Developer Jeff Morr delays Jacksonville plans pending the HRO

[Bridges]

I hire based on qualifications to get the job done, not sexual preference or lifestyle choices, if this group prefer to keep them seperate.  Since it's not even a question I can ask of candidates (it's against the law, I believe), it never comes up.  I'm fully aware that my business has members of the LGBT community, and it doesn't affect their job performance.  When someone can't perform, they are fired; simple enough right? 

You can demonize me all you want; I came looking for answers, share some opinions,  and finally touched a nerve. 

Sounds simple enough.  It's a good anecdote and you sound like a good person.  Unfortunately, not all people are like you.  In fact, I believe you CAN ask if someone is gay in the interview.  Since there is no federal or state law protecting LGB, then I don't think it is protected by EOCC.  It would be completely rude and uncalled for, but it is not protected. 

In addition, volunteering that information in an interview could cause you to be discriminated against.  An off hand "my partner and I" or anything of the sort. 

[whyisjohngalt]

What about the people that are hired because they are gay?  They are still going to receive preferential treatment, right?

[dbjax]

I hire based on qualifications to get the job done, not sexual preference or lifestyle choices, if this group prefer to keep them seperate.  Since it's not even a question I can ask of candidates (it's against the law, I believe), it never comes up.  I'm fully aware that my business has members of the LGBT community, and it doesn't affect their job performance.  When someone can't perform, they are fired; simple enough right? 

You can demonize me all you want; I came looking for answers, share some opinions,  and finally touched a nerve.

You may perceive this to be true, but don't we all have a collective bias based on someone's appearance? We immediately form an opinion based on a manner of dress or expression. What are your first, private thoughts upon seeing someone appearing disheveled, or wearing baggy pants, or dressed in drag? (rhetorical) Sometimes it is obvious who is a member of the LGBT community, more often it isn't - regardless it shouldn't matter, and that's why the community is insistent that Gender Expression be covered.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, and in countless studies, one's sexuality is not a choice; people are born the way they are. We see and experience more now because we, as a society, are more tolerant of that which we do not understand. There's obviously more room to grow in this space, but progress has been made.

Eventually we may all get to a place that we treat everyone equally (based upon who they are), but I fear that the inclination to lift oneself up at the expense of others may never be overcome. Until that happens naturally, laws will have to be written. When we are finally able to overcome our conditioning to judge someone based upon their appearance, we'll all be the better for it and we won't need protections.



Is it not ironic that people who choose their religion are protected, but those who "choose" their lifestyle are not?

[Tacachale]

Living as a hetrosexual is just as much as a homosexual lifestyle.  When hetrosexuals decide to wed, purchase a house, raise a family (or decide against), pay taxes, etc.  These are lifestyles.  Living single is a lifestyle.  One's sexuality (or asexuality) is a big part lifestyle. Whether its nurture or nature, there's choices to be made.  Not here to argue right or wrong.  Just pointing out that there's also a lifestyle we're talking about, not just a "born this way" simplicity. 

This issue is very different from race and sex.  Very different implications, results, unintended consequences.  Trying to make comparisons to support the cause do not work in my book.

You're conflating a few things here . For one thing you've named at least eight separate lifestyles (marrying or being single, purchasing a house or not, etc.) You're describing different variations of an American lifestyle, a Western lifestyle, etc. These things aren't intrinsic to or exclusive to being heterosexual. They don't add up to a "heterosexual lifestyle" - in fact several are mutually exclusive.

The reason I brought it up to begin with is that it's a point of contention between the two sides. Opponents like to see this as a matter of lifestyle, which can be changed (or kept secret). Others, including the LGBT community, the ones actually affected by this, it's fundamental to their being.

In the terms of the law it really is about who you are rather than what you do. You can fire or evict someone for being gay even if they've kept it quiet, or even if they've been celibate for years. You can fire or evict someone because you think they're gay even if they're not. That's the issue.

I hire based on qualifications to get the job done, not sexual preference or lifestyle choices, if this group prefer to keep them seperate.  Since it's not even a question I can ask of candidates (it's against the law, I believe), it never comes up.  I'm fully aware that my business has members of the LGBT community, and it doesn't affect their job performance.  When someone can't perform, they are fired; simple enough right? 

You can demonize me all you want; I came looking for answers, share some opinions,  and finally touched a nerve. 

Sounds simple enough.  It's a good anecdote and you sound like a good person.  Unfortunately, not all people are like you.  In fact, I believe you CAN ask if someone is gay in the interview.  Since there is no federal or state law protecting LGB, then I don't think it is protected by EOCC.  It would be completely rude and uncalled for, but it is not protected. 

In addition, volunteering that information in an interview could cause you to be discriminated against.  An off hand "my partner and I" or anything of the sort. 

Correct. There's nothing illegal about asking that kind of question, and refusing to hire them based only on that. You could also fire them later, for instance if they mentioned their partner or put their picture on their desk. If they were your customer you could refuse to serve them and if they were your tenant you could evict them. All this is legal.

[Spitfire]

I hire based on qualifications to get the job done, not sexual preference or lifestyle choices, if this group prefer to keep them seperate.  Since it's not even a question I can ask of candidates (it's against the law, I believe), it never comes up.  I'm fully aware that my business has members of the LGBT community, and it doesn't affect their job performance.  When someone can't perform, they are fired; simple enough right? 

You can demonize me all you want; I came looking for answers, share some opinions,  and finally touched a nerve. 

Sounds simple enough.  It's a good anecdote and you sound like a good person.  Unfortunately, not all people are like you.  In fact, I believe you CAN ask if someone is gay in the interview.  Since there is no federal or state law protecting LGB, then I don't think it is protected by EOCC.  It would be completely rude and uncalled for, but it is not protected. 

Hence, the need for a fully-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance.

[simms3]

Southsider1015 is probably representative of what's par for the course in terms of mentality towards the LGBT community across much of the south.  And while this poster's beliefs, misconceptions, and misperceptions are neither outright revolting to the point of forcing me to hold back vomit, or truly that contentious, they still scare the absolute dickens out of me that there are people like this in very large number in concentrated amounts in certain regions/communities.

Jax is truly held back in a real (relative to where we are in time and economic clout) and perceived stone age by these people and they honestly couldn't see that truth if you tattooed it to their wrist.

[southsider1015]

Southsider1015 is probably representative of what's par for the course in terms of mentality towards the LGBT community across much of the south.  And while this poster's beliefs, misconceptions, and misperceptions are neither outright revolting to the point of forcing me to hold back vomit, or truly that contentious, they still scare the absolute dickens out of me that there are people like this in very large number in concentrated amounts in certain regions/communities.

Jax is truly held back in a real (relative to where we are in time and economic clout) and perceived stone age by these people and they honestly couldn't see that truth if you tattooed it to their wrist.

Come down off your cloud, please.  My God.

If it's so bad here, please leave.

[southsider1015]

Thank you Spit, Tach, and Bridges. Good insight on a topic that most, like me, don't even realize what the law actually is.

Again, it's not my fight, and I can understand the struggle, now.  I still choose to hire based on qualifications because I'm worried more about the bottom line than what occurs in someone's personal life.

When I tuned into to the previous discussion, I never heard this side of it all.  It's too bad, maybe something could have been passed.

The HRO does need to be written to be fair and balanced because I believe that businesses do have some rights here, specifically the faith-based institutions where its against their beliefs.   

[InnerCityPressure]

Southsider1015 is probably representative of what's par for the course in terms of mentality towards the LGBT community across much of the south.  And while this poster's beliefs, misconceptions, and misperceptions are neither outright revolting to the point of forcing me to hold back vomit, or truly that contentious, they still scare the absolute dickens out of me that there are people like this in very large number in concentrated amounts in certain regions/communities.

Jax is truly held back in a real (relative to where we are in time and economic clout) and perceived stone age by these people and they honestly couldn't see that truth if you tattooed it to their wrist.

Come down off your cloud, please.  My God.

If it's so bad here, please leave.

I have a feeling you won't have to tell him twice   

[Charles Hunter]

I question the argument that a business should be allowed to discriminate against our LGBT neighbors because it "is against their religious beliefs." Funny, the same argument was made within a couple generations ago (within my lifetime) to oppose interracial marriage and other civil rights. The people making those arguments devoutly believed  (or believe ) that the Bible says it was sinful to allow such.

[southsider1015]

You're right, why even respond to such a ridiculous post about my so called beliefs and misconceptions that are so bad that they force someone to vomit or scare the dickens out of.  That it's from the stone age and I'm so ignorant that I couldnt see the "truth" if it were tattooed on me?

My response is lame?  More like tame. Not exactly a respectful environment here.  I have higher expectations for MJ.  Who wants to waste time hurling internet mud with wannabe comedians?

Apparently, I was "off" in this thread when I used the word "lifestyle" as it relates to hetro/homosexuality.  Frankly, I've never had a strong opinion about these issues, either way.  I was mostly interested on the Chamber's position, with whom I typically agree with. 

With everything "civil rights" going on these days in this country, the discussion quickly gets diluted about LGBT. Everyone seems to have a "cause" and is facing serious injustice in America today.  I think this discussion is important, and I'm interested to see what type of compromise, if any, is made.

[Tacachale]

Thank you Spit, Tach, and Bridges. Good insight on a topic that most, like me, don't even realize what the law actually is.

Again, it's not my fight, and I can understand the struggle, now.  I still choose to hire based on qualifications because I'm worried more about the bottom line than what occurs in someone's personal life.

When I tuned into to the previous discussion, I never heard this side of it all.  It's too bad, maybe something could have been passed.

The HRO does need to be written to be fair and balanced because I believe that businesses do have some rights here, specifically the faith-based institutions where its against their beliefs.

Thanks, Southsider. It's easy for this discussion to get heated and unfortunately that starts to move away from what the HRO really is and does. Really all it does is add LGBT identity as one of the things that can't be legally discriminated against in employment, housing and "public accommodation" (ie, restaurants, hotels and the like). For people like yourself, who already don't discriminate, it wouldn't affect at all.

And no one would have to change their beliefs so long as they don't discriminate in their businesses, just as they can't discriminate against people for their religion, race, or age regardless of their beliefs according to the current ordinance (and in some cases state and federal law). There's definitely space to compromise on the specifics. Most versions of the bill that have been discussed feature exemptions for religious organizations and sometimes individual owners (like the old lady with one garage apartment behind her house).

[JeffreyS]

I believe that businesses do have some rights here, specifically the faith-based institutions where its against their beliefs.   

I definitely disagree here even though I understand why this might seem reasonable to some.  However IMO if you are going to participate in the great marketplace that this country manifests then the same rules should apply to every business.

[southsider1015]

Southsider, It is lame to tell people that if they don't like it to leave.

Imagine if instead of discussing this issue with you, the response was similar?

"If you don't like the HRO, just leave"

This has happened all too often over the past fifty years.  Sadly, people do, and we've lost our many of our best and brightest.

I don't know if you are 'off' in your discussion about sexuality, because I don't know what you mean by 'lifestyle'.  If you look back at the conversation, you will see that it pretty much came out of nowhere, and I completely lost track of what you were saying or what you were asking.  Which is why Ive asked you about it four times now.

Here is where you introduced the 'lifestyle' thing:

I'm honestly looking for answers here.  I'm not LGBT, I don't support the lifestyle, but it's not my place to tell others how to live.  I understand business, I'm a hiring manager, and I do live in Duval County.

So Im curious.  What do you mean by 'lifestyle'?  And how would you support or not support it?

And thanks for continuing to be direct and open to conversation.

I do think that people are in denial about the effects of bigotry on a local economy or a region.

For example, there are places that are far more religious/conservative/old fashioned/backwards/condemning than Jacksonville.

I wonder if you, as a family guy and an employer would feel comfortable relocating a business and family to a city in the middle east where women are fined for showing their faces, or people can be banned from restaurants for wearing a Christian cross around their necks?

Or (as has happened in Dubai) men ended up gang raping your teenaged son, because of the assumption that european boys are infidels and homosexuals and there are no laws against male rape in the city? http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uae-nationals-get-15-years-for-rape-of-french-boy-195222.html

Now the locals in all of those places would describe themselves as friendly, wonderful people, and in Dubai people would tell you that only criminals do that type of thing and that its very rare. (which it wasn't).  They probably wouldn't understand why you were outraged that it wasn't illegal, because you know: rareness.

Would you relocate your family, your employees and their families to any of these cities?

Nice try with the extreme example. That's so lame. 

But, no I wouldn't obviously move anywhere like that.  For this and many other reasons.

But I'm not talking about this level of extreme. Not even close.  I'm staying pretty level here; let's keep it in perspective.

Regarding my word choice of "lifestyle", is my usage of the word, as it relates to homosexuality, anything new here?  I'm not quite sure how I lost you.

[southsider1015]

I believe that businesses do have some rights here, specifically the faith-based institutions where its against their beliefs.   

I definitely disagree here even though I understand why this might seem reasonable to some.  However IMO if you are going to participate in the great marketplace that this country manifests then the same rules should apply to every business.

If a marriage counseling business provides married couples with counseling to avoid divorce, wouldn't it be odd for the marriage counselor to be divoreced?  Shouldn't the business consider the marital status of its employees considering it has a business interest in the marital status of its employees?

I'm just applying the same logic for faith-based institutions.  How can we force a church that's against homosexuality to not consider sexual preference when considering candidates?

Outside of this reason, i might be in support of an HRO, although I would change the name of it.  A bit deceiving, no?