Posted on 04/29/2002 5:21:33 AM PDT by ThJ1800
Dallas Mayor Laura Miller is proposing an anti-discrimination ordinance that would offer gays and lesbians protection in hiring, housing and public accommodations such as hotels and restaurants.
Ms. Miller said Saturday that the ordinance would go beyond the city's current protections against discrimination in its hiring and employment practices.
Under the proposed ordinance, employers with more than 15 workers would not be allowed to hire, fire or in any other way discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Proprietors of hotels, theaters and other public places would not be able to refuse service or segregate their patrons.
Violations would be treated as Class C misdemeanors, punishable with a $200 to $500 fine.
Religious organizations and state and federal offices, among other groups, would be exempt.
Fort Worth officials approved a similar measure nearly two years ago.
"It's a major step forward for the city of Dallas," said Dallas City Council member Ed Oakley, who helped draft the plan with the mayor and three other council members – Dr. Elba Garcia, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem John Loza and Veletta Forsythe Lill.
"Austin and Fort Worth and Houston have already passed these ordinances. ... I think it just brings us into the 21st century," Mr. Oakley said.
Council members will discuss the measure at Wednesday night's meeting. A tentative vote is scheduled for May 8. The mayor and some council members said they think the ordinance will pass.
The city's Fair Housing Office would enforce the ordinance. Two city human resources employees would be moved to the office to help investigate complaints.
Substantiated complaints would be sent to mediation, and those that couldn't be resolved would go to the city attorney's office. But city officials said they didn't expect cases to get that far.
"We wouldn't propose something that we didn't think we could police," Ms. Miller said. "That's why we're putting the limited resources we have into responding to the complaints we have."
In April, when she was a council member, she asked the city attorney's office to draft a possible ordinance, but it ended up tangled in language, she said.
Maria Rubio, president of the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Alliance, said Dallas' time for such an ordinance has come.
"We just have more people on the City Council who are behind us than we ever had before. Public perception of us is better now than it ever has been," she said. "I'm ready. I'm just ready for it to go."
Drafters of the ordinance had wanted to create a human rights commission that would investigate complaints, as other cities – including Fort Worth – have done.
That would have cost an additional $750,000 to $1 million, council members said. Budget shortfalls eliminated that possibility for now, but such a panel could be created in the future, they said.
Council member Alan Walne called a possible human rights panel "too much" and said he wouldn't vote for the ordinance.
"If this is just the first step in trying to get to that end, I think that you need to go ahead and resolve that, if that's what you're really doing ... instead of trying to go in the back door," he said. "I think it's totally uncalled for."
Fort Worth City Council member Chuck Silcox, who led the charge for the measure in Fort Worth, applauded Dallas' efforts.
He said Fort Worth hasn't received many complaints since its ordinance passed.
Ms. Lill said Dallas' proposal didn't spring from reports of widespread discrimination.
"We want to make sure that our policy's in place to discourage discrimination," Ms. Lill said. "We also want those who have been discriminated against to know they have a forum to hear their complaints."
Another case of "we don't want to live under the same laws to push on you serfs."
I am fairly new to the Dallas area after moving here from East Texas and it is totally beyond me how this woman got elected as the mayor of Dallas. I arrived here prior to the beginning of the campaign and had a chance to see her work in the city council, not a pretty sight.
I thought we had the right to association...
Matthew Shepherd died young....but that would have been the truth in any case.
That would have cost an additional $750,000 to $1 million, council members said.
They can't find enough money to give the police a decent raise and yet they are going to come up with the money to fund whatever it takes to secure rights for homosexuals? I guess the police are just gonna have to wait some more.
It's funny to read other "conservatives" around here attack the liberties of homosexuals (rights of free association and speech) from one side of their mouths while screeching at suggestion of regulations on criminal's gun purchases.
I imagine you'd rather some hardened criminal be able to purchase any firearm, anytime, anywhere than to allow your fellow taxpaying Americans to simply be themselves in the general public.
You would put your neighbor's safety at risk while preventing your son from acting as he is for the sake of your emotional responses. How many times this morning did you have to stop and wonder, "Did I say something which might give me away? Am I wearing something which might give me away? How will I avoiding talking about my weekend with co-workers?" Can't you see what's wrong with this picture? It's even beyond having to hide one's political leanings because they happen to work in an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated industry and do not want to be "blacklisted".
You can't come from a view of sovereign citizens with unalienable rights and then start demanding someone ELSE (because, afterall, it's always THE OTHER GUY) compromise honesty, integrity, their human relationships...
The bottom line is this: you shouldn't ask of them what you would not stand for in your own life.
There is no such thing as a God-given right to a job, or a God-given right to inhabit someone else's property.
"... screeching at suggestion of regulations on criminal's gun purchases." Find me one person on this board who this description fits. Just one.
Don't ask don't tell works for the military, it can work for you at your job. As a matter of fact, that's the way things worked for as long as I can remember, and it makes no difference as to your sexual preferences, religion, ethnicity, political party, or type of car you drive. It gets to be a problem when homosexuals (or any other "group") get in everyone's face and demand not only tolerance, but acceptance.
And one of the most basic rights is freedom of religion. You cannot expect a person to deny their conscience by validating sexual disfunction (perversion) as a legitmate relationship. If they are homosexual, then they have chosen to disassociate themselves from moral people. We don't and shouldn't HAVE to accept them. Why should we have to compromise OUR honesty, integrity and human relationships? We are not asking them to do anything we don't require of ourselves.
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.