Ordinance 2012-296 ACTION NEEDED

[Leanne King]

     By now you heard of Ordinance 2012-296. The previous communications have detailed the ordinance and its specific implication.  To site the Ordinance Preamble, “Whereas, the City of Jacksonville seeks to build a reputation as a welcoming community for bright and talented members of a workforce…..”; this is a suggested ordinance giving the Human Rights Council the powers to enforce the ordinance against businesses “should it be proven that they discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification.  The original ordinance also eliminated references to the United States Constitution and laws of the State and failed to define sexual orientation and gender identification.  Is this a new special class of people?   It suggests that Jacksonville is an environment that is hostile to the gay/lesbian/transgender people. This suggestion has been disproven by recent two national level survey’s that document that we rank number 3 and 4 for being a friendly city and a great place to live.

 

     This bill is in front of our city council for vote.  It has met some resistance from conservatives, Tea Party, religious organizations and other First Amendment Rights organizations. The opposition stands just as firm in their beliefs that this ordinance is needed so that they are treated fairly. While there are some personal level stories as to their treatment none relate to workplace/community or housing discrimination. We know that you cannot legislate the personal behaviors of some individuals who make a choice to be hateful to another.

     There is now an attempt to amend the proposed ordinance by reinstating verbiage to the US Constitution and eliminating “gender identification” and perhaps “sexual expression.” This however will not solve the issues that this ordinance in any form will create.

     I ask that you email the city council members listed below and feel free to utilize any of the information presented below.

 

                               Ask yourself and your council member:

   Are you willing to commit to the premise that Jacksonville is hostile to the gay/lesbian community?

   Are you willing to believe that only the gay, lesbian world is creative as your message so clearly stated in the council meeting last week?

   Are you willing to commit that this is the most important issue to attract business to Jacksonville?

   Are you willing to lay the legal and financial burdens of this legislation at the feet of thousands of the small business owners in our city?

   Are you willing to impose the so called special needs of these citizens while ignoring and removing the rights of so many others?

   Are you willing to take the responsibility for the thousands of other employees who while utilizing their freedom of speech about their beliefs both personal and religious may be sued or their employer sued by someone who finds an innocent comment “offensive to them”?

   Are you willing to accept the ultimate personal responsibility that comes with your support of this ordinance when it is now perfectly clear that the origin of this ordinance came FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE, with monies behind it being QUESTIONABLE?

   Are you willing to tell the pubic the truth that this is being pushed at the NATIONAL LEVEL by those who have a much larger and destructive AGENDA?

   Are you willing to be honest and know that this group of OUR CITIZENS are being used to push a much larger attack on EVERYONE’S freedoms? Specifically of SPEECH AND RELIGION?

                    This bill is not needed.  There is no systemic discrimination. 

 

In addition to the above questions the following information is provided for understanding.

The Ordinance:

1)     Creates New and Special Rights for Homosexuals: The ordinance creates new and special rights for homosexuals by creating a new protected class and a special legal classification based upon “sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression”.  

 

2)     Weakens Florida’s Marriage Amendment as the Union of One Man and One Woman:  The ordinance like others around the country have been used to undermine and overturn state marriage laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Gay rights activists around the country have used the collective scheme of nondiscrimination laws like this one to create a new protected class and legalize homosexual marriages in states like Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington, DC.

 

3)     Removes All References to the U.S. Constitution:  The ordinance (unbelievably) removes all references to the “United States Constitution” in the city code and deletes all language referring to “civil rights found under the US Constitution”. The ordinance language thereby removes the rights, protections and limitations given to citizens by the highest law of the land. 

 

4)     Creates Legal Defenses for Pedophiles:  The ordinances gender identity and gender expression language would allow men to be able to use women’s bathrooms (and vice versa) in “public accommodations” based upon their subjective sense of whether they are a male or female allowing for pedophiles to have a defense for using girl’s bathrooms.  This shocking provision is being forced onto cities all around the country.  The security and privacy of locker rooms, dressing rooms, bathrooms and other separate facilities are all compromised. 

5)   Creates More Lawsuits and Regulations for Businesses: The ordinance forces individual citizens, businesses and landlords in Jacksonville to be liable to be sued for money damages if they choose to not hire homosexual, transgendered, bi-sexual or gender confused persons in their small businesses, or choose not to accept similar persons as tenants in their private homes or apartments. 

 

6)     Violates Religious Freedoms- The ordinance forces Christians and other people of faith to violate their rights of conscience and good faith religious beliefs in business and employment situations and with housing decisions for private property owners.  

 

     I implore you to send a message to your city council NOW!  Tell them that you oppose this ordinance in any form.  Additionally, if you can get to City Hall this Tuesday for the next meeting PLEASE ATTEND.

Our physical presence makes a HUGE difference. 

     Send this to your list of small business owners so that they too can respond. Send it to your friends and ask them to email and support their city.

     While it appears to be most important to send the message to Lori Boyer, Jim Love, Greg Anderson. Robin Lumb, Bill Bishop, Ray Holt and Dr. Johnny Gaffney a message to each member is highly effective.

 

District 2: William Bishop                                        [e-mail]

District 11: Ray Holt                                                [e-mail]

At Large (Group 4) Greg Anderson                           [e-mail]

At Large (Group 5) Robin Lumb                                [e-mail]

District 3: Richard Clark                                          [e-mail]

District 5: Lori N. Boyer                                           [e-mail]

District 7: Dr. Johnny Gaffney -                              [e-mail]

District 8: E. Denise Lee                                          [e-mail]

District 9: Warren Jones                                           [e-mail]

District 10: Reginald Brown                                     [e-mail]

District 14: Jim Love                                                [e-mail]

At Large (Group 2) John R. Crescimbeni                   [e-mail]

At Large (Group 3) Stephen C. Joost                         [e-mail]

District 1: Clay Yarborough                                     [e-mail]

District 4: Don Redman                                           [e-mail]

At-Large (Group 1): Kimberly Daniels                      [e-mail]

District 6: Matt Schellenberg                                   [e-mail]

District 12: Doyle Carter                                         [e-mail]

District 13: Bill Gulliford                                          [e-mail]

 

     In addition to your emails you can do more, there is a City Council meeting scheduled at City Hall tomorrow June 26^th at 5PM. It is critical that as many people as possible show up as a public display of support  AGAINST this bill. Know that the opposition will be there in mass.

Thank you

[Debbie G]

Emotions guide in a reactionary state, but reason wins in a contemplative state; a chess game is not won by passionate arguments, but rather by decisive contemplation on facts.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Ken, although I agree it is not the place of the supreme court to re-write anything so they can rule it constitutional, Roberts did indeed weaken the government's non ending use of the commerce clause, and other parts of the Robert's decision did the O team more than has been ascertained at this time, but people are working on it. They did a slew of things and some of them were good things as we will find out in the coming days. I do not think Roberts is as fond of Obama as it may appear from the initial look at the ruling. We need to give this a day or two because the ruling also said they could not withhold funding from the state's if they did not implement the bill (or something like that). It is late and I think we will see much on this tomorrow and during the next few days as they mull what was and was not allowed (and a number of parts of the bill were struck, even if that seems small, for one reason or another).

[Patricia M. McBride]

Thanks Debbie. I am not sure I still am at this point, but can tell you a friend was upset to tears when the news was given. I was upset as well, but now we have to make sure this evil man does not get re-elected. Far more people will die at his hands if he is.

[Patricia M. McBride]

And further more, the Obama folks said they were justified using the commerce clause as this fell under the commerce clause, and the Robert's opinion also said oh no, really you are using this if we change this to a tax and this to something else, and the other thing to this........................come on. When has the court done such a thing???? I don't think the court is there to help out one side or the other or point out the errors in their arguments and fix them???? Really. Have you ever known a judge who did such a thing?

[Patricia M. McBride]

Roma, there was far more to Roberts opinion than you are stating. He put a great deal in the opinion but he did change the law's wording basically by calling something a tax which is clearly written as a penalty in the actual bill..........and the actual bill still says penalty no matter what the opinion says it is "really".

[Patricia M. McBride]

Roma and Tom and Ken, the bill they ruled on does not exist. They changed the actual law to make it fit a model they could rule on as constitutional. They did not rule on the law in front of them period, and that was what Scalia was crying foul on. They did what all good little liberals do, they want it, so they make it fit their scenario (and that is basically what Scalia said.......he said they did not rule on the law in front of them and the court has not got the right to change something as the law was changed in the Roberts decision that 5 people who found it constitutional all agreed on. The actual law was not constitutional basically until they changed the meaning or wording of it, and Roberts should be shot for trying to change a law before ruling on it. Please stop and think about this, they said well this is really this and that is really that, and therefore it is constitutional. Well the actual law does not say the words they ruled on, and it is highly unlikely that this congress will make the changes, so it mirrors the law the court ruled as constitutional. I suspect we will be hearing more about this as they days go on! I think we need to take a look at the duties of the Supreme Court and find out more about what their job really is, and I don't think it is about second guessing or changing anything.

[Debbie G]

@Pat   :-)  thanks for being such a great patriot!

[Patricia M. McBride]

Today was not a political decision. They agreed it was constitutional but not under the commerce clause. They said the federal government could impose a tax which was what they were doing. Not good news for Obama since he said he would not impose a tax on anyone (and now someone has put the proper word to it). Much more was said, but the mandate was NOT constitutional under the commerce clause and that is important. As far as Amanda goes, I am not even sure what she is still doing here as no one agrees with her even when she attempts levity. But here she is, so we humor her and comment back. If you don't humor her or comment back................oh by the way since the supreme court decision today earlier, Romney has gotten over 2 million in donations. Geez, I wonder how well what's his face will do now :).

[Debbie G]

Amanda, what do you have against economic freedom, school choice, end of corporate welfare, tax reform taking the power out of the hands of the elected?  Though I am a paid staff of Americans For Prosperity I will put my integrity and any action or writing I have done under the microscope and dare anyone to find anything with any motive other than saving this nation for my 5 grandchildren.  Monetary compensation has never been on the radar.

Pat may have not chosen the best description, but it remains that FCTP and AFP both have similar goals, smaller government and lower taxes.  Yes, there are other differences, but uniting with similar entities for a goal is quite common.  Democrats Against Agenda 21 is a prime example of united for a common cause as they have united with tea parties across the nation.

Is your goal divisiveness; I think so after more than a year of reading your posts. 

[amanda choate]

We are NOT affiliated with any political parties or interest groups.

The above statement is in the mission statement of FCTP. Yet we call aFP a sister orginaization and member are paid by them. So aren't we just a means for AFP to reach people?