WOKV and WJCT are reporting that Aaron Bowman is going to submit a modified HRO to City Council.
http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-councilman-aaron-bowman-cosponsor-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill (http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-councilman-aaron-bowman-cosponsor-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill)
MY MAN.
Get it passed, not because we're afraid we won't be able to host tHa bIg gAme, but because it's clearly the right thing to do.
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2012 versions).
so what are the chances one gets passed?
Quote from: fsquid on January 04, 2017, 01:00:46 PM
so what are the chances one gets passed?
It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on January 04, 2017, 01:00:46 PM
so what are the chances one gets passed?
It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.
Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?
Quote from: spuwho on January 04, 2017, 01:59:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on January 04, 2017, 01:00:46 PM
so what are the chances one gets passed?
It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.
Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?
The ones I know of:
Solid Yes:
Tommy Hazouri (D)
Aaron Bowman (R)
Jim Love (R)
Joyce Morgan (D)
John Crecimbeni (D)
Garrett Dennis (D)
Solid No:
Bill Gulliford (R)
Doyle Carter: (R)
Matt Schellenberg (R)
Lori Boyer, Greg Anderson, and perhaps Anna Brosche are Republican maybes who may lean yes if there are protections for small businesses and religious entities. The other 3 Democrats, Reggie Gaffney, Reggie Brown, and Katrina Brown, are also under intense scrutiny to support, due to the embarrassment of 2012 when 3 Democrats voted no (under pressure from a Democrat mayor). However, the organized opposition hasn't gone anywhere, so getting a majority is still an uphill fight.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 04, 2017, 01:59:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on January 04, 2017, 01:00:46 PM
so what are the chances one gets passed?
It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.
Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?
The ones I know of:
Solid Yes:
Tommy Hazouri (D)
Aaron Bowman (R)
Jim Love (R)
Joyce Morgan (D)
John Crecimbeni (D)
Garrett Dennis (D)
Solid No:
Bill Gulliford (R)
Doyle Carter: (R)
Matt Schellenberg (R)
Lori Boyer, Greg Anderson, and perhaps Anna Brosche are Republican maybes who may lean yes if there are protections for small businesses and religious entities. The other 3 Democrats, Reggie Gaffney, Reggie Brown, and Katrina Brown, are also under intense scrutiny to support, due to the embarrassment of 2012 when 3 Democrats voted no (under pressure from a Democrat mayor). However, the organized opposition hasn't gone anywhere, so getting a majority is still an uphill fight.
In the news this afternoon, Anderson said he supports the principal of a fully inclusive HRO, but is withholding judgement on this bill until reading what it says. It further sounds like the need for some bill or another is registering with the other business Republicans on Council. As expected, transgender protections are a hangup for some, as they were the last 2 times. Curiously, the Democrats have been pretty quiet.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
Quote from: Adam White on January 05, 2017, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
Sorry, I don't follow.
Quote from: Adam White on January 05, 2017, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.
Quote from: stephendare on January 05, 2017, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: Spitfire on January 05, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Quote from: Adam White on January 05, 2017, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.
is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?
Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes. They just aren't.
Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?
Because it will prevent discrimination in a lot of cases.
Quote from: stephendare on January 05, 2017, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: Spitfire on January 05, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Quote from: Adam White on January 05, 2017, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.
is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?
Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes. They just aren't.
Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?
I think you mistook what I meant. It feels like our local opponents to the HRO don't seem to realize that there are protections in place for many of the examples that they bring to City Council chambers as reason to deny the HRO. They would just rather perpetuate lies than actually sit down and read the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v Hodges or other basic laws that are already in place.
I bring up that ruling because, as laid out in Obergefell v Hodges, pastors/churches STILL have a constitutional right to not be compelled by a court to solemnize, host, or perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Even with that laid out there and other places, one of the biggest lies that is spread concerning equality laws, on the opposing side, is that those same pastors or churches will be forced to marry LGBT couples. It's just blatantly untrue, but the rhetoric still goes on because of the belief that those pastors/churches could be forced to marry or counsel gay couples.
The same goes for small businesses when it comes to the under 15 employees law, as the same ruling that they are using for the HRO is across the board for Title VII and ADA. I'm with you that local laws shouldn't be modeled after federal statutes. However, when it comes to the under 15 employees, it's not just federal but Florida state law, as well. I agree with you on the fact that's where we'll see more discrimination, but the effort would have to be put in at our state level to get that changed.
If you look at this link from Workplace Fairness (it is the same one that I linked earlier), you can see that Florida shares the 15 and under with the federal government, but there are also states like California that reduce it to 5, Connecticut to 3, Alaska to 2, and there are even a few, like Hawaii, that don't have a minimum at all. So it can be modified, but we need some dedicated folks to help push and get it done.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/minimum# (http://www.workplacefairness.org/minimum#)
Quote from: stephendare on January 05, 2017, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 05, 2017, 01:30:38 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 05, 2017, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: Spitfire on January 05, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Quote from: Adam White on January 05, 2017, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.
Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.
According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).
Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.
It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.
is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?
Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes. They just aren't.
Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?
Because it will prevent discrimination in a lot of cases.
In all honesty, what would you say are five examples?
I literally cannot think of any.
discrimination of this sort is forbidden on federal and military property. Most national corporations already have the policies in place. Churches are exempt, and small business with less than 15 full time employees are exempt.
What are the top five things that this bill would prevent?
I can name five businesses that would have to change their hiring policies, if they haven't already. These are randomly selected from a list of employers from my old office:
WW Gay
Unison Industries avionics
Peninsular Pest Control
Wingard Creative
Acamas Civil Engineering
I'm streaming the City Council meeting tonight 1/24/17. Lori Boyer mentioned that they were at fire capacity for city hall. Does anybody know how many people showed up for this, and roughly what the breakdown for and against is among the public?
The Public Hearing will reconvene at 9:00 this morning. At the time City Council recessed for the night, Lori Boyer shared the number of speaker cards FOR and AGAINST (I don't recall the exact number).
FOR the HRO - over 500 speaker cards
AGAINST the HRO - just under 200 speaker cards
And there were around 106 speaker cards left to be heard.
I'm sure there were many more people there who did not turn in speaker cards....
The HRO bill is progressing. Bill Gulliford, council rep for the Beaches, filed a counter-bill that would have sent the matter to a referendum. This option is seen as the nuclear option of the anti-HRO side, as a referendum of this kind would divide the city, generate negative national press, and generally cast the city in the worst light. He proposed similar last year to thwart the last attempt at an HRO, which was subsequently shelved until last month. Apparently, Gulliford's proposal died in committee today and will not progress. This is fortunate, but it's hard to picture Gulliford in any positive light after this.
Several years ago, I served on a young professionals' advisory committee for Gulliford along with Ennis, Mike Field and several other Metro Jacksonville regulars, and I told him repeatedly how bad this idea was. It's disheartening that his startlingly strong desire to squash the HRO led him down such an objectively harmful path.
The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.
On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.
As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.
Get writing your council members, folks.
Quote from: stephendare on February 06, 2017, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 06, 2017, 05:07:26 PM
The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.
On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.
As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.
Get writing your council members, folks.
And those are full time employees.
With the same wildly discriminatory religious exemption still included.
This HRO version may need to be throttled in the cradle.
50 employees would be both full time and part time on the books for 20 or more weeks during a two year window unless the amendment specifically states otherwise. That is the FMLA limit to provide further contect. Honestly, most small businesses hit with a suit, whether valid or not, have no choice but to settle because they can't afford the representation. Attorneys in the employment field see that every single day. I think the move is a good one and makes the point that we want LGBT peoples protected, but also protects small businesses from the litigation that comes. The other idea to limit frivolous litigation is to insert an attorney's fees provision to the prevailing party.
Quote from: FlaBoy on February 06, 2017, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 06, 2017, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 06, 2017, 05:07:26 PM
The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.
On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.
As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.
Get writing your council members, folks.
And those are full time employees.
With the same wildly discriminatory religious exemption still included.
This HRO version may need to be throttled in the cradle.
50 employees would be both full time and part time on the books for 20 or more weeks during a two year window unless the amendment specifically states otherwise. That is the FMLA limit to provide further contect. Honestly, most small businesses hit with a suit, whether valid or not, have no choice but to settle because they can't afford the representation. Attorneys in the employment field see that every single day. I think the move is a good one and makes the point that we want LGBT peoples protected, but also protects small businesses from the litigation that comes. The other idea to limit frivolous litigation is to insert an attorney's fees provision to the prevailing party.
The idea of the *15 and under* exemption is to protect small business from frivolous suits they can't afford. 15 is the number used for all the other categories like religion, race and age. There's no legitimate reason to set it at 50 for this one area and not the others. Unless the HRO would fail without the amendment, it should be rejected outright.
Councilman Bowman stated businesses with no more than 15 full-time equivalents account for 80 percent of population. Any idea what the percentage drops to if the amendment stands?
The 50 employee exemption needs to go back to 15, but there's no need to "kill" the bill simply because it's not perfect. It's a good bill otherwise. No bill will pass without an exemption for religious organizations, that's just the reality of where we live.
I don't understand why a weak bill is worse than no bill. I'd like it to be stronger, but if this gets the city over the threshold with fortune 500s considering relocation or expansion, at least it's a start.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 06, 2017, 11:48:19 AM
The HRO bill is progressing. Bill Gulliford, council rep for the Beaches, filed a counter-bill that would have sent the matter to a referendum. This option is seen as the nuclear option of the anti-HRO side, as a referendum of this kind would divide the city, generate negative national press, and generally cast the city in the worst light. He proposed similar last year to thwart the last attempt at an HRO, which was subsequently shelved until last month. Apparently, Gulliford's proposal died in committee today and will not progress. This is fortunate, but it's hard to picture Gulliford in any positive light after this.
Several years ago, I served on a young professionals' advisory committee for Gulliford along with Ennis, Mike Field and several other Metro Jacksonville regulars, and I told him repeatedly how bad this idea was. It's disheartening that his startlingly strong desire to squash the HRO led him down such an objectively harmful path.
I misspoke here. Gulliford's substitute bill wasn't to allow a referendum, it was to change some of the wording, broadening which entities would be exempted by the religious exemption, and changing "gender identity" to "transgender identity". This was what the committee rejected. He did mention the threat of a referendum as happened in Houston, but did not advocate it. So, my apologies.
I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.
Quote from: CG7 on February 07, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.
What if you are a fine dining establishment who doesn't want to hire someone with purple hair and their face tattooed? What if you are a nudist, love nudity, and feel discriminated against by wearing clothes, but a business doesn't want to hire you for that reason? What about if you are really conspiratorial, won't stop talking about politics in the workplace (upsetting people) and listen to Alex Jones, and a business wants to fire you for your beliefs? What if you are a complete asshole to people in your office, but you are naturally just an asshole, and your employer wants to fire you? What if you are late to work but you are not a morning person and prefer night hours? What if you really hate the Yankees and you have someone apply for a job that won't stop talking about the Yankees? Can you discriminate against that? What if you are a store that caters to hipsters and you discriminate against preppy kids?
Please read about "rational basis", "intermediate scrutiny", "compelling state interest" and "police powers" before you post such a stupid straw man argument.
Quote from: CG7 on February 07, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.
You can't take away the church folks right to judgement and hate.
Quote from: stephendare on February 07, 2017, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 07, 2017, 01:53:27 PM
Quote from: CG7 on February 07, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.
You can't take away the church folks right to judgement and hate.
But you can limit it. The city has already proven that it doesnt handle organized and illegal discrimination in housing very well. It is currently having to settle with the Feds in a pretty significant Fairness in Housing suit.
And that happened with the clear language of the statute there for anyone to read.
This is a poison pill, and needs to be stopped.
Amen, totally agree.
I repeat, any bill that doesn't include exemptions for religious institutions would fail in Jacksonville, Florida, full stop.
Overall, the bill (minus yesterday's amendment) is a good bill. It protects people who aren't protected now, and won't be for a long time if it fails.
Second committee meeting discussing the HRO is going on now.
I guess I am so blindingly against treating a human being different than another human being for just being who they are, that I honestly don't understand how anyone can justify discriminating against someone for any reason, be it religious or otherwise. I always thought most religions taught you to love others as you love yourself. Maybe I just love myself so much I don't have room to hate people for once again just being themselves. Oh well what the hell do I know.
Quote from: stephendare on February 07, 2017, 03:16:52 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 07, 2017, 03:14:11 PM
I repeat, any bill that doesn't include exemptions for religious institutions would fail in Jacksonville, Florida, full stop.
Overall, the bill (minus yesterday's amendment) is a good bill. It protects people who aren't protected now, and won't be for a long time if it fails.
Second committee meeting discussing the HRO is going on now.
Having spoken with the council people who oppose the bill, they are actually open to defining the religious exemption language, and in fact tried to do so yesterday.
The idea that there is no negotiating on this portion of the language isn't based on reality.
Reportedly, Crescimbeni proposed an amendment today defining the religious exemption language, and it failed. If it doesn't get out of committee, it doesn't get voted on. Today's was the most HRO-supportive committee.
HRO passed the Rules Committee today, 6-1. Danny Becton was the one "no".
Tomorrow, the Finance Committee, will be a much tougher test. The Vice Chair is anti-HRO councilman Matt Schellenberg. Gulliford, another anti-HRO guy, is there as well. The only clear yes is bill sponsor Aaron Bowman; Republicans Anna Brosche, Sam Newby and Greg Anderson and Democrat Katrina Brown are playing it pretty close to the chest.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 07, 2017, 03:52:19 PM
The Chair is anti-HRO councilman Matt Schellenberg.
Yeah, he'd be the Vice-Chair. Anna Lopez Brosche is the Finance Chair this term.
And Anderson voted Yes today...
Quote from: dbjax on February 07, 2017, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 07, 2017, 03:52:19 PM
The Chair is anti-HRO councilman Matt Schellenberg.
Yeah, he'd be the Vice-Chair. Anna Lopez Brosche is the Finance Chair this term.
And Anderson voted Yes today...
Thanks, corrected.
It's out of Finance with a 4 to 3 vote, with an amendment for religious exemptions to be discussed next Tuesday.
Bill Gulliford, Sam Newby, and Matt Schellenberg voted no, Aaron Bowman, Anna Brosche, Greg Anderson and Katrina Brown voted yes.
The 50 employee amendment that passed on Monday but failed yesterday, failed today 4-3. Gulliford did end up proposing the rumored referendum amendment, the nuclear option of the anti-HRO crowd, but this failed 5-2, with Schellenberg dissenting. Apparently, Crescimbeni sarcastically asked if we should put the entire ordinance, race, religion and all, up for referendum, as the other categories were added by council ordinance rather than popular vote. I'd like to have seen Gulliford's face on that one.
Another amendment was added to clarify the language on religious entities that are exempted; this was passed by all parties.
Recap from Florida Politics:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/231767-referendum-threat-looms-jacksonville-hro-clears-final-city-council-committee
Final vote is today
http://www.news4jax.com/news/hro-expansion-vote-goes-to-full-council-tuesday
Last chance to contact your City Council representatives:
http://www.coj.net/city-council.aspx#digital_river_frame_1
Unless you're against it. If so, you can wait till tomorrow ;)
LOL! ^^
Huge night for the city.
Let's get 13.
HRO passes!
The vote was 12-6, with Democrat Katrina Brown a no-show. It's law of the mayor doesn't veto.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232115-jacksonville-hro
Happy Valentine's, Jacksonville!
What a huge step forward for Jacksonville.
I'm proud of our city tonight.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
HRO passes!
The vote was 12-6, with Democrat Katrina Brown a no-show. It's law of the mayor doesn't veto.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232115-jacksonville-hro
Happy Valentine's, Jacksonville!
Did the issue regarding business of 15 to 50 pass? This article does not mention that at all. However a story on News4Jax indicates that it was increased to 50. Anybody know for sure?
^From my understanding, it's 50.
Baby steps, I guess...
Quote from: KenFSU on February 14, 2017, 07:46:51 PM
^From my understanding, it's 50.
Baby steps, I guess...
That amendment was not presented. It's only 15.
Action News Jax story also now indicating the exemption increased the number from 15 to 50.
Quote from: edjax on February 14, 2017, 07:12:07 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
HRO passes!
The vote was 12-6, with Democrat Katrina Brown a no-show. It's law of the mayor doesn't veto.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232115-jacksonville-hro
Happy Valentine's, Jacksonville!
Did the issue regarding business of 15 to 50 pass? This article does not mention that at all. However a story on News4Jax indicates that it was increased to 50. Anybody know for sure?
Yes that Amendment passed.
Curry returned the bill with no signature or veto so it becomes law.
Thanks to the overwhelming vote of the Jacksonville City Council, at approximately 7:30 tonight, our new fully inclusive human rights ordinance became law. Our campaign for equality in Jacksonville was vindicated tonight with an amazing outcome.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: edjax on February 14, 2017, 07:12:07 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
HRO passes!
The vote was 12-6, with Democrat Katrina Brown a no-show. It's law of the mayor doesn't veto.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232115-jacksonville-hro
Happy Valentine's, Jacksonville!
Did the issue regarding business of 15 to 50 pass? This article does not mention that at all. However a story on News4Jax indicates that it was increased to 50. Anybody know for sure?
Yes that Amendment passed.
Curry returned the bill with no signature or veto so it becomes law.
The Finance amendment was the one that clarified the religious organizations. When Finance took up the NCIS Amendment (15 to 50), it failed, so it went no further. The business exemption is 15 persons, like the other protected classes.
Quote from: dbjax on February 14, 2017, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: edjax on February 14, 2017, 07:12:07 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
HRO passes!
The vote was 12-6, with Democrat Katrina Brown a no-show. It's law of the mayor doesn't veto.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232115-jacksonville-hro
Happy Valentine's, Jacksonville!
Did the issue regarding business of 15 to 50 pass? This article does not mention that at all. However a story on News4Jax indicates that it was increased to 50. Anybody know for sure?
Yes that Amendment passed.
Curry returned the bill with no signature or veto so it becomes law.
The Finance amendment was the one that clarified the religious organizations. When Finance took up the NCIS Amendment (15 to 50), it failed, so it went no further. The business exemption is 15 persons, like the other protected classes.
Thanks for clarifying - I missed that result but some of the media are saying it passed.
Really happy to hear it's 15, not 50.
Huge, huge night for Jacksonville.
I genuinely feel like the city is emerging from the dark ages and really starting to find its way.
Also, Reginald Brown was incredible tonight.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 14, 2017, 10:26:05 PM
Also, Reginald Brown was incredible tonight.
Agreed. Interesting in that he voted no on the 2012 HRO. He certainly didn't make that mistake twice.
Great day for Jacksonville
Quote from: KenFSU on February 14, 2017, 10:26:05 PM
Also, Reginald Brown was incredible tonight.
In what way?
Congrats to those who fought hard for this. :) I am glad there could be COMPROMISE.
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on February 15, 2017, 10:15:38 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 14, 2017, 10:26:05 PM
Also, Reginald Brown was incredible tonight.
In what way?
In respectfully and eloquently making Bill Gulliford and the rest of the opponents of the HRO on the Council look like fools.
I agree. A great day for Jacksonville. I am astounded. ( I thought it would surely fail or be kicked down the road.) Kudos to Tommy Hazouri, a man I went to high school with and has always been an honorable person. Bricks to all the narrow minded, so called Christians who kept the bathroom analogies going and presented a case of pure ignorance. I hope this is just the beginning of my hometown coming out of the Dark Ages. I hope it has some positive impact on landing businesses, sporting events, and concerts. I am so proud.
I would encourage everyone to contact the council members who voted 'yes' and let them know they did the right thing for Jacksonville.
Quote from: finehoe on February 15, 2017, 12:12:13 PM
I would encourage everyone to contact the council members who voted 'yes' and let them know they did the right thing for Jacksonville.
Yes!
Quote from: Tacachale on February 15, 2017, 12:37:14 PM
Quote from: finehoe on February 15, 2017, 12:12:13 PM
I would encourage everyone to contact the council members who voted 'yes' and let them know they did the right thing for Jacksonville.
Yes!
Just did this morning!
Anyone know why Katrina Brown wasn't present for such a hugely important vote? I'd hope it wasn't because of the Cowealth suit.
Might as well go bid on some of that stuff Charlotte lost now.
Here is a list of emails for all those who voted yes. This will copy and paste right into Gmail
JoyceMorgan@coj.net,
ABowman@coj.net,
SWilson@coj.net,
LBoyer@coj.net,
RGaffney@coj.net,
GarrettD@coj.net,
RBrown@coj.net,
JimLove@coj.net,
ABrosche@coj.net,
JRC@coj.net,
THazouri@coj.net,
GAnderson@coj.net
Jimmy Midyette shares ups and downs of emotional five-year journey to HRO victory
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549363
Does anyone have a final version of the HRO I can access?
I believe this is it:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2017-0015\Current Text