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."
Do not presume to know what I would do, you don't know me or my record. Don't try to place your own prejudices on me. My actions are proven by my military record and believe it or not, by my marriage.
Once again your own presumptions and prejudices betray you.
For 20 years I served as a guardian of those civil rights. I've lived in the deep south and have not a racially prejudiced bone in my body. That has been taught to my three sons. I lead by example. My wife has been discriminated against because of her race, and that type of discrimination is totally different. You're barking up the wrong tree here. But then again you are trying to compare racial discrimination to life-style discrimination - again it's totally different.
Not comparing one kind of fruit to another kind of fruit. It's like comparing fruit to s**t.
No, discriminating on the basis of behavior is not the same as religious discrimination. Our country was founded on religious freedom, not freedom to perform sodomy or other perverse "sex" acts. Throughout civilized history, societies have had restrictions ("discrimination" - which is actually not always a bad word) - concerning sexual behavior. The reason is that sexual behavior is not neutral - it can be benefical, benign, or harmful. And the promotion of and FORCED acceptance of and GLORIFICATION of and TEACHING of homosexual and other unnatural sex acts in a society ruins the society by degrading the individuals in it.
If homosexuals just wanted to do their thing in peace it would be a whole different matter. They don't. They want to change the world into their vision of utopia. And if we let them, it will be our fault.
A man whose sexual orientation is towards boys of the same sex falls under this definition and it is not a slippery slope to take that to its logical conclusion. This law would force me to rent to a man who told me he liked to have sex with boys. After all, that's his sexual orientation. When will the definition expand to include pedophiles or men who want to have sex with dogs? We're talking about a law based on sexual orientation.
Bisexuality is even harder to pin down. Let's say I own a business and fire someone, someone I've only seen with members of the opposite sex. They turn around and file a lawsuit stating I fired them because they were bisexual. It doesn't matter if I win the case or not, the damage in time and resources has been done. These types of laws are simply creating opportunities for more lawsuits and victims.
Yeah - they just can't help themselves and show their true liberal self at some point.
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.