Chalk up one more US city where you had better hire a gay person

[bbt630]

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/elections/Voters_to_have_final_say_on_gay_rights

So what happens now in Kalamazoo, as in any other locale including homosexuality as a protected status, when an organization with fundamental disagreements with homosexuality choose to hire 'the other' job candidate?

[Gabby]

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/elections/Voters_to_have_final_say_on_gay_rights

So what happens now in Kalamazoo, as in any other locale including homosexuality as a protected status, when an organization with fundamental disagreements with homosexuality choose to hire 'the other' job candidate?

This means that the candidate cannot be asked if they are homosexual. How would a person know a candidate's sexual orientation during an interview?

Just hire the most qualified candidate.

[putputpanorama]

This means that the candidate cannot be asked if they are homosexual. How would a person know a candidate's sexual orientation during an interview?

Just hire the most qualified candidate.

Thats what i was thinking.

[Mobulis]

If you care more about an employees sexual orientation than their job performance you shouldn't be running a business.

[WhiteHatBobby]

These types of laws are absurd. This is "pedophile protection," as was the warning given. It means if you're a child-care centre or a school, if you don't hire a child molester who applies, and he then uses the "sexual orientation" excuse, he's in because the law protects him.

[angelicmadrigal]

It means if you're a child-care centre or a school, if you don't hire a child molester who applies, and he then uses the "sexual orientation" excuse, he's in because the law protects him.

Actually I doubt that it does. When two laws conflict like that it's up to a judge to decide, and NO judge in their right mind is going to allow someone that is a convicted sex offender REGARDLESS of sexual orientation (or wht they SAY thier sexal orientation is) be permited to work around children. I'd imagine that if a judge ruled this way the higher courts would support that.

[LouC]

These types of laws are absurd. This is "pedophile protection," as was the warning given. It means if you're a child-care centre or a school, if you don't hire a child molester who applies, and he then uses the "sexual orientation" excuse, he's in because the law protects him.

Why don't you read the ordinance first before making such asinine posts?

Sec. 18-17. Intent, Purpose and Construction

A) It is the intent of the City of Kalamazoo that no person be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil rights or be discriminated against because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Sec. 18-18. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:

Q. “Sexual Orientation.” Male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, whether by orientation or practice. Sexual orientation does not include the physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult. LINK (http://www.kalamazoocity.org/docs/1856.pdf)

[Imperialparadox]

These types of laws are absurd. This is "pedophile protection," as was the warning given. It means if you're a child-care centre or a school, if you don't hire a child molester who applies, and he then uses the "sexual orientation" excuse, he's in because the law protects him.

Luckily, your opinion is not fact.

[JediMindTrick]

Why don't you read the ordinance first before making such asinine posts?

How dare you counter gay bashing with little things like facts.

[JediMindTrick]

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/elections/Voters_to_have_final_say_on_gay_rights

So what happens now in Kalamazoo, as in any other locale including homosexuality as a protected status, when an organization with fundamental disagreements with homosexuality choose to hire 'the other' job candidate?

What if a person had a fundamental disagreement with blacks?

[captusa]

These types of laws are absurd. This is "pedophile protection," as was the warning given. It means if you're a child-care centre or a school, if you don't hire a child molester who applies, and he then uses the "sexual orientation" excuse, he's in because the law protects him.
Rather riduculous conclusion.
By your logic a school or child care center would have to treat a homosexual child molester diffferently than a heterosexual child molester.
It seems your homophobia supercedes your interest in protecting children from pedophiles most of whom are heteroexual males.
*Dispite the publicity that beautiful female teachers who seduce male students have received.

[captusa]

What if a person had a fundamental disagreement with blacks?

What possible fundamental disagreement could one possibly have with blacks that would pertain to a candidate's ability to perform a particular task.

Of course if someone has a fundamental disagreement with someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity he will have a great deal of difficulty running a business that deals with the public in Kalamazoo and most other places in the USA.

[bbt630]

What if a person had a fundamental disagreement with blacks?

Skin color is not a behavior.

Sexual orientation and lifestyle choices are.

[mdk190]

Skin color is not a behavior.

Sexual orientation and lifestyle choices are.

Bigotry is also a choice. This law ensures that homosexuals citizens cannot be dismissed or denied housing on the basis of their sexuality. What a nightmare! :rolleyes:

[bbt630]

Bigotry is also a choice. :rolleyes: This law ensures that homosexuals citizens cannot be dismissed or denied housing on the basis of their sexuality. What a nightmare! :rolleyes:Short of forcing a roomate situation, I have no problem with the housing part of it.

I do, however, have concerns about political correctness being given legal teeth over lifestyle choices.

[mdk190]

:rolleyes: Short of forcing a roomate situation, I have no problem with the housing part of it.

I do, however, have concerns about political correctness being given legal teeth over lifestyle choices.

Religion is lifestyle choice and many states have hate crime laws protect them as well. Where is all your outrage?

[bbt630]

Religion is lifestyle choice and many states have hate crime laws protect them as well.
I don't want to see any organization forced, in this case under threat of a $500/day fine, to employ someone who is fundamentally conflicted with the organization.
Where is all your outrage?That's a good question...show me the outrage.

[JediMindTrick]

Skin color is not a behavior.

Sexual orientation and lifestyle choices are.

There we disagree. I believe that sexual orientation is hard wired at birth. People can choose to try and be different than that orientation but it doesn't change the person deep inside (which is why you end up with so many married men trolling parks and airport restrooms looking for other married men to have sex with).

My contention is that a person who won't hire a gay person is no better than a person who won't hire a black person. Now you could argue a case if it was a customer service job and the gay person was of the type who dresses half in drag all the time (though this is the minority) just like you could deny such a person if they were covered head to toe in tatoos and never bathed. But the mere fact of being gay itself shouldn't legally be allowed to be a disqualifier.

[LouC]

How dare you counter gay bashing with little things like facts.

Sorry. :wall:

Won't happen again.

Or will it... :think:

[LouC]

I have seen a lot of people against this type of ordinance or law mainly because they feel it will force religions to hire people that may not ascribe to a church's "high moral standards".

Perhaps Kalamazoo considered those concerns with Ordinance 1856?

Sec. 18-24. Discriminatory Effects.

No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement which has the effect of creating unequal opportunities according to actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, family status, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, or gender identity, for a person to obtain housing, employment or public accommodation, except for a bona fide business necessity. Such a bona fide business necessity does not arise due to a mere inconvenience or because of suspected or actual objection to such a person by neighbors, customers, or other persons but shall require a demonstration that the policy or requirement is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the person’s business.


Sec.18-25. Exceptions.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this ordinance, the following practices shall not be violations of this ordinance:

A. For a religious organization to restrict the occupancy of any of its housing facilities or accommodations which are operated as a direct part of religious activities to persons of the denomination involved or to restrict employment opportunities for officers, religious instructions and clergy to persons of that denomination. It is also permissible for a religious organization to restrict employment opportunities, educational facilities, housing facilities, and homeless shelters or dormitories that are operated as a direct part of its religious activities to persons who are members of or who conform to the moral tenets of that religious organization.


Sec. 18-18. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:

P. “Religious Organization.” An organization, church, group, or body of communicants that are organized not for pecuniary profit that regularly gathers for worship and religious purposes, and includes a religious-based private school that is not organized for pecuniary profit.

That looks like an out to me?