Elisa Chan says anti-gay remarks are free speech

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/Elisa-Chan-defends-anti-gay-remarks-as-free-speech-4745674.php


Councilwoman Elisa Chan defended anti-gay remarks made during a secretly recorded staff meeting, saying at a news conference Tuesday that she won't change her “values or beliefs for political gain or survival.”

The statements mark Chan's first public appearance since San Antonio Express-News Columnist Brian Chasnoff reported last week that a former aide recorded the May 21 meeting, in which Chan expressed her unvarnished views on homosexuality, from calling it “disgusting” to saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it could confuse children and lead to them being “corrupt.”

Cloaked in an argument about the constitutionality of her statements, Chan said she had an expectation she and her staff would be free to express their personal opinions and thoughts during staff meetings.

“Political correctness will not win this day; standing firm as an individual in service to the whole community does,” she said. “I stand strong in my First Amendment right to freedom of speech and our right to privacy.”

She said her confidentiality was violated when then-staffer James Stevens, 28, surreptitiously recorded the staff meeting, where the District 9 councilwoman and her staff strategized on ways to oppose updating the city's nondiscrimination ordinance.

“I know that many people find the comments made in the meeting offensive, but again, it was a confidential meeting set in the privacy of my office where none of us are supposed to worry about what we say,” she said. “These meetings have been and always will be a free-speech zone.”

Good for Chan I say. While I do not agree with her, I disagree far more with the thought police. If she wants to be a bigot then so be it and trying to act like San Antonio or the rest of Texas is not chock full of bigots through a sort of window dressing does not help.

[scroteface]

Ill say whatever the fuck I want, you don't have to agree with it. The 2nd amendment and freedom of speech are both non negotiable, you try to fuck with them and the militia marches. We can argue until we're blue in the face about healthcare, taxes, regulations etc but there are a few things that are an automatic call to arms. Try to charge me for free speech and you'll have a harder task on your hands than just coming to arrest me, you'll have to be prepared to fight to the death. No to gun grabbing, no to the thought police, and DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!

[boutons_deux]

the opponents of the ordinance are bigots.

the city council is elected, and as representatives of ALL the people, is entrusted to make its own rules for membership.

If the ordinance bans people from the council who are bigots, what's the problem?

The bigoted people who are banned from the City Council have not had either their hateful speech nor their the hateful religion infringed or banned, and "thought policing" is another strawman. Everybody's free to think what they want, even the bigoted assholes banned from being on the City Council.

Chan is a bigot, but she sneaked in before any such ordinance was passed. Up to her district to re-elect her, or not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the city council is elected, and as representatives of ALL the people, is entrusted to make its own rules for membership.

If the ordinance bans people from the council who are bigots, what's the problem?

This is bullshit. They are elected by their district to represent just that. All you have here is made up ideological nonsense. If people elect a bigot then that bigots views very much so have a place in their disctricts representation. Repressing minority opinions no matter how repugnant is the issue. If not for that then the likes of you -and me-- would have been snuffed out long ago.

[scott]

She's right.

Unfortunately, she fails to grasp that the 1st Amendment also protects the right of people to criticize & lambast her over it.

Even more unfortunate is that the offended parties are not upset that she exercised her 1st Amendment rights, they are offended at her beliefs (which is also within their right).

Of course, the folks most likely to run to a 1st Amendment Defense are also the ones who believe there is a War on Christmas and feign outrage whenever a store says "Happy Holidays".

[scott]

But ironically, Chan's remarks make the case for why updating the City's non-discrimination policy is important. Potential or current city employees should not be discriminated against because someone thinks their personal lifestyle choices are "disgusting".

[pgardn]

Ill say whatever the fuck I want, you don't have to agree with it. The 2nd amendment and freedom of speech are both non negotiable, you try to fuck with them and the militia marches. We can argue until we're blue in the face about healthcare, taxes, regulations etc but there are a few things that are an automatic call to arms. Try to charge me for free speech and you'll have a harder task on your hands than just coming to arrest me, you'll have to be prepared to fight to the death. No to gun grabbing, no to the thought police, and DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!

You have an underground bunker don't you?

[2centsworth]

This is bullshit. They are elected by their district to represent just that. All you have here is made up ideological nonsense. If people elect a bigot then that bigots views very much so have a place in their disctricts representation. Repressing minority opinions no matter how repugnant is the issue. If not for that then the likes of you -and me-- would have been snuffed out long ago.

Respect!

[Jacob1983]

Councilwoman from District 9?:lol

[boutons_deux]

This is bullshit. They are elected by their district to represent just that. All you have here is made up ideological nonsense. If people elect a bigot then that bigots views very much so have a place in their disctricts representation. Repressing minority opinions no matter how repugnant is the issue. If not for that then the likes of you -and me-- would have been snuffed out long ago.

You STILL get it all wrong.

No suppression of bigoted speech, actions, no suppression of religion (unless you're tea bagger, Repug, right wing-ding and want to and do suppress Muslims just because of their religion).

This is a democratically elected GOVERNMENT of ALL the PEOPLE making a rule that bigots (eg, bigots who justify their Christ-like hate and bigotry with the Bible) are disqualified from a (SECULAR) GOVT position of rule-making authority, the SA city council.

[CosmicCowboy]

I live in district 9. I was in 8 but when DOJ redrew the map last year they stuck me in 9. I guess 8 had too many white republicans.

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol chan, chinese i assume?

fkn dog commie fkn ho from china coming to america to enjoy the freedom but want to deny the freedom to others...i see what they are doing here

[Oh, Gee!!]

free speech means never having to say "I'm sorry."

[Jacob1983]

Chinee undastand movement:lol

[Big Empty]

lol chan, chinese i assume?

fkn dog commie fkn ho from china coming to america to enjoy the freedom but want to deny the freedom to others...i see what they are doing here
I know thats right. If anyone is gonna pass judgement on our american blacks gays mexicans or whites you better be a gah damn full blooded american. she can take her ass back to japan or china or whereever they come from and make some damn egg rolls. my first amendment right to think so.

[Spurminator]

Privacy is not a 1st Amendment Right. There may be an argument to be had about whether this should have been leaked, but it's not a 1st Amendment argument until she's arrested.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

free speech means never having to say "I'm sorry."

Free speech means you never have to say your sorry when you don't mean it.

[Jacob1983]

Shouldn't you say you're sorry or apologize when you mean it and/or to make the person that you hurt feel better?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/Elisa-Chan-defends-anti-gay-remarks-as-free-speech-4745674.php



Good for Chan I say. While I do not agree with her, I disagree far more with the thought police. If she wants to be a bigot then so be it and trying to act like San Antonio or the rest of Texas is not chock full of bigots through a sort of window dressing does not help.

Who's saying that its not protected speech? Who's asking for her to be thrown in jail? She's free to say what she wants but that doesn't mean saying bigoted things - especially when in a public office where your job is to protect the rights of your constituents - doesn't carry consequences. It calls into question how fit you are to be a public service. At one time in the past I was an employee of Elisa Chan. I'll just say that there's no way in hell she's in this job to serve. She's in it to get hers and if that means running over her homosexual constituents then that's what she's going to do.

The whole freedom of speech defense is a misdirection. No one is suggesting she can't say what she want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who's saying that its not protected speech? Who's asking for her to be thrown in jail? She's free to say what she wants but that doesn't mean saying bigoted things - especially when in a public office where your job is to protect the rights of your constituents - doesn't carry consequences. It calls into question how fit you are to be a public service. At one time in the past I was an employee of Elisa Chan. I'll just say that there's no way in hell she's in this job to serve. She's in it to get hers and if that means running over her homosexual constituents then that's what she's going to do.

The whole freedom of speech defense is a misdirection. No one is suggesting she can't say what she want.

They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers.

I just want to be clear that I think homophobia is stupid, baseless and instead based on superstition. At the same time, I find the thought police to be even more reprehensible. Pretending that people like that do not exist nor that their representatives think that way does not solve the problem. You cannot just legislate away human thought. If anything, pretending like it is not there serves to hide the problem which serves to perpetuate it.

[boutons_deux]

"They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers."

no, the CC wants to ban bigots from being on the CC

[Jacob1983]

Is homophobia the fear and/or hatred of homosexuality? If you are homophobic, does that mean you are afraid of gay people or just hate them or both? Banning bigots from a city council is a stupid law and a joke because people will lie about their feelings and thoughts. You can't ban that shit. In America, you can be gay but at the same time don't expect people to be jumping up and down cheering for you and your gayness.

[scott]

They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers.

I just want to be clear that I think homophobia is stupid, baseless and instead based on superstition. At the same time, I find the thought police to be even more reprehensible. Pretending that people like that do not exist nor that their representatives think that way does not solve the problem. You cannot just legislate away human thought. If anything, pretending like it is not there serves to hide the problem which serves to perpetuate it.


"They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers."

no, the CC wants to ban bigots from being on the CC




Actually, they are trying to update the city's hiring policy to include sexual preference as a protected class.

Some Christian groups are claiming this will effectively ban Christians (actually, one even said "Conservatives") from being on Council because they won't be allowed to follow the Lord's will and continue their discrimination against gays.

[scott]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/AG-candidate-to-Mayor-Castro-Drop-LGBT-ordinance-4746685.php


Branch argues that banning discrimination against gay people would in turn unfairly discriminate against people of faith.

If I can't discriminate against others, then I am being discriminated against!!!

[boutons_deux]

"won't be allowed to follow the Lord's will"

:lol

that's fucked up, but Bible-thumping will fuck you up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers."

no, the CC wants to ban bigots from being on the CC




So if the people want to elect someone freely then they cannot? You are okay with that because there views differ from your own? That is the behavior of cowardice.

Myself, I feel that everyone's views are to be considered and not just discarded out of hand.

[scott]

So if the people want to elect someone freely then they cannot? You are okay with that because there views differ from your own? That is the behavior of cowardice.

Myself, I feel that everyone's views are to be considered and not just discarded out of hand.

The ordinance feels that way too, and won't restrict who will be elected. So can we stop talking about what the ordinance WON'T do?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, they are trying to update the city's hiring policy to include sexual preference as a protected class.

Some Christian groups are claiming this will effectively ban Christians (actually, one even said "Conservatives") from being on Council because they won't be allowed to follow the Lord's will and continue their discrimination against gays.

Faith is no excuse to bypass criminal behavior. Certain world religions call for human sacrifice. That is easy to argue against.

If what you are saying is the case then good deal. Employment discrimination is a bad thing. I was under the impression that they were going to do the same as other cities such as Austin that prevent certain subjects from being brought up. If I am going to say that NC is a bunch of fools for banning the use of the words 'sea level rise' and 'global warming' in session then this is much the same.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The ordinance feels that way too, and won't restrict who will be elected. So can we stop talking about what the ordinance WON'T do?


The ordinance would prevent people who have demonstrated bias toward lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals from serving in city positions and prohibit the city from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also prevent local business owners from discriminating against LGBT individuals.

From what I understand if you say 'I hate fags' then you are prevented from being hired by the city. That is thought police.

I don't give a shit about what people think but rather what they do. Now what defines 'demonstrated bias?' That is the question.

[Jacob1983]

So you can be a racist and bigot, you just can't say you are a racist and bigot? How many people in Congress do you think secretly belong to the KKK? This law is bullshit. People have free will and abstract thought. They can think whatever they want to do think and you can't stop them.

[Frank Dux]

Lol won't change for political gain. That whole meeting was strategizing for political. She must have a really low opinion of her constituents.

[scott]

From what I understand if you say 'I hate fags' then you are prevented from being hired by the city. That is thought police.

I don't give a shit about what people think but rather what they do. Now what defines 'demonstrated bias?' That is the question.

While I agree having a policy against spoken words is rather silly, it's already the defacto policy of most large companies. They go to the detail of looking into your social media to see "unsavory" behavior these days... Do you think a Fortune 10 company would hire someone who went around publicly saying "I hate fags!"? It would be a dead giveaway for a company not to hire such a person for sheer lack of judgment on their part, let alone potential backlash.

With that said, the ordnance should be cleaned up to just add sexual preference as a protected class and leave it at that

[scott]

On the other hand, the city doesn't want to hire people that our going to result in a headline I the paper that reads "City Manager Has Racist/Homophobic Past" because it leads to exactly this distracting controversy.

I'll also add, that saying "I hate fags" in the workplace could likely constitute workplace harassment (in all workplaces), and employers would likely be within their rights to dismiss an employee who reflected negatively on the organization, even outside the workplace

[AntiChrist]

Who's walking around in 2013 saying "I hate fags."?

I thought saying "I believe in traditional marriage" was enough to be hate speech these days.

[AntiChrist]

Society is really bending over backwards (no homo) for gays these days. And they are a tiny portion of our population.

[MannyIsGod]

They are trying to ban people saying anti-homosexual comments in the council chambers.

I just want to be clear that I think homophobia is stupid, baseless and instead based on superstition. At the same time, I find the thought police to be even more reprehensible. Pretending that people like that do not exist nor that their representatives think that way does not solve the problem. You cannot just legislate away human thought. If anything, pretending like it is not there serves to hide the problem which serves to perpetuate it.

I don't support the ordinance. That doesn't change all the outrage at Elisa Chan's words being appropriate as far as I'm concerned. I think this type of back lash to the comments is the exact reason why the ordinance isn't needed.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/AG-candidate-to-Mayor-Castro-Drop-LGBT-ordinance-4746685.php



If I can't discriminate against others, then I am being discriminated against!!!

Well, theres a huge difference when the discrimination is nothing but the expression of an opinion compared to being denied a position. I don't have a problem with the city hiring a racist in a position where the racist ideology of the potential employee has no bearing on their job. IE if the city wants to hire Darrin to be a janitor I personally don't give a shit. Now, if they want to hire Yonivore as a case manager for low income assistance then I definitely see a problem there.

[MannyIsGod]

Society is really bending over backwards (no homo) for gays these days. And they are a tiny portion of our population.

I know. Going to such lengths to provide equality. So ridiculous! I mean those fuckers want to actually openly serve in the military and get married? THE NERVE.


I take it back, Scott. Darrin would make a shitty janitor. Dude can't go five minutes without shitting all over himself.

[TDMVPDPOY]

free speech there is only a time and place for that shit if its not offensive,

you say that shit out in public you better be there to get back what u spew

[boutons_deux]

"I believe in traditional marriage" was enough to be hate speech these days.

It's a euphemism (lie) for "God makes fags, but God and I hate fags"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While I agree having a policy against spoken words is rather silly, it's already the defacto policy of most large companies. They go to the detail of looking into your social media to see "unsavory" behavior these days... Do you think a Fortune 10 company would hire someone who went around publicly saying "I hate fags!"? It would be a dead giveaway for a company not to hire such a person for sheer lack of judgment on their part, let alone potential backlash.

With that said, the ordnance should be cleaned up to just add sexual preference as a protected class and leave it at that

Sorry but 'de facto' is completely unsubstantiated. And if said individual could make fortune 10 company money I do not think that they would hesitate to hire them even if there was a law with cost benefit being what it is. This notion that the average company is not vastly motivated by profit far beyond any other motive is specious at best.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

free speech there is only a time and place for that shit if its not offensive,

you say that shit out in public you better be there to get back what u spew

The ordinance does not differ based on where the bias was uttered. That is a big part of the issue here. Chan was in a private meeting.

[boutons_deux]

Chan is "free" to speak her hateful bigotry anywhere, anytime. same with her religion, if she has one.

The ordinance says they won't allow such bigots on the CC that represents, serves all the people, not just the people Chan doesn't hate.

Very fucking simple

[Oh, Gee!!]

Actually, Chan can be elected to serve on City Council, but probably wouldn't be hired as a city employee.

[scott]

Sorry but 'de facto' is completely unsubstantiated. And if said individual could make fortune 10 company money I do not think that they would hesitate to hire them even if there was a law with cost benefit being what it is. This notion that the average company is not vastly motivated by profit far beyond any other motive is specious at best.

http://danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Actually, Chan can be elected to serve on City Council, but probably wouldn't be hired as a city employee.

hmm, CC members are paid by the city, so are city employees, if not civil servants.

[scott]

hmm, CC members are paid by the city, so are city employees, if not civil servants.

The language specifies "appointments". City Council members are elected, not appointed.

[Das Texan]

hmm, CC members are paid by the city, so are city employees, if not civil servants.

City Council pay is such a loose term.


The lack of pay is one of the biggest problems IMO. You right way because you refuse to pay them are not going to actually enable any regular joe from running who you know, has to support a family, since you are expected basically to work full time for free essentially.

[Blake]

hmm, CC members are paid by the city, so are city employees, if not civil servants.

CC members get about $20 a month, iirc.

Sort of like Dallas cowboy cheerleaders.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The language specifies "appointments". City Council members are elected, not appointed.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently unconstitional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.

[scott]

Sorry but 'de facto' is completely unsubstantiated. And if said individual could make fortune 10 company money I do not think that they would hesitate to hire them even if there was a law with cost benefit being what it is. This notion that the average company is not vastly motivated by profit far beyond any other motive is specious at best.

I'll retract "de facto" and go with "actual".

http://www.equalityforum.com/fortune500

[TeyshaBlue]

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently unconstitional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.

Artifact of freedom, tbh.

[scott]

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently unconstitional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.

Shit, we can't even prevent Kenyans from being President, how does Boutons think we can stop bigots from being on City Council?!?

[boutons_deux]

I can't stop the bigots, but the CC can, if they don't cave to the assorted "Christian" haters and bigots like Hagee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll retract "de facto" and go with "actual".

http://www.equalityforum.com/fortune500

That is saying they do not discriminate against people that are homosexual in hiring.

We are talking about discriminating against homophobes in hiring which is what the ordinance would do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg

Channeling your SA210 I see. You are making assumptions about hiring practices just as much as I am. And yeah I am going way out on a limb saying that firms number one motivation is profit..... :rolleyes

[scott]

That is saying they do not discriminate against people that are homosexual in hiring.

We are talking about discriminating against homophobes in hiring which is what the ordinance would do.

Gotcha.

The non-discrimination part of the ordinance is important. I agree the "let's not hire homophobes" part of it is rather silly.

Here is the City's fact sheet on the ordinance: http://sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/clerk/NDOFactSheet.pdf

*If* the ordinance only did what was described in the fact sheet, who here would still have an issue with it?

[scott]

Channeling your SA210 I see. You are making assumptions about hiring practices just as much as I am. And yeah I am going way out on a limb saying that firms number one motivation is profit..... :rolleyes

The conclusion you jumped to was that I was somehow suggesting otherwise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gotcha.

The non-discrimination part of the ordinance is important. I agree the "let's not hire homophobes" part of it is rather silly.

Here is the City's fact sheet on the ordinance: http://sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/clerk/NDOFactSheet.pdf

*If* the ordinance only did what was described in the fact sheet, who here would still have an issue with it?

:lol talking points. I prefer to look at it rather than be told about it.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/politics/files/2013/08/13-0807-Non-Discrimination-Ordinance.pdf

That is the actual ordinance in all of its glory.

They redacted the portion about prior acts after editing it twice but its gone so it is no longer an issue for me.

However it was in there as of 2 days ago as evidenced by http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-divided-over-proposed-lgbt-non-discrim/.

[scott]

:lol talking points. I prefer to look at it rather than be told about it.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/politics/files/2013/08/13-0807-Non-Discrimination-Ordinance.pdf

That is the actual ordinance in all of its glory.

They redacted the portion about prior acts after editing it twice but its gone so it is no longer an issue for me.

However it was in there as of 2 days ago as evidenced by http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-divided-over-proposed-lgbt-non-discrim/.

I wasn't telling you about anything... I asked a question. If the ordinance did only what was described in the fact sheet, who would still have an issue with it?

Edit: sorry, I guess you did answer my question when you said "its gone so it is no longer an issue for me". My apologies.

[TeyshaBlue]

Posting and drinking beer is hard!:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wasn't telling you about anything... I asked a question. If the ordinance did only what was described in the fact sheet, who would still have an issue with it?

Edit: sorry, I guess you did answer my question when you said "its gone so it is no longer an issue for me". My apologies.

Hey its all good mang sorry if I got a bit abrasive in the back and forth. Hope all is well.

[scott]

Somehow some conservative radio DJ started tweeting at me because I had an exchange with Diego once and now I'm caught up in their back and forth (I want to tweet back: why the hell do you keep tweeting me?).

In any event, I guess the new rage is that the proposed ordinance will somehow lead to pedophiles using the opposite bathroom :lol

[diego]

which diego? :hat

unless this law specifically forbids christians from saying they respectfully oppose same sex marriage, I dont see what the big deal is. Just be respectful about your bigotry, save the burn in hell guilt trip for yourself, and dont say retarded things :lol

Articulating that in a law isnt ignoring the problem, its acknowledging it. Yes, representatives and constituents alike can and will continue to do all sorts of things the law forbids them from. But having a law makes it clear that the constituents approved a law stating that behavior is unacceptable. From what I read constituents voted for their representatives to express themselves diplomatically, whats the problem?