Legal snafu, whatchagonnado???

[juantoo3]

CITY OF GAINESVILLE CHARTER AMENDMENT 1
Amendment to City Charter Prohibiting the City
from Providing Certain Civil Rights.
SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO
PROHIBIT THE ADOPTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF
ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, RULES OR
POLICIES THAT PROVIDE PROTECTED STATUS,
PREFERENCES OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS, CHARACTERISTICS
OR ORIENTATIONS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE
FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT? THE ACT
RECOGNIZES RACE, COLOR, CREED, RELIGION,
GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, HANDICAP,
MARITAL AND FAMILIAL STATUS. ADDITIONALLY,
THIS AMENDMENT VOIDS EXISTING ORDINANCES
CONCERNING SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER
IDENTITY, AND OTHER ORDINANCES
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

YES - for adoption of the amendment
NO - against adoption of the amendment

This is what the voters where I live are up against very soon. This debate has been brewing for some time and is finally coming to a showdown vote.

The problem as I see it, is that well meaning but ill advised legislators have created a piece of poorly written legislation that creates more problems than it solves. In the interest of creating equal footing for all, it also opens the door for (among other things) men to use the women's restroom, legally, without interference. Think about the mile wide loop hole custom made for pedophiles...

Of course, those who support this are gang tackled by the LGBT crowd as being intolerant bigots, and the reverse scare is that then people could lose jobs, housing, etc. because of orientation.

So the people here are being asked to chose between equal rights and children's safety.

Which would you choose, and why?

 

[juantoo3]

BTW, this is a not a drill, this is a real "emergency." Should anybody desire there is oodles of background info available on request and any good search engine...

 

[seattlegal]

I would vote no. This legislation would tie the hands of future lawmakers to address problems that might arise in the future. Any existing laws that are blatently discriminatory should be individually voided/repealled, instead of using this blanket legislatiion that would produce undesirable side effects.

 

[17th Angel]

I voted yes, as I was adopted myself. If I wasn't I'd of either been killed off, or lived a life of ****... I come from a poor family, from a really rough area with more kids then it should have. That is all I know, that is all I want to know. I am thankful for being adopted to a better life. I'd of been pissed if I had ended up in a gay home... Seriously lol... That may come across as homophobic or whatever but I couldn't care... (lol it's kinda like, yeah homosexuals are ok, just as long as I don't have to mingle with them lol, out of sight out of mind... I am terrible....)Thank god I got straight parents lol. Not sure about colour/race, I guess that could feel awkward for a child lol Things such as age as long as they are of an age where they should live long enough to care for the child during it's youth is ok too!

Any existing laws that are blatently discriminatory should be individually voided/repealled, instead of using this blanket legislatiion that would produce undesirable side effects.

Not really... The child has a voice too......

 

[wil]

I voted yes, as I was adopted myself. If I wasn't I'd of either been killed off, or lived a life of ****... I come from a poor family, from a really rough area with more kids then it should have. That is all I know, that is all I want to know. I am thankful for being adopted to a better life. I'd of been pissed if I had ended up in a gay home... Seriously lol... That may come across as homophobic or whatever but I couldn't care... (lol it's kinda like, yeah homosexuals are ok, just as long as I don't have to mingle with them lol, out of sight out of mind... I am terrible....)Thank god I got straight parents lol. Not sure about colour/race, I guess that could feel awkward for a child lol Things such as age as long as they are of an age where they should live long enough to care for the child during it's youth is ok too!




Not really... The child has a voice too......

Namaste Alex,

This is American legaleze, you have to read it ten times to understand what it appears to be saying and another hundred to find out what they are trying to get away with and then anothe mutiple of 10 before you'll get close to what they are trying to sneak in.

Regardless as I read it this is about the adoption of an ammendment not and ammendment regarding adoption.

As far as a vote...I'd vote it down and vote out whatever legislators voted for adding it to the ballot with such bad wording.

 

[17th Angel]

Ah see... I am shocking when it comes to laws, rules, politics and such cause I just don't take it in. *shruggs*

 

[Dream]

Although I'm for less legislation instead of more, I'll agree this is probably a mistake. The referendum is too complex.

 

[juantoo3]

It seems to me a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and both sides are using scare tactics to drum up support.

I think it also raises an important point...how far are we willing to go, and what are we willing to sacrifice in the process, for equal rights *and* public safety (particularly that of children)?

From the way I read this, no one is being denied rights established in the state constitution, so there is an element of moot point on the one side. And then we have the other side that wishes to subordinate any *further* rights in order to maintain the safety of children. Both sides have seemingly reasonable requests, and both sides are playing to constituents concerns.

Do we sacrifice the rights of some to better insure the safety of children, or do we sacrifice the safety of our children to better insure the rights of some?

Ah, politics! Don't ya just luv 'em?

 

[bob x]

The problem as I see it, is that well meaning but ill advised legislators have created a piece of poorly written legislation that creates more problems than it solves. In the interest of creating equal footing for all, it also opens the door for (among other things) men to use the women's restroom, legally, without interference. Think about the mile wide loop hole custom made for pedophiles...

Absolute BS. It shouldn't anger me any more to read the crap that bigots will invent to justify their bigotry, but it does.
The question here is: should I, or someone like me, be subject to being fired although I am doing my job, or evicted although I am paying my rent? You are voting for that to continue.

 

[citizenzen]

Do we sacrifice the rights of some to better insure the safety of children, or do we sacrifice the safety of our children to better insure the rights of some?

Could you explain why you think this is a child safety issue?

The law does nothing to change the fact that sex with minors is illegal.

If anything confuses me, it's how pedophilia continues to get mixed into the struggle for gay rights when it has nothing to do with it in the first place.

 

[bob x]

Calling us all pedophiles is a tactic that the religious right has always used to justify attacks on us. I am sick and tired of it.
Note the extra level of fake "concern for the children" here: juantoo frames his poll as if the city ordinance has to do with adoption policy, when city ordinances have no power whatsoever to affect adoption policy, which is a statewide matter (at the city ordinance level, it is all about job and housing discrimination); that is aside from the question of why he takes it for granted that it "harms" children to let same-sex couples raise them rather than leaving them in an institution (the underlying assumption is either that we are all pedophiles, or that the children will "turn gay" if they see us).

 

[seattlegal]

Huh? What's this about pedophiles? What's this about adoption of children?

I was thinking about how the '55 and older' retirement communities won't be able to enforce their '55 and older' residency clause if this passes.

 

[juantoo3]

juantoo frames his poll as if the city ordinance has to do with adoption policy,

What????

I thought you were a lawyer, bobx?

I can see how Alex might misunderstand...but an attorney? A professor at that?

I didn't write the darn thing. I put it up to show just one instance of the conundrum we as a society are having to muddle our way through. It's about the *adoption* of a new town ordinance....

I am not making any direct association between any one group and another with this...but some people seem to jump to that conclusion with both feet. All they have to hear is the magical word and all common sense screeches to a grinding halt.

The problem with making everything *equal* all the way around *includes* the "right" of one gender to use the public restrooms traditionally reserved for the other gender. It's nothing AT ALL to do with calling people names, it is about predators taking advantage of a legal situation and tying the hands of the law to be able to do anything about it.

No "rights" are being curtailed by this legislation...as a lawyer I am confident you understand that. What is being curtailed is the further enactment of "carte blanche" rights at the expense of common sense. As a lawyer I am certain you see that too, but since it is against your perferred political agenda, you would rather promote confusion and outright untruths, even so far as making untrue presumptions about me personally. Ad hominem...the last flailing resort of an attorney who hasn't a legal leg to stand on, eh?

I expected you to disagree. And that's fine. I also expect better of you than to stoop so low as attack me personally for presenting a real world scenario I have nothing personal to do with other than the choice of going to the poll to exercise my constitutional imperative, and in which direction that should go. I had been leaning in one direction, but was hoping for a persuasive reason to lean the other. If the only viable dissuation is an attack on me personally, then I see no reason to change my original position.


Thanks bob.

 

[citizenzen]

I am not making any direct association between any one group and another with this...but some people seem to jump to that conclusion with both feet.

jt3, why don't we review some text from your previous 2 posts (bolding mine)...

Think about the mile wide loop hole custom made for pedophiles...

Of course, those who support this are gang tackled by the LGBT crowd as being intolerant bigots, and the reverse scare is that then people could lose jobs, housing, etc. because of orientation.

So the people here are being asked to chose between equal rights and children's safety.

I think it also raises an important point...how far are we willing to go, and what are we willing to sacrifice in the process, for equal rights *and* public safety (particularly that of children)?

And then we have the other side that wishes to subordinate any *further* rights in order to maintain the safety of children.

Do we sacrifice the rights of some to better insure the safety of children, or do we sacrifice the safety of our children to better insure the rights of some?

From where I stand, it's not to hard to see why we "jumped to these conclusions".

 

[bob x]

It's about the *adoption* of a new town ordinance....

Your poll just talks about "adoption", and with all your talk how it's all about "the children", it certainly appeared that you were claiming this was about adoption law.

I am not making any direct association between any one group and another with this...

Yes you were. You claimed that gay people cannot be granted equal rights without automatically protecting pedophiles. That is a horribly offensive thing to say.

The problem with making everything *equal* all the way around *includes* the "right" of one gender to use the public restrooms traditionally reserved for the other gender.

No it doesn't. Stop being absurd. There are equal rights statutes in over a dozen states, and ordinances in many municipalities, and no unisex-restroom requirement follows from that, anywhere. This is ludicrous hysteria, designed to evade any discussion of what equal rights ordinances actually do.

No "rights" are being curtailed by this legislation...

Just my right to retain my job if I'm doing the work, or retain my apartment if I'm paying the right, if I should make the mistake of moving to your city. Those are rights that you would take for granted, but I cannot.

as a lawyer I am confident you understand that.

I understand PERFECTLY, believe me.

And that's fine. I also expect better of you than to stoop so low as attack me personally for presenting a real world scenario I have nothing personal to do with other than the choice of going to the poll to exercise my constitutional imperative

And your choice to repeat and propagate absurd and dishonest arguments. It appears that your mind is made up, for reasons which I am sure have nothing really to do with the ludicrous arguments that you propagate.

 

[arthra]

It's interesting that this issue is being brought on a municipal level..the city of Gainesville, Fla.

I'm unfamilar with the community issues there but if this is decided on the City level it sounds to me like someone could easily challenge the legality of the outcome on a higher level and the city of Gainesville would have to pay legal costs in such a case and that could be very costly. Lawyers always win even when they "lose".

- Art

 

[seattlegal]

It's interesting that this issue is being brought on a municipal level..the city of Gainesville, Fla.

I'm unfamilar with the community issues there but if this is decided on the City level it sounds to me like someone could easily challenge the legality of the outcome on a higher level and the city of Gainesville would have to pay legal costs in such a case and that could be very costly. Lawyers always win even when they "lose".

- Art

Sign of the economic times, or something more sinister?

 

[17th Angel]

Could you explain why you think this is a child safety issue?

The law does nothing to change the fact that sex with minors is illegal.

If anything confuses me, it's how pedophilia continues to get mixed into the struggle for gay rights when it has nothing to do with it in the first place.

Aw come on guy, everyone knows if you're gay you partake in the fidling of the children.... It's like, science...

 

[wil]

I was thinking about how the '55 and older' retirement communities won't be able to enforce their '55 and older' residency clause if this passes.

Seems to me in this good old USA the 55 and older rule is designed so they don't have to build schools or accomadate the younger generation in any way.

 

[bob x]

ADDITIONALLY,
THIS AMENDMENT VOIDS EXISTING ORDINANCES
CONCERNING SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER
IDENTITY, AND OTHER ORDINANCES
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

THIS is what it is really about. At present, in the city of Gainesville it is illegal to fire or evict people just for being gay (although the state of Florida has no such protections, the city had a municipal ordinance to that effect). This amendment will strike that down, to make it legal to fire and evict arbitrarily again-- on grounds, apparently, that if Gainesvilleans don't chase out gay people, children will be molested and guys will go into the ladies' room.