The Jacksonville Business Journal is reporting that Miami developer Jeff Morr, who recently purchased several buildings in Jacksonville and has been trying to inspire other investors to do the same, won't invest any further until the Human Rights Ordinance is implemented.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2016/02/23/would-be-jacksonville-developer-delays-plans-until.html?ana=e_jac_rdup&s=newsletter&ed=2016-02-23
Morr recently bought 1095 Park St. and 2008 Riverside Ave., and was reported to be working with other investors to develop in Downtown and the Urban Core. A few weeks back he brought investors down from New York to show them potential opportunities in Jacksonville.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2016/02/11/why-a-miami-developer-is-taking-interest-in.html
But the mayor says the HRO "wouldn't be prudent" at this time.
I'm glad he's taking a public stance on the issue. I wonder how many other developers or investors are staying away for this very reason, but haven't spoken up.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on February 23, 2016, 11:33:13 AM
Good for him for speaking up.
Yup - this is exactly the type of statement needed. The more stances like this, the more pressure on the mayor/council
Here's what we're losing:
Jeff Morr is nearly a South Florida native but bears national origins from Tel Aviv. He carries over 25 years of real estate and design experience to Itsuv from a multitude of influences, most notably real estate brokerage as Jeff is the Founder and Chief Executive of Majestic Properties, a luxury real estate company with offices spanning Miami Beach to Tampa.
Jeff reinvented the way South Florida real estate was designed and branded. He introduced the "modern loft" concept in the late 1990s with four boutique South Beach loft buildings: Fountainhead, Ilona, Manhattan and Sundance. In addition, Jeff ushered in the inclusion of rooftop terraces, deep living balconies, and plasma walls between living and bedroom areas as well as full glass-wall baths to the industry. Jeff describes Itsuv as "a powerful vehicle for owners and developers to successfully capitalize on the real estate market with the creativity, innovation and foresight of a full service design firm."
Jeff has a strong hand in reshaping the Miami skyline. He was instrumental in the conceptualization, master planning, unit mix, design, finish, branding and marketing of an impressive list of flagship developments. These include Ten Museum Park, Marquis, Paramount Bay, Midtown Miami 2 & 4, Midblock, Nirvana, ArtéCity, South of Fifth and the Caribbean. Jeff and his team at Majestic Properties have sold over $3 Billion in developer inventory over the last decade.
Ten Museum Park - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Museum_Park
Marquis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Residences
Paramount Bay - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Bay_at_Edgewater_Square
Midtown Miami 2 & 4, Midblock - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Miami_Residences
Artecity - https://www.miamicondolifestyle.com/artecity.php
South of Fifth - http://www.simplysofi.com/
The Caribbean - http://www.kevintomlinson.com/condos/caribbean
Excellent!
Quote: " A few weeks back he brought investors down from New York to show them potential opportunities in Jacksonville."
Good God, how pathetic is this place. We need a developer from South Beach to bring people from New York to show them around Jacksonville?
That truly sums it up, 'cause there are no local people who have New York ties and can bring people down themselves? Does he know anyone in Chicago?
Maybe someone from Peoria can bring someone from Albuquerque and show them around?
Yikes.
Obviously Morr is in a position to hold his ground because he can just say no and doesn't live here. It would be nice for Rummell and some of the other locals proposing big projects to also call out Curry for his lack of leadership.
If Curry had endorsed the HRO because it is the right thing to do, then his glowing endorsement of Rubio for President would not have been so welcomed. Way to stay focused on Jacksonville, Curry! ::)
When Rubio gets beaten by The Donald our fresh faced Mayor will have an embarrassment on his hands.
Quote from: MusicMan on February 23, 2016, 09:45:14 PM
When Rubio gets beaten by The Donald our fresh faced Mayor will have an embarrassment on his hands.
Hardly. Most establishment people aren't supporting Trump. Pretty sure the former state party chair had little choice but to endorse the only Floridian (yes I know Trump owns some real estate here) still in the race.
Curry is former Chair of the Florida Republican Party. Mayor of Jacksonville. He has endorsed the former Florida Senator. If Trump beats him
(as predicted) it shows Curry is not as effective as he wants people to believe. And it would be an embarrassment. All of the "establishment" Repubs are backing Rubio, but the rank and file are not buying into it.
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville. Nice P.R. try, though.
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville. Nice P.R. try, though.
Sorry, but I'm going to trust Morr's word on Morr's developments, and he's pretty clear on the subject.
Pushing away *any* opportunity over something as simple as basic human rights coverage is just silly.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 24, 2016, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville. Nice P.R. try, though.
Sorry, but I'm going to trust Morr's word on Morr's developments, and he's pretty clear on the subject.
Pushing away *any* opportunity over something as simple as basic human rights coverage is just silly.
I don't think RG was calling Morr a liar. He was saying development will continue in Jacksonville, HRO or no HRO.
Every developer has to make decisions that are best for their operation. If Morr has an HRO on his check off list for good business then that is his prerogative.
My take is that if you want to effect social change, you embrace the community completely and convince from within as opposed to dangling "what could be" in front of peoples faces to change their mind.
I still think there is room for an amended HRO, but it seems its this "all or nothing" approach that benefits no one at all.
Quote from: spuwho on February 24, 2016, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 24, 2016, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville.
Sorry, but I'm going to trust Morr's word on Morr's developments, and he's pretty clear on the subject.
Pushing away *any* opportunity over something as simple as basic human rights coverage is just silly.
I don't think RG was calling Morr a liar. He was saying development will continue in Jacksonville, HRO or no HRO.
Every developer has to make decisions that are best for their operation. If Morr has an HRO on his check off list for good business then that is his prerogative.
My take is that if you want to effect social change, you embrace the community completely and convince from within as opposed to dangling "what could be" in front of peoples faces to change their mind.
I still think there is room for an amended HRO, but it seems its this "all or nothing" approach that benefits no one at all.
What would you amend out of the fully inclusive HRO?
Quote from: stephendare on February 24, 2016, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 24, 2016, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 24, 2016, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville. Nice P.R. try, though.
Sorry, but I'm going to trust Morr's word on Morr's developments, and he's pretty clear on the subject.
Pushing away *any* opportunity over something as simple as basic human rights coverage is just silly.
I don't think RG was calling Morr a liar. He was saying development will continue in Jacksonville, HRO or no HRO.
Every developer has to make decisions that are best for their operation. If Morr has an HRO on his check off list for good business then that is his prerogative.
My take is that if you want to effect social change, you embrace the community completely and convince from within as opposed to dangling "what could be" in front of peoples faces to change their mind.
I still think there is room for an amended HRO, but it seems its this "all or nothing" approach that benefits no one at all.
This is where all of the upper end money is, unfortunately spuwho.
Apparently the impulse to force parents with young boys into a bathroom next to men in dresses, transwomen and gender fluid people in the name of hating LGBT people is also a way to cheapen the labor demand and cut the city off from investment.
I don't like the army of haters anymore than you do, believe me.
But if it is such a good business for Morr to promote this, why can't he be the pioneer and actually build a building that shows Jacksonville how it works and that its not as bad as the haters say?
People talk about how the private sector will embrace it if it make good business sense, so by extension, if Morr thinks its good business sense to accommodate the HRO community, why not show us? Why does he need an HRO in place to design a building that has full accommodation and hangs a shingle to the world that says "pro-HRO business is welcome here"
If there really is money to be made, I say let him have at it and show everyone how its done.
Quote from: stephendare on February 24, 2016, 07:54:04 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 24, 2016, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 24, 2016, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 24, 2016, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 24, 2016, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Non-passage of some gay HRO isn't stopping any development in Jacksonville. Nice P.R. try, though.
Sorry, but I'm going to trust Morr's word on Morr's developments, and he's pretty clear on the subject.
Pushing away *any* opportunity over something as simple as basic human rights coverage is just silly.
I don't think RG was calling Morr a liar. He was saying development will continue in Jacksonville, HRO or no HRO.
Every developer has to make decisions that are best for their operation. If Morr has an HRO on his check off list for good business then that is his prerogative.
My take is that if you want to effect social change, you embrace the community completely and convince from within as opposed to dangling "what could be" in front of peoples faces to change their mind.
I still think there is room for an amended HRO, but it seems its this "all or nothing" approach that benefits no one at all.
This is where all of the upper end money is, unfortunately spuwho.
Apparently the impulse to force parents with young boys into a bathroom next to men in dresses, transwomen and gender fluid people in the name of hating LGBT people is also a way to cheapen the labor demand and cut the city off from investment.
I don't like the army of haters anymore than you do, believe me.
But if it is such a good business for Morr to promote this, why can't he be the pioneer and actually build a building that shows Jacksonville how it works and that its not as bad as the haters say?
People talk about how the private sector will embrace it if it make good business sense, so by extension, if Morr thinks its good business sense to accommodate the HRO community, why not show us? Why does he need an HRO in place to design a building that has full accommodation and hangs a shingle to the world that says "pro-HRO business is welcome here"
If there really is money to be made, I say let him have at it and show everyone how its done.
Because he doesn't have to, I suppose.
And why put another dime into a market whose government is determined to drive your potential market away?
Why didn't the blue chips build big buildings in Montgomery Alabama to prove a point about how tolerance works after they went segregationist?
Seems kind of obvious.
He doesn't have to put a dime here. It's his dough. I agree.
My suggestion was merely an extension of my idea of embracing from within instead of from the outside.
You are right, why didn't we embrace Montgomery? Different way of thinking then, effecting social change through business practices was considered odd at the time. (not any more)
If Morr thinks a non-HRO town increases his risk, I get it.
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 07:02:47 AM
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
Company by-laws, even if they include protections for LGBT, stop once their employees leave the company premises. Companies cannot guarantee that their LGBT employees will not be targeted by discrimination once they go home or if they go out to any business in Jacksonville.
It's the same for military members, as well. The Pentagon added sexual orientation to the Military's Equal Opportunity Policy last year, but the buck stops once military members leave either base.
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 07:02:47 AM
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
In addition to what Spitfire said, most companies want to be able to select the best employees from the largest pool. If they can't attract top talent because that talent leaves due to harassment, or that talent would never move to Jacksonville to accept that job, then that is a problem for the company.
The point is there are other cities where this simply would not be a problem for the company. So why would they even put up with it in Jacksonville. For all the Republican Governors and Mayors talking point of "We're Open For Business", they sure like to put barriers between them and business.
Great comment, Bridges.
^Yes, spot on.
Morr is a guy who's already "within". He's got two properties here. What he's saying is that he's not doing any more until the HRO issue is settled. Sure, other development will continue, but not his. The point is, why should we accept our city pushing away *any* development at all? Especially on something so basic that it's already been done in virtually every other city of our size.
Historically, most of Jacksonville's leaders have worked to move past the city's backward image. When our leaders won't even do that much, it's not surprising to hear stories like this.
That said, the HRO definitely isn't over. It's a matter of finding something that can pass while avoiding an embarrassing and divisive referendum.
I get not wanting to limit the talent pool for the labor force.
But is there really a strong correlation between LGBT and a highly skilled labor force demanding high paying jobs? What type of businesses are we even talking about? I personally don't associate LGBT with money (having lots of it or none) or education; its just a none factor for me.
I don't know the "facts", I just know my personal experiences. I just don't see it. Since when did business care about LGBT? I've never seen it come up, either in a positive or negative way.
I respect the fact that the LGBT community wants an HRO, but to make this correlation is still far reaching, IMHO.
Please enlighten me.
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 06:41:27 PM
I get not wanting to limit the talent pool for the labor force.
But is there really a strong correlation between LGBT and a highly skilled labor force demanding high paying jobs? What type of businesses are we even talking about? I personally don't associate LGBT with money (having lots of it or none) or education; its just a none factor for me.
I don't know the "facts", I just know my personal experiences. I just don't see it. Since when did business care about LGBT? I've never seen it come up, either in a positive or negative way.
I respect the fact that the LGBT community wants an HRO, but to make this correlation is still far reaching, IMHO.
Please enlighten me.
It doesn't matter if there's a direct correlation between being LGBT and money. A certain percentage of the population is LGBT, meaning a certain percentage of people in any given employment pool are LGBT. Say 5%. Why risk alienating 5% of the pool? Especially over an ordinance so basic that virtually every city our size has one?
We've had businesses lose hires over this issue - I've personally seen it happen at UNF. We've seen business decide not to locate here over this issue. Now we have a developer pulling back investment over this issue. Why make things harder on ourselves?
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 07:02:47 AM
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
It is bullshit of the first order, pure and simple. Most rational people get this, many partisans and well-intentioned people don't.
Okay. No big deal.
But there is no connection. Houston is suffering GREATLY, I'm sure. People all over the South are suffering GREATLY, I'm sure -- that's why the in-population flow continues all over the South.
You don't need special laws for this, you need to enforce the laws on the books. This is all about an agenda and these Orwellian partisans have bullied well-intentioned people into believing they are somehow "haters" if they don't support *this* bullying effort.
Bullshit.
Quote from: spuwho on February 24, 2016, 07:36:46 PM
I don't think RG was calling Morr a liar. He was saying development will continue in Jacksonville, HRO or no HRO.
Every developer has to make decisions that are best for their operation. If Morr has an HRO on his check off list for good business then that is his prerogative.
My take is that if you want to effect social change, you embrace the community completely and convince from within as opposed to dangling "what could be" in front of peoples faces to change their mind.
I still think there is room for an amended HRO, but it seems its this "all or nothing" approach that benefits no one at all.
Thank you for recognizing the obvious, spuwho. I'm not calling him a liar, I'm recognizing him as an obvious partisan. Not that hard, not that big of a deal.
But I am definitely saying I don't believe the assertion that Jacksonville will somehow be harmed by not passing this fought-for amendment. This crazy blowback represented by Donald Trump is a direct result of people being absolutely sick and tired of being lectured to, especially lectured to with nonsense.
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 26, 2016, 06:06:06 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 07:02:47 AM
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
It is bullshit of the first order, pure and simple. Most rational people get this, many partisans and well-intentioned people don't.
Okay. No big deal.
But there is no connection. Houston is suffering GREATLY, I'm sure. People all over the South are suffering GREATLY, I'm sure -- that's why the in-population flow continues all over the South.
You don't need special laws for this, you need to enforce the laws on the books. This is all about an agenda and these Orwellian partisans have bullied well-intentioned people into believing they are somehow "haters" if they don't support *this* bullying effort.
Bullshit.
I'm going to guess three things: you aren't LGBT, you aren't a business owner, and you don't live in Duval County.
I guess if you want to just look solely at Morr you could say there are ulterior motives. But why would the Jax Chamber endorse it if it wasn't a pro-business move? They aren't really the beacon of liberalism.
On NPR this morning they interviewed Sydney Finkelstein about his new book Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Master the Flow of Talent. In it he talks about great leaders and managers. Pioneers who tapped new and potential talent. He talks about Bill Walsh recognizing that Black coaches weren't getting enough chances, so he started a fellowship program for minority coaches so that he could tap into it.
Beyond people who are actually LGBT, you have people who see the tone of the conversation in Jacksonville, or see the discriminatory practices, and think that this is a city that will be held back and won't consider moving here. So while the circle of just LGBT members may be small, a larger circle of people are affected.
If you look at this problem beyond a moral duty, you can see the same issues holding Jacksonville back that we see in other aspects around the city. Truth is that this is a competitive global marketplace. And in a global marketplace QOL is important not only to business owners, but the employees they look to hire. When barriers to entry are put up around downtown, or public transportation is a problem, businesses look to other cities where there aren't these issues. We see our peer cities passing us in all other aspects, and now we have given another reason to the growing list of why we are inferior.
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 26, 2016, 06:06:06 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 25, 2016, 07:02:47 AM
Can someone please explain the connection between HRO/LGBT and high end development money? Does the LGBT community have an enormous base of money to spend, that only an HRO would unleash here?
Why did the Chamber back the HRO movement?
I just can't seem to see the connection here.
It is bullshit of the first order, pure and simple. Most rational people get this, many partisans and well-intentioned people don't.
Okay. No big deal.
But there is no connection. Houston is suffering GREATLY, I'm sure. People all over the South are suffering GREATLY, I'm sure -- that's why the in-population flow continues all over the South.
You don't need special laws for this, you need to enforce the laws on the books. This is all about an agenda and these Orwellian partisans have bullied well-intentioned people into believing they are somehow "haters" if they don't support *this* bullying effort.
Bullshit.
I've had discussions with both some who work at the chamber and economics professors at UNF who have explicitly told me that Jax has lost bids for corporations moving here specifically because we do not have an expanded HRO. Plain and simple. And trust me, they are no liberals. City Councilman Aaron Bowman is also another example with military and corporate experience who is fighting for this. UNF is contracted to do basically all of the impact studies for the city so I am actually taking an urban economics class right now with a professor who has and is currently working on a few projects. He's the associate dean of the business college and he says the same thing!
It's bad for business, its bad for human rights so why fight it? You hate LGBT people, fine. But not allowing them basic human protections is not going to make them "find jesus" or "change their ways". Just let them be.
In regards to Houston, they had an expanded HRO but recently repealed it once it became a bathroom bill. And there are signs that the latest fiasco there is leading some to question whether to invest more or not. It isn't the end-all be-all, I'll admit that, but it is a deterrent and in a city like Jax can we really afford any deterrents?
It's really a simple issue. When you're confused why this is an issue, instead of reading LGBT, substitute: African American, Jewish, female or any number of words that describe people who have laws in place to prevent discrimination.
Seriously... If you're only argument is going to be Why bother? Then the only counter should have to be Why Not?
I dont think he said he hated LGBT people.
He said there isnt any connection between civic growth initiatives and HRO's and he is calling it out.
Just because he doesnt see the link doesnt make him a hater.
^ Fair enough. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped to that but I really just can't fathom why someone would be against this if they don't distinctly dislike the community. Especially since it does affect economics. Again, it isn't everything but it is important.
RG says we should enforce the existing laws for discrimination when working with LGBT related situations.
Who here can show case law that reflects that there was a successful discrimination case brought by a LGBT claimant against an employer or business?
I have heard the "enforce the current" as a counter to the HRO from the Mayor and others.
All I ask is show me the case law where this was successful.
Quote from: spuwho on February 26, 2016, 06:25:08 PM
RG says we should enforce the existing laws for discrimination when working with LGBT related situations.
Who here can show case law that reflects that there was a successful discrimination case brought by a LGBT claimant against an employer or business?
I have heard the "enforce the current" as a counter to the HRO from the Mayor and others.
All I ask is show me the case law where this was successful.
If there is no case law, why isn't there any? Is discrimination not happening then? If truely were happening, why is it taking city ordinance legislation, rather than state/federal legislation to get the job done?
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.
In addition, for anyone in support of the HRO, please explain the opposing opinion, and do your best to keep it to the facts, and not sling mud.
I find that when the the opposing view is understood and explained from the other side, respect, insight, and clarity can help others form their own opinion. Right now, all I can gather from supporters of the HRO is that the opposers "dislike their city', or " don't support businesses", or anti-LGBT. I don't agree with something just because I can't disagree with it. That's not good policy or legislation.
QuoteIf there is no case law, why isn't there any? Is discrimination not happening then? If truely were happening, why is it taking city ordinance legislation, rather than state/federal legislation to get the job done?
There is no case law because this is NO LAW AGAINST it (discriminating). If there were a Federal Law or a State Law then the city ordinance would not be needed, and no one would be asking for it.
California judge rules that harassment of lesbians at a university violates Title X rules on sexual discrimination.
http://www.advocate.com/sports/2015/12/21/judge-rules-sex-discrimination-includes-sexual-orientation-historic-title-ix-case (http://www.advocate.com/sports/2015/12/21/judge-rules-sex-discrimination-includes-sexual-orientation-historic-title-ix-case)
From attending the "Listening Sessions" and City Council meetings, it seems the primary (loudest) opposition is along the lines of "Being LGBT is against God's law, and so it must be kept against civil law. Passing the amendment to the HRO would not allow us Religious People to refuse service to those whose lifestyle we don't agree with, and therefore impinges on our religious rights."
Of course, the Bible also says that divorce is sinful. Do these folks want to discriminate against divorced people? Oh, wait, the laws already prohibit discrimination based on "marital status".
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 26, 2016, 07:09:02 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 26, 2016, 06:25:08 PM
RG says we should enforce the existing laws for discrimination when working with LGBT related situations.
Who here can show case law that reflects that there was a successful discrimination case brought by a LGBT claimant against an employer or business?
I have heard the "enforce the current" as a counter to the HRO from the Mayor and others.
All I ask is show me the case law where this was successful.
If there is no case law, why isn't there any? Is discrimination not happening then? If truely were happening, why is it taking city ordinance legislation, rather than state/federal legislation to get the job done?
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.
I'll try to answer this as a sincerely asked question.
State and federal legislation is a longer term goal, but it's far more difficult to get items like this through the Florida legislature and Congress than through a City Council vote. Right now the focus is on attainable goals - start local. It's never gone to trial because right now there's no real law protecting LGBT people at any level. If it's not illegal for a boss to fire you for being gay, there's no benefit to putting the effort and resources to sue them over it. The solution is just to update the law.
Your second comment, I think, speaks to one of the key misunderstandings between the two sides in this discussion. This isn't a "lifestyle" to be supported or not supported. It's the way folks are born. We might as well speak of the "redhead lifestyle" or the "tall lifestyle".
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 26, 2016, 07:16:53 PM
In addition, for anyone in support of the HRO, please explain the opposing opinion, and do your best to keep it to the facts, and not sling mud.
I find that when the the opposing view is understood and explained from the other side, respect, insight, and clarity can help others form their own opinion. Right now, all I can gather from supporters of the HRO is that the opposers "dislike their city', or " don't support businesses", or anti-LGBT. I don't agree with something just because I can't disagree with it. That's not good policy or legislation.
Interesting thought exercise. I'd say that the majority of good-faith HRO opponents see the ordinance as at best an an unnecessary regulation, or else a measure that will restrict the ability of business owners to practice their religious beliefs when operating their business as it relates to LGBT employees, customers, residents, etc. Others see this as a battle in the culture war. Some are genuinely and openly anti-LGBT, including some of the leading voices of the movement.
Whether one sees this as "anti-LGBT" depends on their own feelings about LGBT issues. From my perspective it is - it's advocating a something that keeps LGBT citizens in a disadvantaged position - though I try to remember that not all people who hold these positions consider themselves anti-gay or believe that their position is damaging to their LGBT neighbors. At a point, however, the intention behind a position doesn't outweigh the effect it has; it's easy to see how genuinely decent, well intentioned people could have fallen into supporting "separate but equal", for example; their intentions don't change the fact that it was a damaging system for African Americans.
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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 29, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
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.
So you're telling me you choose to be straight in the same way you choose to pay your taxes? That sounds like you're not really enjoying it lol! For me at least I never just decided to be straight one day, I just am, so I don't really get what you're trying to say either. ???
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 29, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
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.
And you are a hiring manager, so how you feel about an LGBT person's "lifestyle" (wtf) directly effects whether or not that person is hired or how they are ranked in relation to other potential hires.
hmmmmmm yeaaaah no need for legislation here lofl
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.
Also, I meant combine finances and pay taxes together. As in a single household.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
I hire based on qualifications to get the job done, not sexual preference or lifestyle choices, if this group prefer to keep them seperate.
This group does keep them separate.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
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.
What about the people that are hired because they are gay? They are still going to receive preferential treatment, right?
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
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?
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 29, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Bridges on March 01, 2016, 08:22:57 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Bridges on March 01, 2016, 08:22:57 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: simms3 on March 01, 2016, 07:16:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: simms3 on March 01, 2016, 07:16:44 PM
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 ::)
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.
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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 08:11:10 PM
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).
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 08:11:10 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on March 02, 2016, 09:09:34 AM
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:
Quote from: southsider1015 on February 26, 2016, 07:09:02 PM
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.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 02, 2016, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 01, 2016, 08:11:10 PM
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?
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 06:35:23 PM
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?
What about a Marriage Counselor who has never been married?
Can Addiction Counselors not be effective if they were once an addict?
Is a Personal Fitness Trainer less effective if they were once overweight?
As a hiring manager, you should know that the only thing that should be considered is someone's ability to do their job effectively once hired. Without the HRO, you have effectively lessened the talent pool of applicants for the some of the same reasons that you would choose to not look to reside in some of the places SD mentioned.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 06:35:23 PM
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?
They can consider it just as much as anyone hiring 'considers' marital status, age, ethnicity, etc.. the difference is that with an HRO in place, just like with any other protected class, that aspect can't be the determining factor of whether or not someone is hired or fired or otherwise discriminated against and offers the person a legal recourse if it can be proven that their sexuality was the actual causation (or lack thereof in hiring)
That's all.
With the HRO, no one is being forced to hire gays, blacks, women or elderly, they're just not allowed to discriminate based solely on those issues.
And again, religious organizations would almost certainly be exempted anyway.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 02, 2016, 06:48:53 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 06:35:23 PM
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?
What about a Marriage Counselor who has never been married?
Can Addiction Counselors not be effective if they were once an addict?
Is a Personal Fitness Trainer less effective if they were once overweight?
As a hiring manager, you should know that the only thing that should be considered is someone's ability to do their job effectively once hired. Without the HRO, you have effectively lessened the talent pool of applicants for the some of the same reasons that you would choose to not look to reside in some of the places SD mentioned.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 06:35:23 PM
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?
They can consider it just as much as anyone hiring 'considers' marital status, age, ethnicity, etc.. the difference is that with an HRO in place, just like with any other protected class, that aspect can't be the determining factor of whether or not someone is hired or fired or otherwise discriminated against and offers the person a legal recourse if it can be proven that their sexuality was the actual causation (or lack thereof in hiring)
That's all.
With the HRO, no one is being forced to hire gays, blacks, women or elderly, they're just not allowed to discriminate based solely on those issues.
Good points, I agree. In fact, I understand many of the best addict counselors and fitness trainers are the ones that were addicts and severally overweight. Nothing like a good perspective and past similar experience to help. But honestly, I'd never take marital advice from my sngle friends, nor parental advice from someone without kids.
The sole reason or determining factor aspect hasn't been brought up, and maybe it should be. I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.
I would agree. And the difference is that, as it stands, if it were proven that someone was not hired/fired because of their sexual orientation, there is no recourse.
And someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not really that up to date with the verbiage in the HRO as presented; these are more my personal feelings and understanding than any researched information, but isn't the sticking point and a majority of the media focus on the gender identity regarding public restrooms, the Bathroom Bill as it were?
I think bald people get discriminated against.
Why would they choose that?
SD, the president just recently referred to it as a lifestyle. Google "Obama lifestyle choice". Apparently he received a free pass on using. Based on your continued " interest " in my own usage of the word, I'd say that you're looking to internet slap me once I try to explain my understanding of the term.
Why don't you go ahead and drop the "offensiveness" bomb that you've been waiting two days to do?
None of those examples would be changed by the HRO.
Besides, perhaps it would interest you to know the other perspective - that heterosexual people have been getting beaten, murdered, raped and harassed since you and I were kids.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 03, 2016, 09:24:05 AM
Besides, perhaps it would interest you to know the other perspective - that heterosexual people have been getting beaten, murdered, raped and harassed since you and I were kids.
For the sole reason of being heterosexual?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 02, 2016, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 02, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.
I would agree. And the difference is that, as it stands, if it were proven that someone was not hired/fired because of their sexual orientation, there is no recourse.
The idea with a lot of civil rights legislation like this is that the majority of businesses and people will follow the law. Businesses and property owners will factor it into their hiring and rental policies and their training. And of course there will be a recourse for those that openly flaunt the law, which will be fewer and fewer once it's passed. It won't stop all discrimination but it will help.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 02, 2016, 09:28:04 PM
And someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not really that up to date with the verbiage in the HRO as presented; these are more my personal feelings and understanding than any researched information, but isn't the sticking point and a majority of the media focus on the gender identity regarding public restrooms, the Bathroom Bill as it were?
Yes, the anti-HRO side has seized on the "gender identity and expression" element of the bill and honed in how this affects bathrooms (the full-inclusion version of bill would add "sexual orientation, gender identity and expression" to the list of things that can't be used as a basis to discriminate). Basically what they're doing is honing on the section that deals with transsexuals, as there's much less public support for transsexuals than for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The bathroom thing is pretty cynical, considering that the bill doesn't say anything about bathrooms, and trans people are already using the bathroom of their gender identity anyway. But it works.
We're likely to see some work and compromise on the specific wording and on the other material (ie what is covered and what's exempted). The goal for HRO supporters is to pass something that (1) can pass, and (2) won't be overturned in referendum.
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 08:40:38 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 03, 2016, 07:08:46 AM
SD, the president just recently referred to it as a lifestyle. Google "Obama lifestyle choice". Apparently he received a free pass on using. Based on your continued " interest " in my own usage of the word, I'd say that you're looking to internet slap me once I try to explain my understanding of the term.
Why don't you go ahead and drop the "offensiveness" bomb that you've been waiting two days to do?
Once again, I literally have no idea what you are talking about, and Im not looking to drop any bombs on you at all.
Still curious. But if its a secret that only you and president obama can share, at least let me know why its secret.
Admittedly I didn't make the point very well, but the reason I mentioned the "lifestyle" issue earlier wasn't to start a debate over this word, but to point out that discrimination still occurs regardless of what people do or how they act. Sometimes it's framed as if homosexuality is a matter of action and affect, but discrimination still occurs regardless of peoples' lifestyle.
This is an older example, but one of the best explanations of how this can happen is what went on under the Johns Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislative_Investigation_Committee) in the 60s. A Florida Legislature committee targeted professors and students at state universities for "suspected homosexuality". Few of the people targeted were living anything resembling a gay lifestyle remotely in the open. Most were closeted or otherwise secretive, or were straight people who got caught up in the investigation; victims were targeted based on such things as rumors from students, being seen having lunch with other professors of their sex, and even just wearing shorts.
Fortunately we're past that now, but the point is that people are targeted not only for what they do, but for just for being LGBT (or being
thought to be LGBT).
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:09:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:09:02 AM
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.
Yeah, it's crazy, and frustrating, but unfortunately I don't know that logic will work to confront it. It strikes at such a visceral level. But here's hoping.
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:54:00 AM
Can anyone define what they mean by 'gay lifestyle'?
I literally don't know what this refers to.
First we'll need you to define 'they'.
I literally don't know whom you're referring to. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:09:02 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 11:05:07 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:54:00 AM
Can anyone define what they mean by 'gay lifestyle'?
I literally don't know what this refers to.
First we'll need you to define 'they'.
I literally don't know whom you're referring to. ;)
They = anyone in this thread who has used the term (besides myself, since I don't know what it means)
southsider apparently doesn't support 'it', and tacachale gave us the passage about Kingsfoil from the Master Healer in the Lord of the Rings, but Ill be damned if I can tell what is being discussed.
I can only offer you my personal definition of 'gay lifestyle'. I believe it's full of "guatemalan-ness"...
(http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5309/47/16x9/960.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 11:18:09 AM
? 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...)
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.
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?
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 11:55:17 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 10:09:02 AM
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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 04, 2016, 02:18:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 11:55:17 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on March 04, 2016, 02:18:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2016, 11:55:17 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 03, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2016, 10:13:28 AM
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?
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.
I keep avoiding posting on this subject but....
QuoteWhen 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.
Quote from: strider on March 05, 2016, 09:08:01 AM
I keep avoiding posting on this subject but....
QuoteWhen 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.
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".
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.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 05, 2016, 04:54:47 PM
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 (http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/201603/unf_jacksonville_lgbt_survey_2016.pdf) 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.
Quotestrider 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?
QuoteAs 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.
Stephen,you are so focused on dissing me in some way that you failed to get the point. Just to let you know that I am actually on your side in this:
QuoteA 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.
But go ahead and keep stressing what you are and see how far that gets you with the rest of the residents of Jacksonville. Do you think that if 10 or 15% of Jacksonville's residents end up believing that the LBGT community thinks they deserve more than the average person does will you ever get that HRO to pass?
Have you not listened to the rhetoric over things like Ability Housing and the disabled?
Ha ha Stephen. No, I am not wrong. And you are talking about two different things and not realizing it.
And you obviously have no idea about how I feel about this issue. But I am not who you need to be concerned about.
And while Kim Scott has not yet been fired, Alvin Brown is not the Mayor.....so when you want to diss for political beliefs, try to find something you actually were right on as well. :)
It is true that the HRO doesn't grant any new rights, it just protects the rights of people from being discriminated against. It's not true, or at least not clear, that existing laws protect those rights. Hence the need.
Quote from: stephendare on March 06, 2016, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: strider on March 06, 2016, 11:01:36 AM
Ha ha Stephen. No, I am not wrong. And you are talking abut two different things and not realizing it.
And you obviously have no idea about how I feel about this issue. But I am not who you need to be concerned about.
And while Kim Scott has not yet been fired, Alvin Brown is not the Mayor.....so when you want to diss for political beliefs, try to find something you actually was right on as well. :)
you stated how you feel about this issue, you are for its passage.
But how you feel about legal redress is incorrect.
And no. I voted for Alvin Brown with lots of reason to dislike him, about which I was correct. I also predicted that Lenny Curry would not pass an HRO. About which I was correct, and in fact we are presently discussing that very issue. You voted (and advocated for) Lenny Curry based on the idea that they would fire Kim Scott, and that the situation couldn't get any worse.
How did that work out for you?
Stephen, the only place I voted for Curry because he was going to fire Kim Scott is in your mind. Not sure how you created that fantasy, but you obviously did and enjoy posting about it often. Kinda creepy actually...
And you still miss my point. Basically, there is a group of people who consistently have felt that anti-discrimination laws have consistently been abused by those whom they protect. It is a common rallying point for the opponents of said laws. Even remotely implying that the LBGT community deserves more rights than they do feeds this believe and helps it spread. You can argue that I have no clue or you can recognize the facts and help the cause. Your choice. Doesn't really matter to me. My civil rights in regards to firing, eviction and service are protected as much as yours and I am far more likely to be granted those rights than you are, if you were LBGT. Hmmm, isn't that the reason we need the HRO?