The city attorney wants to revisit the ordinance;
City attorneys plan to retract and revise a proposal to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classes protected by the city’s anti-discrimination rules.
The City Attorney’s Office unveiled a proposal earlier this year that would put in writing that private employers, landlords and business owners can’t discriminate against someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
Councilor Greg Neitzert this week called the proposal “an outrageous infringement on religious freedom” and wanted to know how it would affect private businesses’ bathroom policies. The proposal’s authors now say they want more time to tighten the language.
While Greg may have a point, I see all kinds of other issues with this besides bathrooms and churches. The rumor circling in the halls of city hall is that the city could be eligible for more HUD money if they change the ordinance. Are the consequences of hundreds of lawsuits worth it? And what kind of money are we talking about? As I said before, as the city’s public policy it is a good idea, forcing it onto private employers (especially landlords) could be problematic and may even be a violation of individual constitutional rights. You can’t change your race or gender (very easily anyway) and those are examples of a protected class, it’s easy to tell if they are being discriminated against. Transgender may be more difficult to police and control and as someone said to me the other day, “Kind of looks like a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Councilors expect to revisit the issue sooner rather than later, and some are more eager than others. Councilor Michelle Erpenbach said she hopes to see it reintroduced in quick fashion.
“I can’t figure out what you’re going to do to tighten the language because we have to use the words ‘sexual orientation and gender identity,’†she said. “We need it to pass in the most comfortable way possible. But it’s something we absolutely need to pass.â€
Comfortable way? There is no comfortable way. I am more in favor of educating the public about the issue before passing more regulations on private industry. When people don’t understand something, their knee jerk reaction is think it is bad, and when you start regulating private citizens to do something they appear as bad, you have not done a very good job of educating them. That’s why it took several years for gay marriage to pass, people first needed to understand it.
I think if the city thinks this is an important thing to pass besides getting more money from the FEDs for housing, then it should go to a public vote. Asking 8-9 individuals to pass such sweeping legislation is unfair.
I also think this is a Red Herring to separate out the conservative councilors, and make them look anti-equality, which couldn’t be further from the truth. If I was on the council, I would excuse myself and refuse to vote on it based on the fact I may be bias because I have gay friends.
One quality of a GOOD legislator is to be unafraid to stand for their principals even on controversial matters. Unfair? Nope, it’s just the nature of the job. Buck up chickadee. As to wing-nutty Neitzert’s “religious freedom” comments – Hooey. That’s the same argument that was used to discriminate against Native Americans and Africans; plus, placing any RELIGION’s values above those of an individual has NO PLACE in government.
I took off of work June 14th to make it to the input meeting.I plan on giving a sensitivity training speech along with a video
They might pass a law that outlaws discrimination but that won’t mean much. This place will still discriminate as it always has, it’s easy to get around such laws.
I also question constitutional rights to free speech, especially since this isn’t state or Federal law yet.
If the law passes i see it as a step forward within the city verses a step back.I have talked to Neitzert and what he says makes sense when he explains it.Maybe some of you that are attacking him needs to give me a call to better understand where hes coming from.Im going to leave it at that.
Sierra – I think it’s pretty clear from his public statement that he believes that people have a right to discriminate in hiring or housing on the basis if their own religious beliefs. BTW – what exactly does Christ have to say about homosexuality, or bisexuality, or alternative gender identity? Can you find me a quote from Christ on this issue?
Rufsux – that is not what Greg is saying. The press cherry picked his statements (which is no surprise). Greg has an issue with way the ordinance is written and has been researching how other cities do it, Like NYC. When crafting law and legislation, you want those laws to hold up in court, seems like the opposite in SD and Sioux Falls, just look at our State Legislature and abortion legislation. Greg is very particular at getting things done right, the first time.
thank you 13 wis how the city attorney drafted it up was un professional . Greg is a fair person i had a few convos with him.I can tell when someone is fake .
Having said this there is people that are in city government that is in the LGBT family.Especially the Police and Fire needs to be protected from discrimination.We the first ones to call them when theres a fire or a shooting etc. In the inpuyt meeting i will explain in my sensitivity training maybe it will make more sense.I understand there will be always discrimination but if we have laws set to protect then when i discrimination happens accountability can take place.
misspelled words let me correct lol laws to protect then when discrimination happens
you can discriminate if its a private business for example ymca planet fitness . They are private accomodations that you pay a membership.Also the shelters that are ran by a religion can discriminate.Example Union Gospel.The convos that i had with Greg doesnt raise red flags telling me that he is against LGBT rights and its ok to discriminate .Im not feeling that vibe . Thats just me everyone has there opinion
everyone has there opinion i cant type today lol