We're here!!! Live from City Hall at the Rules Committee Meeting. Specifically, we are here to keep up with and bring you any new information about the bill 2012-296, the Anti-Discrimination Bill.
As you know, we were here for the City Council meeting, Tuesday, May 22, when what appeared to be the entire city of Jacksonville showed up to voice their opinion and hopefully sway the council in their favor. That night there was standing room only, a line out the door, and red stickers screaming "Yes!" for 296 everywhere; this morning, only about 60% of the chamber is full.
While waiting for the conversation we are here for, the council appears nice and comfortable on this beautiful Monday morning. Bill Bishop is the head of the Rules Committee, President Joost is in attendance, as well as:
Bill Bishop - Chair
John Crescimbeni - Vice Chair
Lori Boyer
Johnny Gaffney
Ray Holt
Matt Schellenberg
Clay Yarborough
As described on the COJ website, The Rules Committee focuses on Matters relating to confirmation of nominations by the Council, Mayor and Sheriff; rules; laws; executive communications; resolutions; memorials; calendar; agenda; charter revision; governmental reorganization; City Council and School Board redistricting; elections; courts; consumer affairs; "J-Bills" and legislation before the Florida Legislature; and all unclassified subjects.
The Rules Committee along with the RCD/PHS committee are the two committees the bill has been assigned to. It's part of the normal council process for bills to be "heard" in the committees they're assigned to. The RCD/PHS committee will meet tomorrow @2pm.
Bill Bishop just informed the chamber, "I understand a lot of people are here to talk about 296, but since we have to be done with all of our business by 1pm we will be discussing that at the end."
Still with us?
Much discussion about the Hallmark Properties development in Brooklyn.
296 should be next...
Ha, Thanks Jimmy. I was about to type, "a lot of talk about permits, phase 1B, phase this, phase that, money, maintenance, construction...."
Jimmy's answer is a lot better.
Room appears to be getting restless, lots of people walking in and out, small chatter, lots of people on their cell phones, I see one woman reading her kindle and another taking a nap. Other stickers are making appearances, one says, "Protect First Liberties' and their are 7 or 8 people in the back with shirts imprinted with "NO prayer in School?" on the front and on the back there is another "NO" but I cannot see the bottom line, I think it says "NO sex in the city". So far, only men in suits at the podium.
Yeah, on the back it says "NO sex in the city." The people with those shirts are being organized, as it were, by CW Daniels.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of prayer or the screaming of a deities name during sex...not sure about the "in school" part though..
Warren Jones, CCM, takes the stage claiming this bill has been demonized. He claims he understands how dehumanizing discrimination can be, reminisces about Jacksonville when segregation was at its highest and claims many still have the perception that Jacksonville is a racist town, and our goal is to give assistance towards this particular aggrievance. It does not allow same sex marriage and it does not clarify or justify any questions about morality. He asks for the rest of the council join him.
This bill does not give individuals the right to go to court over such a grievance, but it does allow individuals to take any case or grievance to the Human Rights Commission.
Yarborough would like to know why the bill will apply to businesses with 15 employees or more only. Joost replies 15 is the number of employees set forth in the federal standard. Yarborough, "I appreciate that" but about 90% of our businesses have 15 or less. Can we not change that to cover most of our businesses? Do we have that ability? Yarborough asks Jones to change the number to apply to more of our businesses. Jones replies he would rather comply with federal standards. Yarborough claims he cannot support it the way it is written right now.
Crescimbeni states, he might be receptive to the change but it should be changed overall. He asks, what will the religious exemption add language that religious organizations including churches, mosques, hospitals owned by a religious organization, will be exempt from this bill. A little unclear if that was the actual answer. They moved on quickly.
Schellenberg: Would St. Vincents be exempted from this bill?? Margaret Sidman cannot speak specifically to the structure of St. Vincents but it will be tied under the FL statutes protection. Schellenberg: "You're right it's not very clear."
Jones says, the General Council office drafted this particular bill and have been working on it for months. Jones defers to Delaney: Equality Florida working with other cities in the state. Delaney lists Jimmy, Audre Moran, himself, his chief of staff all were a part of writing the bill. Delaney says it was the equality group for the state that brought it to Delaney's attention that sexual orientation was not protected. Schellenberg: "You knew but didn't feel it was necessary to do something about this until this particular group came to you, even though you knew about it?"
Delaney, claims that is untrue and he personally took strides to see this bill added to UNF's regulations, and it was unanimously agreed upon and implemented.
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.
Quote from: AshleyLauren on June 04, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
Daniels wants to know why the bill does not cover religious orientation. She is worried about the wording and feels it is not ready.
She does not want this bill passed. Period. She will put up every roadblock she possibly can.
Stremberger defers to another man I did not catch his name Ganner?, The most difficult part of this bill is to answer how does an employer defend themselves against people claiming protection under this ordinance. Yarborough questions a memorandum discussing the illegal problems with an ordinance like this one. Addresses, these ordinance will discriminate against more people than they protect, because of the subjective standards used. He claims land owners, business owners should not have to live in fear. These laws, this ordinance will in fact create bias and discrimination not help weaken it. The memorandum states this ordinance is unconstitutional and a direct attack on first amendment rights.
Bennett Brown: Banker focused on small business: His bank has 47 employees. Most small businesses in Jax will be against this. Constraints should not be increased but decreased.
Crescimbeni is cracking me up. He clearly did not have his morning coffee, but at least he isn't taking anyone's crap. Do you think at any point in Jacksonville people were not able to rent property based on nationality, i.e. African, Italian?? Yes, that definitely happened. So, you think we should go rip all of those amendments out?? No, I don't, umm, eh, uh.............that's a good point. The problem with this particular classification is not to refute their individual experiences. But in attempting to address those issues it goes too far in restricting free speech of the effected business owners which directly affects their first amendment rights.
How much does this religious exemption really exempt people of religion? (Daniels)
Gander? Ganner? Churches are fully exempt. However, it gets tricky when referring to the religious organizations such as a food bank, homeless shelter, not for profit hospitals.
Speaks of a counselor in Georgia, that respectfully deterred a member of the LGTB community to another counselor because of her own personal religious/moral beliefs. In return the member turned around and sued the counselor under the protection of the Human Rights Ordinance and that counselor was fired and her license withdrawn.
Reveals privately owned religious schools which receive any money from, ANY MONEY AT ALL, the state would lose their private rights, that could even be in the form of a scholarship.
Kim Daniels is appalled and upset that this group of people is even being compared to what she and all African Americans have been throughout history.
Sorry, was trying to complete thoughts. Daniels asked will 296 directly affect businesses in Jacksonville. His answer, unequivocally, YES!
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!
The next speaker, points out based on Federal law, this changes nothing for employers, because it states under federal law that discrimination based on gender, non-conformity with gender stereotypes is illegal. Studies show, in cities that have adopted this ordinance have not seen an increase in legal action taken against employers based on sexual orientation discrimination.
Jones: The affects this will have on religion?
Three arguments against segregation: If you give blacks equal rights you will promote racial mixing.
Bishop...Time is up!! We will pick up where we left off!!
Crescimbeni: Proposes we set up a time with zero time limits to discuss this bill as it is unfair to the individuals that keep coming down here to discuss or stand in support of their side.
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?
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
Quote from: Purplebike on June 04, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
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
Quote from: TheCat on June 04, 2012, 01:06:03 PM
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.
Thanks for this coverage, Ashley.
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.
Quote from: AshleyLauren on June 04, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: AshleyLauren on June 04, 2012, 01:07:02 PM
Quote from: Purplebike on June 04, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
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!
Quote from: Purplebike on June 04, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
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.
^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.
^ 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.
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.
There are some very ignornat people in our world.
Quote from: Ralph W on June 04, 2012, 01:40:04 PM
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.
that Yarborough is even thinking about voting for this legislation is big news
That Kimberly Daniels was ever put in office was a HUGE MISTAKE ! . Sorry. just saying.
She is the true definition of IGNORANT, and has done a brilliant job TODAY of displaying it.