Developer Jeff Morr delays Jacksonville plans pending the HRO

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

? A scene from a camp remake of a camp French film from the 70s?

Or sitting around drinking coffee with guys?

A.

(BTW, the coffee is Turkish...)

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Jesus, man.  I was just being cheeky and now we've allowed a thread to spin so far off topic parsing over a repetitive, rhetorical question.

I believe I know the non-answer you're baiting, so I'll just help everyone else out so we can start moving back towards the original topic matter:  It's no different than any other 'lifestyle' except for the sexual preference. 

[Charles Hunter]

Very tentatively dipping a toe into these waters.
My guess is that "the gay lifestyle" term is based on the incorrect belief that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", like being Goth, or emo, or whatever.  Which reinforces the position of those who believe this that "The Gays" don't deserve mention in a Human Rights Ordinance because The Gays just chose to act that way.  What next? Extending protections to people with the Goth Lifestyle?

Of course, their premise is wrong - people are born they way they are born - and it isn't a "choice".  When did people who believe this "choose" to be heterosexual and cis-gendered?

[southsider1015]

Jesus, man.  I was just being cheeky and now we've allowed a thread to spin so far off topic parsing over a repetitive, rhetorical question.

I believe I know the non-answer you're baiting, so I'll just help everyone else out so we can start moving back towards the original topic matter:  It's no different than any other 'lifestyle' except for the sexual preference.

actually no.  Im just trying to wrap my head around what people mean by it.

I was also replying cheekily. and its a repetitive apparently rhetorical phrase, not a question.

It seems like when people say 'the gay lifestyle' what they mean is 'the gays'.  Is that correct southsider?

Yes, I understand that the usage isn't PC and a bit short-sighted, because the two can be mutually exclusive.  An individual might be homosexual, yet live and sustain a hetrosexual lifestyle with living, marrying, and raising a family with a member of the opposite sex.

Given the recent legal rights of marriage, it's another step in this lifestyle of living and marrying another person.  Now here comes the interesting part:  raising a family.  Since technically and naturally, homosexuality cannot lead to procreation, and only heotrosexually can, how does this occur?  Even if homosexuals can legally and successfully adopt, can same sex couples raise families as well as hetrosexuals couples?  Of course, I know a lot of homosexuals that would make much better parents than many hetrosexuals, but in the big picture, is this socially where we want our society to head?  I think this is where I begin, any many others, to start to take issue.  It's not my business when two individuals decide to live together or wed, but now we start bringing others involved into the picture, like children.  I do believe that, generally speaking and other qualities considered equal,  a man and a woman bring better parenting qualities to the table than same sex couples.  Generally speaking.  Try not to nail me too hard for that comment.

[southsider1015]

But I think if you confront the argument logically the public will get it.

I don't know how you can frame an argument logically when the opposing viewpoint has the notion that this bill is designed to allow predatory men who dress up as women in order to encounter children in public restrooms.

I think because your opponents aren't ever going to vote for it anyways.  Its the rest of the public that you have to convince.

I think the majority of the public is still unsure of how it feels about trans-gender or trans-identity people as they're the minority of a minority.  Passing this any bill like this faces a steep uphill battle.

I'll start that dialogue too, and see if I can avoid confusing SD. 

Someone please explain to me this:  If the mind and body don't agree on the sexuality of the self (not sexual preference), is this considered a disorder of the mind?  The body physically has the body parts for one sex, but the mind believes it's the other?  Or both?  Or neither?  If the two dont line up, is this not a serious problem?  A problem with the brain?  If this a medical condition, can it be treated psychologically, rather than physically? 

I think the conversation should be held seperate from the LG and B community.  It's a different situation.  And the usage of the term "lifestyle" might even better apply here.  Living as a member of the opposite sex than what was started life as, physically. 

Lots of questions.

[Tacachale]

Jesus, man.  I was just being cheeky and now we've allowed a thread to spin so far off topic parsing over a repetitive, rhetorical question.

I believe I know the non-answer you're baiting, so I'll just help everyone else out so we can start moving back towards the original topic matter:  It's no different than any other 'lifestyle' except for the sexual preference.

actually no.  Im just trying to wrap my head around what people mean by it.

I was also replying cheekily. and its a repetitive apparently rhetorical phrase, not a question.

It seems like when people say 'the gay lifestyle' what they mean is 'the gays'.  Is that correct southsider?

Yes, I understand that the usage isn't PC and a bit short-sighted, because the two can be mutually exclusive.  An individual might be homosexual, yet live and sustain a hetrosexual lifestyle with living, marrying, and raising a family with a member of the opposite sex.

Given the recent legal rights of marriage, it's another step in this lifestyle of living and marrying another person.  Now here comes the interesting part:  raising a family.  Since technically and naturally, homosexuality cannot lead to procreation, and only heotrosexually can, how does this occur?  Even if homosexuals can legally and successfully adopt, can same sex couples raise families as well as hetrosexuals couples?  Of course, I know a lot of homosexuals that would make much better parents than many hetrosexuals, but in the big picture, is this socially where we want our society to head?  I think this is where I begin, any many others, to start to take issue.  It's not my business when two individuals decide to live together or wed, but now we start bringing others involved into the picture, like children.  I do believe that, generally speaking and other qualities considered equal,  a man and a woman bring better parenting qualities to the table than same sex couples.  Generally speaking.  Try not to nail me too hard for that comment.

Here's an interesting statistic: Jacksonville has one of the highest rates of families headed by same-sex couples. Most often, the kids are the biological kids of one of the parents from a previous relationship. Since 2010 gays have been able to adopt in Florida, and surrogacy is also increasingly common, creating a situation where there are no other parents. The Florida court ruling that finally allowed adoption found that all studies indicate there are no differences in the fitness of parenting between gay and straight parents, or in how well the kids turn out.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Jesus, man.  I was just being cheeky and now we've allowed a thread to spin so far off topic parsing over a repetitive, rhetorical question.

I believe I know the non-answer you're baiting, so I'll just help everyone else out so we can start moving back towards the original topic matter:  It's no different than any other 'lifestyle' except for the sexual preference.

actually no.  Im just trying to wrap my head around what people mean by it.

I was also replying cheekily. and its a repetitive apparently rhetorical phrase, not a question.

It seems like when people say 'the gay lifestyle' what they mean is 'the gays'.  Is that correct southsider?

Yes, I understand that the usage isn't PC and a bit short-sighted, because the two can be mutually exclusive.  An individual might be homosexual, yet live and sustain a hetrosexual lifestyle with living, marrying, and raising a family with a member of the opposite sex.

Given the recent legal rights of marriage, it's another step in this lifestyle of living and marrying another person.  Now here comes the interesting part:  raising a family.  Since technically and naturally, homosexuality cannot lead to procreation, and only heotrosexually can, how does this occur?  Even if homosexuals can legally and successfully adopt, can same sex couples raise families as well as hetrosexuals couples?  Of course, I know a lot of homosexuals that would make much better parents than many hetrosexuals, but in the big picture, is this socially where we want our society to head?  I think this is where I begin, any many others, to start to take issue.  It's not my business when two individuals decide to live together or wed, but now we start bringing others involved into the picture, like children.  I do believe that, generally speaking and other qualities considered equal,  a man and a woman bring better parenting qualities to the table than same sex couples.  Generally speaking.  Try not to nail me too hard for that comment.

Socially, I want the next generation of kids to grow up without preconceived notions of:

What a family is 'supposed' to look like.
How certain groups of people are 'supposed' to act.
The just because "x" you are 'supposed' to do "y".

It doesn't matter how the family is configured.  Man / Woman, Woman Only, Man / Man, Grandparents, etc..  As long as the child is raised with a certain morality and spirituality around them that teaches honesty, patience, self awareness & self-reliance, then that child is going to be just fine.  I'm against the idea of laying out some preconceived notion of what I want my child's life to be (I have 2 of my own and 2 steps), I leave the options wide open for them to figure that out themselves. 

Sure there are guidelines.  And damn if I don't offer them some 1st hand instruction on what not to do by example, but these are all still teaching moments that I try to capture and pass on.  Life is hard.  They need to know this.  Life is also theirs to decide and just because I think something doesn't mean that they can't think differently about it, as long as they stay within the 'guidelines' that we have set for them.

tl;dr - Family makeup is unimportant.  Family ideology is.

[southsider1015]

southsider why do you keep expecting to be 'nailed' or 'attacked'?

Its a little weird in this conversation.  No one is out to get you.

So I take it to mean that you mean LGBT people themselves rather than their 'lifestyles'?  I had thought this might be true, but then you never know.  Some people seem to think that there is a secret society and a specific way of living a life that is, you know....gay.

Perhaps this was true of city folk in the 1950s through the 70s, although I don't think it was a very large sub group of people.

So when you say that you certainly don't support lgbt people, what does that mean?

Do you not speak to them?  Give to the annual Raise Money for the Gays Campaign? Refuse to let them stand on your shoulders during the little league cheerleading pyramid? Withhold the part on your tax return for the volunteer gay relief fund?

Or are you just against the idea of The Gay, but resigned to the fact that the gays exist and apparently they are allowed to walk around outside, nsupervised for all the world to see?

I know I feel this way about people who text while driving.  I always want to get out and treat them to a strongly worded email in parking lots when they finally get out of their cars after choking all movement as they negotiate turns while staring at their screens.

When I was in my 30s I felt this way about very zealous religious people.  It took me a minute to realize that they are mostly just trying to do the greatest possible good with their lives according to their own lights, and that this instinct is to be encouraged in all of us, even when we disagree on the specifics.  You know?..it wasn't that I needed to prove to them that Allah or Vishnu or some particularly vengeful version of the religion I grew up with were either imaginary or wrong or misinterpreted...or whatever.  It was that this stranger cared enough about the fate of the world around them, and sometimes my own fate in particular, that they took the time and energy to speak or otherwise try to convince me to ponder the Truth....

Looked at in that light, something I didnt 'support' and which made me resentful or uncomfortable suddenly seemed very endearing and connective.

I am interested in your idea of a natural union based on procreation.  Would you exempt barren women or sterile men from being able to marry, since they cannot have children?  What about post menopausal women?

You're coyness is rather annoying. It's like you're asking for answers to your serious questions, but then using terms like "The Gays".

Of course I talk to homosexuals, my barber is gay.  I don't financially support special interests that don't involve my interest, obviously. They can stand on my shoulders, sure.  I'm not a bigot, although I think you might enjoy labeling me one.

I'll repeat my belief that hetrosexuals couples bring opposite strengths to raising a strong family.  I believe the makeup is a part of the ideaology.  My wife and I have many similarities, but many differences.  I like to believe that we make great parents so far, although, it's early.

I think there's a fundamental reason why homosexuals cannot reproduce together.  It's not as nature intended because the purpose of life is to reproduce and continue on and thrive.

Look, I'm OK with the fact that people are homosexual.  I just don't agree that it's a productive relationship.  Is my answer not good enough for you?

[southsider1015]

Thank you.

The marriage issue for me isnt issue.  I take no issue for anyone to get married or civil union.   Reproduction and marriage aren't directly correlated in my book, since many hetrosexual couples decide not to have children, and the elder still remarry after their past spouses decease.

I regard homosexuality as not productive with child birth, and I believe child birth to be a very important part of society and a country.  If everyone were homosexual, life would end.  If everyone were hetrosexual, life could continue.  So in that regard, homosexuality is an apparent part of life that doesn't specifically function to procreate.

I feel bad for homosexual couples who want to have their own children.  It's not scientifically or genetically possible, as I understand modern science.  But then I start to wonder... If the only way to have children is through hetrosexuality, why would homosexuals want children?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Maybe someone can share some insight on this.

[strider]

I keep avoiding posting on this subject but....

When you can be fired, evicted and denied service simply for your sexual orientation, we have an infringement on basic rights.

I keep seeing this basic statement from some and it bothers me. I now find myself wondering if this is part of the larger problem with getting an HRO passed.

You see, for the majority, meaning in this case, an average Caucasian, we have the exact same basic rights being talked about here. But somehow, some seem to imply we have more and the LGBT community has less. That is not true and implying so may be putting a large group of people off.

The reason a HRO is needed is much more subtle than basic rights. You need to compare the plight of a LGBT person in each of the situations in the above quote to the same application of those rights for a regular majority person and a protected minority to understand the need to have that HRO.

We all know that the extra level of protections is very much needed for the minorities as history has shown us that without those extra protections, their basic rights were illegally withheld. The key phrase I think is illegally withheld.

So the issue of a LGBT person being fired is not one of simply being fired because they are gay because even without the HRO, that is still illegal. You still need just cause to fire someone or you could end up with a lawsuit. You can't evict a LGBT person just because they are LGBT because without just cause to evict them, it is still illegal even without that HRO. Without just cause, you could still end up with a lawsuit. You can't just refuse service because someone is LBGT..no wait, that you can do, but you still could, as has been proven, end up with a lawsuit.

So what is the difference of having that HRO or not? In every issue above, simply substitute "Black" for LBGT and you have the answer. Minorities still get fired, evicted and refused service. If it is only because they are a minority, it is illegal and if that is proven to be the case, the law rectifies the situation. I would hope (but I do not truly know) that the instances of those lawsuits is less and less as time goes by. But what I do know is people fear that those laws are abused, though by a extremely small percentage of those minorities, and they keep their jobs, the rental or get service even when they were fired, evicted or refused service for just causes. It is that fear that gives the average Jacksonville resident pause, not the hate and fear you hear about the most. Those that hate and fear is that extremely small minority that will illegally fire, evict and refuse service no matter if there is a HRO or not.

A HRO will not change or add to anyone's basic rights. Nor will it prevent the illegal acts of the few. But it will make those on the fringe pause and give that service. It will make the boss pause and insure he is firing for all the right reasons. It will make that landlord consider twice and act once when the hater next door makes those complaints about the "gays" he rents to. It will also make it easier to bring lawsuits if a LBGT person feels they were discriminated against.

But for the most part, what the LBGT community gets is peace of mind. Isn't that the reason many large companies are for the HRO? The simple fact that their employees can feel at ease that their basic rights are going to be honored no matter what their soul may make them?

Anyway, that's this Average Joe's take on things. And why I personally want the City Council to vote for and pass the all inclusive HRO. Not because I think every LBGT person's rights are being denied but because they deserve the same peace of mind I have. I can see past the rhetoric on both sides to the basics and that is what I think you need to get across to everyone out here if you want that HRO to pass.

[Tacachale]

I keep avoiding posting on this subject but....

When you can be fired, evicted and denied service simply for your sexual orientation, we have an infringement on basic rights.

I keep seeing this basic statement from some and it bothers me. I now find myself wondering if this is part of the larger problem with getting an HRO passed.

You see, for the majority, meaning in this case, an average Caucasian, we have the exact same basic rights being talked about here. But somehow, some seem to imply we have more and the LGBT community has less. That is not true and implying so may be putting a large group of people off.

The reason a HRO is needed is much more subtle than basic rights. You need to compare the plight of a LGBT person in each of the situations in the above quote to the same application of those rights for a regular majority person and a protected minority to understand the need to have that HRO.

We all know that the extra level of protections is very much needed for the minorities as history has shown us that without those extra protections, their basic rights were illegally withheld. The key phrase I think is illegally withheld.

So the issue of a LGBT person being fired is not one of simply being fired because they are gay because even without the HRO, that is still illegal. You still need just cause to fire someone or you could end up with a lawsuit. You can't evict a LGBT person just because they are LGBT because without just cause to evict them, it is still illegal even without that HRO. Without just cause, you could still end up with a lawsuit. You can't just refuse service because someone is LBGT..no wait, that you can do, but you still could, as has been proven, end up with a lawsuit.

So what is the difference of having that HRO or not? In every issue above, simply substitute "Black" for LBGT and you have the answer. Minorities still get fired, evicted and refused service. If it is only because they are a minority, it is illegal and if that is proven to be the case, the law rectifies the situation. I would hope (but I do not truly know) that the instances of those lawsuits is less and less as time goes by. But what I do know is people fear that those laws are abused, though by a extremely small percentage of those minorities, and they keep their jobs, the rental or get service even when they were fired, evicted or refused service for just causes. It is that fear that gives the average Jacksonville resident pause, not the hate and fear you hear about the most. Those that hate and fear is that extremely small minority that will illegally fire, evict and refuse service no matter if there is a HRO or not.

A HRO will not change or add to anyone's basic rights. Nor will it prevent the illegal acts of the few. But it will make those on the fringe pause and give that service. It will make the boss pause and insure he is firing for all the right reasons. It will make that landlord consider twice and act once when the hater next door makes those complaints about the "gays" he rents to. It will also make it easier to bring lawsuits if a LBGT person feels they were discriminated against.

But for the most part, what the LBGT community gets is peace of mind. Isn't that the reason many large companies are for the HRO? The simple fact that their employees can feel at ease that their basic rights are going to be honored no matter what their soul may make them?

Anyway, that's this Average Joe's take on things. And why I personally want the City Council to vote for and pass the all inclusive HRO. Not because I think every LBGT person's rights are being denied but because they deserve the same peace of mind I have. I can see past the rhetoric on both sides to the basics and that is what I think you need to get across to everyone out here if you want that HRO to pass.

As Stephen said (and I  and others said before), this is incorrect. It's absolutely, 100% legal to fire, evict, or deny service to someone for being LGBT in Jacksonville. No other cause is necessary. If you tried to sue over it, you'd lose because it's not against local or state law. This is probably the single biggest misconception in this whole debate.

[whyisjohngalt]

How many times has this happened and been explicitly expressed as the reason?

It's perfectly legal to fire someone based on their hair color or being overweight or even being bald.  The HRO shouldn't be passed until it includes all potentially discriminatory non-lifestyle choices.  In it's current state the HRO discriminates via exclusion more people than it "protects".

[spuwho]

Florida is an "at will" employment state. Anyone can be fired, laid off or let go for any reason.  One has to prove that the employer discriminated or provided a hostile work environment for said employee.

Maybe MJ should interview Tad Delegal, he is a labor attorney down on Monroe Street and a total Jax historical buff. He might shed some insight on what the HRO would bring with regards to labor actions. It would be an interesting read.

[Tacachale]

How many times has this happened and been explicitly expressed as the reason?

It's perfectly legal to fire someone based on their hair color or being overweight or even being bald.  The HRO shouldn't be passed until it includes all potentially discriminatory non-lifestyle choices.  In it's current state the HRO discriminates via exclusion more people than it "protects".

In this survey released a few days ago, .5% of LGBT people report having been evicted, 5.7% report being fired or terminated, and 12.3% report having been denied service, based on being LGBT in Jacksonville in the last 5 years. 57.4% total report having been discriminated against in these and other ways. This is a problem.

[strider]

strider you are incorrect.  It is perfectly legal to fire someone or evict them because they are gay.

Just cause is violation of a lease, what ever clauses are in that lease.  And you can refuse to rent, refuse to renew, and all kinds of things. They are perfectly legal.

What on earth makes you think otherwise?

As Stephen said (and I  and others said before), this is incorrect. It's absolutely, 100% legal to fire, evict, or deny service to someone for being LGBT in Jacksonville. No other cause is necessary. If you tried to sue over it, you'd lose because it's not against local or state law. This is probably the single biggest misconception in this whole debate.

Please, please forgive me for not using the best possible terminology here.  I said "fired" and used the phrase "just cause" and obviously I should have used the term "Wrongful Termination".  Ring a bell?  Google it.

As to the evictions, my god, I guess the Fair Housing Acts did nothing what-so-ever for the renter!

You see, I think some of you are missing the point of anti-discrimination laws.  They do not give rights to anyone.  They try to protect those rights for groups of people who traditionally get denied those rights.  See the difference?

Let's look at a simple firing scenario.  I work for X company and have for many years.  I have done my job well enough that I have been promoted several times, my reviews are perfect and everyone likes me. The CEO's nephew graduates college and I get fired and he gets my job.  Was that wrongful termination?  Yes, and if I can prove it in court the company will pay a penalty for their illegal act.

Now look at the same scenario but make the person with my job an LBGT person. Was it wrongful termination?  Can the LBGT person sue just like I can?  Yes, and if he can prove the same scenario, the company will be found guilty.  No difference because guess what?  We both have the same rights! Isn't that amazing?

Now change the above to be one where the LBGT top employee comes out and the CEO fires him and gives that nephew their job.  Is it now different?  Yes.  What happens without an inclusive HRO?  Well, he is in the same exact boat he was with the first scenario. Just because he was fired in truth simply because he is LBGT doesn't take away his legal rights.  But he must prove wrongful termination in the exact same way I would have to for being fired and replaced by someone less qualified.  Add in the all inclusive HRO and the case simply becomes much easier to prove because the LBGT firing issue trumps (no pun intended) the other wrongful termination issues.

Does the LBGT community deserve more rights than everyone else? No, of course not.  Does the LBGT community deserve to have those rights always extended to them? Of course they do.

Unfortunately the message I see being sent in this thread with the comments about my post is that while you feel it is perfectly fine for me to be fired for just any old reason, the LBGT community deserves more and better rights than I do.

If you really think that is the message to send to the majority of regular old people out here, you are sadly mistaken.