Live blogging the vote for 2012-296, human rights ordinance.

[AshleyLauren]

This is week is a busy week for Ordinance 2012-296, the Anti-Discrimination Bill.

This week the bill needs to be voted up or down by the Rules, RCD, and PHS committee in order for the bill to go to a full vote at the CC meeting next Wednesday.

This morning at 10am in the Rules committee the bill was, for the first time in the history of Jacksonville, voted for approval by a committee. The vote was 4-3 in favor of the LGBT community. Among those voting for the bill: Lori Boyer, John Crescimbeni, Warren Jones, and Jim Love. Those against: Ray Holt, Clay Yarborough, and Robin Lumb.

That is one major step towards victory for 296. Up next the PHS committee which is led by Kim Daniels.

[AshleyLauren]

To my surprise, Kim Daniels begins the meeting with discussion about 2012-296.

Jones speaks up about the substitute stating, the substitution strikes all types of expression from the original amendment of the bill. Strikes the religious aspects, Clarifies the language in the Constitution, Adds exisiting language that exempts companies of 15 or lower, and depicts what the HRC can and cannot do.

Jones thinks this bill is clear and asks for their support.

Redman thinks the bill is the same, and is the beginning to a very long, dark road for our community. He also believes that our community does not want this bill passed and that he is "deathly against it".

Jones points out the new amendment takes out all use of the word expression. The remedies are limited through the HRC to only conciliation, no suing no courts. It also removes any religious groups from the bill. Mimics the wording in the constitution of the United States.

[jcjohnpaint]

Ray Holt, Clay Yarborough, and Robin Lumb- You lost my vote!

[Jimmy]

Don't be surprised, AshleyLauren.  She was counting on Councilman Crescimbeni not coming downstairs fast enough to participate.

So, it was quite dramatic when he strolled into Chambers right after the vote to call the question.  His vote saved the substitute bill in this committee, 4-3.  Voting for the sub were Crescimbeni, Jones, Anderson, and Love.  Voting against were Daniels, Schellenberg, and Redman.

We're listening to a speaker now called up to answer questions by Redman.  Amazing how far the truth will stretch. 

Hopefully a vote soon.

[AshleyLauren]

Anderson asks for clarity about

Conciliation which is just a settlement conference. It is strictly voluntary. Individuals may decline. After conciliation there is no next step. One could not pursue any further legal steps.


Again, Redman, leading down the wrong road. Just the beginning of oppressing business owners, taking away their rights. And we are overlooking the Christian Community. He also thinks the Christian Community is discriminated much more than the Homosexual community. Brings up Chik-fil-a and Kathy. Thinks there will be great problems to face if we face it. (we get it Redman!!!)

Schellenberg- This bill will create what is called a protected class. The difference is the availability of remedies to them in comparison to other groups. Schellenberg points out that so the bill in itself is discriminating by creating a protected class based on their sexual orientation. Elevating the group as a protected class but they are not getting the same protections under the law as other classes. Apparently, state laws don't require these protections.

Transgender has been taken out of the sexual orientation group. Interesting how Schellenberg referred to Transgenders as "he/his".

Points made that the bill can and will affect all groups and it is just the beginning.

[AshleyLauren]

Good to see you, Jimmy.

When something is called to question, and then voted on? What does that actually do??

This guy Redman calls on every meeting is really getting on my nerves. However, you could tell today he was struggling for answers. I feel like this whole meeting was mapped out by Daniels and Redman ahead of time.

[AshleyLauren]

Daniels, Reman, Schellenberg vote against 296.

Love, Jones, Crescimbeni, and Anderson vote for 296!! By their actions they are recommending the bill to Council.

See you tomorrow!!!!

[vicupstate]

I realize many cities don't even have this type of law on the books at all, but this bill is about as watered down as it gets. 

If it can't get 10 votes in its present state, then it will be an insult to South Georgia to call Jacksonville its' capital.     

[AshleyLauren]

This Chik-fil-a thing is really giving the other side a leg to stand on.

Lumb has disappointed me.  He is asking the "go-to lawyer" was there anything stopping the HRC from keeping track of how many acts of discrimination are reported yearly.  Lawyer-guy does not see anywhere in their charter stopping them. He says they could have kept track of the information if they wanted too or that there just aren't that many being reported in the first place.

Lawyer-guy points out that the wording is inaccurate because the choice to attend conciliation is not a choice because if they do not show up then the mark remains against them until an agreement is made.

Ha. Jones asked lawyer-guy if he was being compensated and who he was representing for his efforts in detouring the passing of 296. Lawyer-guy states he is not receiving a penny for his efforts. He is a part of a group of lawyers of like minds that are against passing these sorts of ordinances. He is  a free agent.

[AshleyLauren]

Dr. Gaffney brings HRC Chief, Ms Hill, to the podium. Gaffney asks, In your professional opinion have you seen a proliferation of case loads or lawsuits due to ordinances like this one?

Hill, the commission has looked into this before people believed we did not study the issue. This law has been implemented in other counties to see what happened to them when a bill like this was introduced. They vary as the communities vary. Broward County had 23 cases in 2011 and in 2012 they had 8 cases. Most municipalities had between 2-10 cases per fiscal year. No, it's not a large number. I think most people want this because they know they have options to redress if they are discriminated against. The safety, the opportunity to have a neutral party look into their allegations.

Lumb thinks the number isn't high enough to justify creating an ordinance to deal with it. Want empirical evidence that were denied employment or lost their jobs. Ms. Hill again, no we don't have those numbers because people have not filed because they know the law is not there.

Joost, a little eager, move to substitute. Jones, many think this bill is divisive. Jones asks, how many people have to be discriminated against in order for us to justify passing this. one? five? ten? twenty? hundreds? Jones, this option is watered down but lets do this so we can see how serious the problem is and later we can strengthen the legislation when we have the numbers. The remedies are limited. Law suits have no basis. Religious groups are protected. This is about fairness, not whether you agree or disagree. This allows them recourse and about everyone in this city being treated equally. 

[Timkin]

Wow.  Depressing.   I like Lumb, but he has disappointed me on this one.  I did not want to believe he would be against the gay community.

[Timkin]

Dr. Gaffney brings HRC Chief, Ms Hill, to the podium. Gaffney asks, In your professional opinion have you seen a proliferation of case loads or lawsuits due to ordinances like this one?

Hill, the commission has looked into this before people believed we did not study the issue. This law has been implemented in other counties to see what happened to them when a bill like this was introduced. They vary as the communities vary. Broward County had 23 cases in 2011 and in 2012 they had 8 cases. Most municipalities had between 2-10 cases per fiscal year. No, it's not a large number. I think most people want this because they know they have options to redress if they are discriminated against. The safety, the opportunity to have a neutral party look into their allegations.

Lumb thinks the number isn't high enough to justify creating an ordinance to deal with it. Want empirical evidence that were denied employment or lost their jobs. Ms. Hill again, no we don't have those numbers because people have not filed because they know the law is not there.

Joost, a little eager, move to substitute. Jones, many think this bill is divisive. Jones asks, how many people have to be discriminated against in order for us to justify passing this. one? five? ten? twenty? hundreds? Jones, this option is watered down but lets do this so we can see how serious the problem is and later we can strengthen the legislation when we have the numbers. The remedies are limited. Law suits have no basis. Religious groups are protected. This is about fairness, not whether you agree or disagree. This allows them recourse and about everyone in this city being treated equally. 

And clearly some of the Council people aren't having any part of everyone being treated equally. 

Will remember this when they are seeking re-election.

[AshleyLauren]

You know, Timkin, I really am not sure what exactly his problem with it is. He seems interested in hearing about both sides and learning as much about the bill as he can, as well as he wants to learn about the LGBT community but he is voting against it. It's quite confusing.

Redman, Again, "A VOTE FOR THE SUBSTITUTE IS A VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL." Whoever came up with that line for him, I want to punch you.

Carter, has a problem with the bill from a business point of view and from a personal point of view. Not that anyone should be discriminated against, but you cannot regulate morals and ethics.

Joost, i support the substitute. There is one fundamental question, is it right to fire someone because they are straight or gay. The answer is no. It is simple.  Yes, we won't pretend. They are trying to start something here, to push this on and make it something else. But for us to decide is only if it is right for someone to be fired because of these things. And the answer is no. You don't want them teaching your kids, well it's fact they are. They just aren't telling anyone. I support the substitute. This is the right thing to do. I am glad Mr. Jones brought this up.

[AshleyLauren]

Redman asks if gay men can lead boy scouts. Jones brings Jimmy up to answer legally that the constitution states a gay man can be restricted from being a part of the boy scouts of America. Legally they have the right to only involve heterosexual christian men. Redman clearly doesn't trust lawyers on the LGBT side therefore asked a lawyer from his side to answer the question.

Jimmy, not that my opinion matters, but that was rude and I am sorry Redman is a Class-A jerk.

Gulliford, Laws like this erode our liberty a little more every time we pass one. This goes to far and protects others in ways other classes are not given. I have a problem with the number of 15 for a small business. I agree this bill takes away from others and our freedoms will be restricted by passing these bills.

[Timkin]

You know, Timkin, I really am not sure what exactly his problem with it is. He seems interested in hearing about both sides and learning as much about the bill as he can, as well as he wants to learn about the LGBT community but he is voting against it. It's quite confusing.

Then he really cannot be wanting to learn about or keep an open mind to,  the LGBT community... just simply stating that he does, and certainly not in favor of us having rights (or he would favor the bill, seems to me) .    Either you're for our equal rights , or against them. You can't have it both ways. 

Redman, Again, "A VOTE FOR THE SUBSTITUTE IS A VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL." Whoever came up with that line for him, I want to punch you.

I would like to help.  What a disappointing and bigoted representative for City Council.

Carter, has a problem with the bill from a business point of view and from a personal point of view. Not that anyone should be discriminated against, but you cannot regulate morals and ethics.

Yet he IS trying to regulate , along with those in agreement with him, our equal rights.  Priceless.

Joost, i support the substitute. There is one fundamental question, is it right to fire someone because they are straight or gay. The answer is no. It is simple.  Yes, we won't pretend. They are trying to start something here, to push this on and make it something else. But for us to decide is only if it is right for someone to be fired because of these things. And the answer is no. You don't want them teaching your kids, well it's fact they are. They just aren't telling anyone. I support the substitute. This is the right thing to do. I am glad Mr. Jones brought this up.

Thank you Mr. Joost.    We appreciate your support.