis in fact. Marriage is only recognized between male and female, that is a fact.
People aren't allowed to marry their dogs either. Does that bother you too? If not who are you to judge whether a man-dog sexual relationship is better or worse than a man-man sexual relationship? Neither of these sexual relationships is for children, just for pleasure. Where are the rights of men who want to marry their dogs? They are second class citizens with **no rights**.
It is not possible to prove that a business has discriminated against someone for their "sexual persuasion" if the person hasn't declared that "persuasion" during the business transaction attempt.
Appearances are not sufficient.
The second important part of this has been covered by other posters, I'm sure. Congress can pass no law respecting my free religious expression. If it is against my religious beliefs to be in business with a homesexual person, this law cannot pass constitutional muster to force me to be in business with a homosexual person. Equal protection and all, you know.
I agree with that. They constantly post pro homosexual propaganda. Then when thought and logic come into the equaiton they flee...
"The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesnt belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize perverse behavior. This is apparent in the all-too-common need of homosexuals to declare their sexuality rather than simply do the job they sign on to do.
This is extremely detrimental - first, it creates conflict with others as most believe homosexuality to be wrong, and it shows that the full efforts of the employed homosexual are not going towards performing the task at hand but largely to declaring their lifestyle. When it comes to serious concerns such as the Church, schools, and the Boy Scouts that involve our children, we cant take the risk of giving them this power to destroy the values we as parents try to instill, nor can we put our countrys welfare at stake by turning these pivotal foundational institutions and our military into homosexual social experiments.
The homosexual movement is marked by two major tendencies: the tendency to continually infiltrate all good aspects of society; and once they have achieved that, the tendency to destroy this good. Public education, the Boy Scouts, the military, and now the Catholic Church have been targeted, and all have been hurt by the effects of homosexuality. The media and the Church must break its silence towards this enemy. If they do not, the people themselves must rise up and expose it..."
-- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Homosexual Priests: A Time for Truth, The Washington Dispatch, May 6, 2002
"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
A true libertarian would never support using the force of the State to compel people to hire/rent to/etc., people based on their sexual proclivities.
People have no inherent right to force themselves into any arrangement not agreed to by both parties.
Government has no rightful role in marriage. People cannot marry animals, and people cannot marry others of their own sex. But it has nothing to do with government. People are married by virtue of promises before, and to, God. Not because some government says they are.
Their hysteria over their private sexual practices is detrimental to good order and unit cohesion. Like it or not, that is a fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.