Reply With Quote
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?
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?
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.
From what I understand if you say 'I hate s' then you are prevented from being hired by the city. That is thought police.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 iden y. It would also prevent local business owners from discriminating against LGBT individuals.
I don't give a about what people think but rather what they do. Now what defines 'demonstrated bias?' That is the question.
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 bull . People have free will and abstract thought. They can think whatever they want to do think and you can't stop them.
Lol won't change for political gain. That whole meeting was strategizing for political. She must have a really low opinion of her cons uents.
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 s!"? 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
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/ phobic Past" because it leads to exactly this distracting controversy.
I'll also add, that saying "I hate s" in the workplace could likely cons ute 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
Who's walking around in 2013 saying "I hate s."?
I thought saying "I believe in traditional marriage" was enough to be hate speech these days.
Society is really bending over backwards (no ) for gays these days. And they are a tiny portion of our population.
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.
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 . Now, if they want to hire Yonivore as a case manager for low income assistance then I definitely see a problem there.
I know. Going to such lengths to provide equality. So ridiculous! I mean those ers want to actually openly serve in the military and get married? THE NERVE.
I take it back, Scott. Darrin would make a ty janitor. Dude can't go five minutes without ting all over himself.
free speech there is only a time and place for that if its not offensive,
you say that out in public you better be there to get back what u spew
It's a euphemism (lie) for "God makes s, but God and I hate s"
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.
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.
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 ing simple
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-23-2013 at 01:05 PM.
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.
The language specifies "appointments". City Council members are elected, not appointed.
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.
CC members get about $20 a month, iirc.
Sort of like Dallas cowboy cheerleaders.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently uncons ional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
