Live Blogging from the Rules Committee Meeting

[wsansewjs]

What the hell is wrong with Daniels? I voted AGAINST her in the last election, now you stupid voters who tallied her in are paying the ultimate price with heir nonsense and lack of common sense that just rubs everyone the wrong way in the city.

-Josh

[AshleyLauren]

Was / is this open to the public?

Does anyone know if there is some resource out there that lists when and where each city government event is occurring? I looked on the City of Jacksonville site and cannot find anything. Perhaps I have overlooked something.

Thanks!

Yes! I wish I were that important, but I am not. All CC meetings and sub committee meetings are open to the public and most of the time held at City Hall off Laura street downtown in the CC Chambers.
Here is the link with all the events: All the meetings are set for certain dates and times per month. For example, The Rules Committee is the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month at 10am.

http://www.coj.net/city-council/events.aspx

[AshleyLauren]

Was Yarborough saying the number of employees for a business to have this bill applied to them should be decreased to something less than 15? Meaning, the bill should broaden it's reach?

Yes! I think the number was 80% of Jacksonville businesses fall in the 15 member range; therefore, he thinks the number should be altered. Jones stated the number was duplicated based on the number quoted for other groups covered under such bills.

[Tacachale]

Thanks for this coverage, Ashley.

[Ralph W]

Perhaps, among other concerns, Yarborough is thinking that this bill might discourage growth, with employers striving to maintain employee levels below 15 in order to be free of the constraints of this bill. This setting of a 15 employee threshold, in effect, gives the employer permission to discriminate regarding gender orientation.

[duvaldude08]

Kim Daniels: From my understanding, anyone can sue anyone so how can you say people will not be able to sue based on this bill? "Im a little uncomfortable with the HR commission, are you comfortable having someone else make decisions other than the HR commision?" Jones: HR Commission is the only department set up to take care of these particular situations and the only ones with experience. Daniels: Responds bashing HR commission stating they do not have experience or simply put, she thinks they do not know what they are doing.

Daniels wants to know why the bill does not cover religious orientation. She is worried about the wording and feels it is not ready.

Yarborough: Brings Stemberger up, the lawyer from Orlando that spoke against the bill on May 22nd. Stated it will undermined marriage laws. "these ordinance will be used to undermine marriage amendments both state and federal around the country."  ***JIMMY you want to elaborate on the points he makes?? A little to much legal jargon so I fear I will get it wrong.

Religous Orientation? Kim Daniel you are the DUBMEST woman to even walk this earth.

[Purplebike]

We need to get Kim Daniels into one of my applied ethics classes. Her reasoning skills leave a lot to be desired. Frankly, her lack of critical thinking, and her misplaced values, in these matters is embarrassing.

Four points I want to make here.

First, you CAN compare these groups, and you should, in that the values / principles used to justify discrimination against both groups (gay people, black people) have been the same in many cases. The basic line of reasoning, used by many to justify discrimination against gay people, black people, and especially marriage between different races, and marriage between same sex partners, goes something like this--though the person reasoning like this is not always willing or able to admit or recognize they ARE reasoning like this:

1. Adult A and Adult B marrying offends my sensibilities
2. Anything that offends my sensibilities should be illegal
3. Therefore Adult A and Adult B marrying should be illegal

For "Adult A" and "Adult B", insert whichever combination of couple you find "offensive". The second premise represents the underlying principle.

That principle, "Anything that offends my sensibilities should be illegal" or "Anything that offends my sensibilities should not be protected by law", has no business governing policy in a society that itself is to be governed by the principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

It's the "Pursuit of happiness" part that many people interpret incorrectly, in an attempt to justify something they personally want.

That clause is not about securing what people personally want. If that was the case, imagine the implications. *Anything* that makes people unhappy would have to be banned--*anything* that makes people happy would have to be upheld.

Rather, that clause is about securing equal opportunities to *pursue* happiness--within reason. For example, many people wish to pursue happiness through marriage. Why should that opportunity only be made available to same race couples, or to opposite sex couples? Whose ability to pursue happiness through the institution of marriage is upheld here? Whose ability to pursue happiness through this institution is violated? The answer is obvious!

Secondly, the institution at stake here is *secular* marriage, not *religious* marriage.

Thus, the value that *should* be prioritized here is "Equal opportunity", since *secular* marriage is a social institution, governed by the state. Equal opportunity, embodied in the principle, "Everyone deserves the same opportunity to participate in state-sanctioned social institutions" (such as marriage).

Again, recall the core values the government has a duty to uphold: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

If we keep some people from participating in *secular* marriage, then we are not only violating those individuals' liberty, we are also keeping them from pursuing happiness through a state-sanctioned institution that everyone else gets to enjoy. Namely, marriage. Secular marriage!

Thirdly, a crucial distinction here is the difference between "offense" and "harm".

Perhaps gay people marrying offends her, much like an interracial marrying offends / did offend others. Does mere offense justify discrimination? It does not!

Offense can only be classified as "harm" when a stakeholder's basic needs and legitimate expectations (as in rights, duties, responsibilities) are undermined or violated by the action at stake (interracial or gay couples marrying).

No stakeholders' basic needs or legitimate expectations are undermined or violated by gay couples, or interracial couples, marrying! Therefore, Kim Daniels being offended by gay couples marrying, as I'm inferring she is (I could be wrong), does not justify voting against a policy that would make discrimination against gay people, or gay couples, legal.

Finally, those who use the proposition "Marriage is defined as between a man and woman" to justify their conclusion that "marriage should therefore only be allowed between a man and woman" also need to check their applied ethics.

How was "citizen" once defined in this country? Did that definition change? Yes, it did. Why?

Because more is at stake than a mere definition. What was more so at stake when it came to citizenship was "equal opportunity". That's the case here, too. Definitions change, especially when, through careful reasoning, we come to recognize that a particular definition does not reflect the values we, as a nation, profess to uphold.

Peace.

[Purplebike]

Was / is this open to the public?

Does anyone know if there is some resource out there that lists when and where each city government event is occurring? I looked on the City of Jacksonville site and cannot find anything. Perhaps I have overlooked something.

Thanks!

Yes! I wish I were that important, but I am not. All CC meetings and sub committee meetings are open to the public and most of the time held at City Hall off Laura street downtown in the CC Chambers.
Here is the link with all the events: All the meetings are set for certain dates and times per month. For example, The Rules Committee is the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month at 10am.

http://www.coj.net/city-council/events.aspx

Thanks so much!

[Purplebike]

We need to get Kim Daniels into one of my applied ethics classes. Her reasoning skills leave a lot to be desired. Frankly, her lack of critical thinking, and her misplaced values, in these matters is embarrassing.

Four points I want to make here.

First, you CAN compare these groups, and you should, in that the values / principles used to justify discrimination against both groups (gay people, black people) have been the same in many cases. The basic line of reasoning, used by many to justify discrimination against gay people, black people, and especially marriage between different races, and marriage between same sex partners, goes something like this--though the person reasoning like this is not always willing or able to admit or recognize they ARE reasoning like this:

1. Adult A and Adult B marrying offends my sensibilities
2. Anything that offends my sensibilities should be illegal
3. Therefore Adult A and Adult B marrying should be illegal

For "Adult A" and "Adult B", insert whichever combination of couple you find "offensive". The second premise represents the underlying principle.

That principle, "Anything that offends my sensibilities should be illegal" or "Anything that offends my sensibilities should not be protected by law", has no business governing policy in a society that itself is to be governed by the principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

It's the "Pursuit of happiness" part that many people interpret incorrectly, in an attempt to justify something they personally want.

That clause is not about securing what people personally want. If that was the case, imagine the implications. *Anything* that makes people unhappy would have to be banned--*anything* that makes people happy would have to be upheld.

Rather, that clause is about securing equal opportunities to *pursue* happiness--within reason. For example, many people wish to pursue happiness through marriage. Why should that opportunity only be made available to same race couples, or to opposite sex couples? Whose ability to pursue happiness through the institution of marriage is upheld here? Whose ability to pursue happiness through this institution is violated? The answer is obvious!

Secondly, the institution at stake here is *secular* marriage, not *religious* marriage.

Thus, the value that *should* be prioritized here is "Equal opportunity", since *secular* marriage is a social institution, governed by the state. Equal opportunity, embodied in the principle, "Everyone deserves the same opportunity to participate in state-sanctioned social institutions" (such as marriage).

Again, recall the core values the government has a duty to uphold: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

If we keep some people from participating in *secular* marriage, then we are not only violating those individuals' liberty, we are also keeping them from pursuing happiness through a state-sanctioned institution that everyone else gets to enjoy. Namely, marriage. Secular marriage!

Thirdly, a crucial distinction here is the difference between "offense" and "harm".

Perhaps gay people marrying offends her, much like an interracial marrying offends / did offend others. Does mere offense justify discrimination? It does not!

Offense can only be classified as "harm" when a stakeholder's basic needs and legitimate expectations (as in rights, duties, responsibilities) are undermined or violated by the action at stake (interracial or gay couples marrying).

No stakeholders' basic needs or legitimate expectations are undermined or violated by gay couples, or interracial couples, marrying! Therefore, Kim Daniels being offended by gay couples marrying, as I'm inferring she is (I could be wrong), does not justify voting against a policy that would make discrimination against gay people, or gay couples, legal.

Finally, those who use the proposition "Marriage is defined as between a man and woman" to justify their conclusion that "marriage should therefore only be allowed between a man and woman" also need to check their applied ethics.

How was "citizen" once defined in this country? Did that definition change? Yes, it did. Why?

Because more is at stake than a mere definition. What was more so at stake when it came to citizenship was "equal opportunity". That's the case here, too. Definitions change, especially when, through careful reasoning, we come to recognize that a particular definition does not reflect the values we, as a nation, profess to uphold.

Peace.

P.S. I recognize most of my post focuses on marriage between same sex partners, which, as I understand it, is not what is specifically at stake in the policy on the table today, in City Council. The issues are most definitely related though. My goal was to point out how gays and black people *can* be compared, in that the reasoning used to discriminate against gay people, and black people, has frequently rested on the same exact principles / line of reasoning.

I hope that point came through clearly.

[Tacachale]

^Marriage is most certainly not what's being discussed here. What's being discussed is discrimination regardless of status, marriage doesn't come into it. Victims could even be celibate - or they may not actually even be LGBT - and still lose their home or job in Jacksonville simply for existing the way God made them.

[Purplebike]

^ Indeed!

Regardless of whether one thinks being gay is (1) a choice, (2) the result of nature, (3) the result of nurture, or (4) the way people are made by a god or gods--

Discrimination is indeed the typical *result* when the kinds of reasoning, principles, and values I point out in my post are applied.

I used "marriage between same sex partners" as an *example* of these kinds of reasoning, values, and principles being applied, and resulting in discrimination.

[AshleyLauren]

Amazingly enough, you would think the whole city understands by now this is not about marriage rights, the morality of homosexuality, etc, correct??
WRONG! On my way out, the people wearing the shirts that said, No prayer in school? then No sex in the city!, gave a man sitting in Hemming Plaza one of their t-shirts.
He asked, what does it mean??
The two men replied, "they won't let our children pray in school, but they are going to let men have sex in the streets."
The man replies, "WHAT!!??!?!"
And the men just kept walking without clearing up what their overdramatic comment meant. Point being, this may ONLY be about rights but people are going drive this "gateway to legalizing same-sex marriage" claim into the ground. 

[duvaldude08]

There are some very ignornat people in our world.

[AshleyLauren]

Perhaps, among other concerns, Yarborough is thinking that this bill might discourage growth, with employers striving to maintain employee levels below 15 in order to be free of the constraints of this bill. This setting of a 15 employee threshold, in effect, gives the employer permission to discriminate regarding gender orientation.

His temperament when he asked these specific questions sounded as if his intention as to change it because most of Jacksonville's business base falls under the 15 cap; however, you may be right and I just interpreted wrong.

I forget who, I think it was the lawyers, but they ran with the argument that employers would strive to keep levels low to be exempt from the bill.

[tufsu1]

that Yarborough is even thinking about voting for this legislation is big news