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."
Yes they have always had human rights and still do. They are not second class citizens, that may be their perception based on their actions but that argument doesn't hold water. An employer should be able to employ whomever he wants if it's a private business, his decisions may affect his business bottom line but that is his business, same goes for the landlord. As far as the marriage question goes, Merriam-Webster defines it as:
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
Are you ill-informed or just pretending to be? Homosexauls are as free to marry as anyone else. They just have to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as everyone else does when they marry. And in most places in the US it is illegal to fire someone because they are homosexual. Damn, in Californina now it is illegal to fire someone or not hire them even if they are a cross dresser or transvestite!
I wish that were true, for that would mean we were living in a free country.
I can imagine the future - homosexuals purposely acting really weird, they get fired, claim it's discrimination, the poor business owner gets fined, they do it again a couple of times, he either loses his business or has to tolerate unacceptable behavior or attitudes from his employees.
Reminds me of the sodomy case in Texas - the two sodomists on purpose called the police to their house, left the door open, and were on purpose committing sodomy so the police could see. I can see the future and it is not pretty.
Folks, I think it's about time to do some serious activist freeping on the right side of this issue, where ever we live. If we don't stand up, do whatever we can do, pretty soon sodomy is going to be shoved in our faces and we are going to see hell on earth.
And one of the salient features of the homosexual "rights" crap is that the majority of Americans feel that homosexual acts ARE weird, sickening and wrong. But the kids are being indoctrinated in school, so we don't have much time to turn this sick tide around.
Strawman arguments are not allowed here.
The argument that people of the same sex who have "sex" with each other are somehow similar to people of the same race is not on rediculous, it is offenses to minority races (minority in this country, that is). Behavior can and often does change. Some behavior is pernicious, some is benign, and some is beneficial. Being born black, or Asian, or white, is completely neutral and no one should be discriminated against solely for belonging to a particular race.
On the other hand, one has to discriminate between different kinds of behaviors, otherwise one is acting on the level of a mental deficient. No one can claim that all behaviors are equal, in any sphere of life. And in the sphere of sexual behavior, that is glaringly true.
Laurie S
Since Mar 27, 2003
If I were a landlord I wouldn't want faggots living in my building. An old girlfriend of mine had a coupla real swishy types living right next to her in an apt complex, and without getting into too much detail, let's just say the noises we heard were disgusting beyond description.
I think that landlords should be able to discrimminate against anyone for any reason.
Well, then, what you're saying is that is would be more accurate to equate it to religious discrimination rather than to racial discrimination. OK.
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.