- Dec 1, 2011
- 20,374
- 16,346
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
What specifically qualifies the legislation being repealed as bad?Lots of bad legislation gets passed.
Upvote
0
What specifically qualifies the legislation being repealed as bad?Lots of bad legislation gets passed.
They don't. They wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. Discrimination laws are based on the fact that we don't treat anyone 'special'.
Let's take a look at what the current ordinance protects.
it says a person can't be fired from their job just because they are LGBT
it says an LGBT person can't be denied housing just because they are LGBT
It says a person can't be evicted from their home just because they are LGBT
It says people can't be denied access to shops and business just because they are LGBT
WOW this ordinance is horrible and unamerican. what about the rights of good honest hard working bigots?
Did you take a look at what the opposition actually opposes,
For lo, if not then-
to call them bigots is, wel, you name it.
why don't you share with us the part(s) the opposition opposes?Did you take a look at what part(s) the opposition actually opposes?
For lo, if not then-
to call them bigots is, well, you name it.
so you haven't read the legislation and you don't seem to know that the new republicans want to repeal the entire law. but you are willing to defend them and their plan.Im not the one crying bigot.
Did you take a look at what part(s) the opposition actually opposes?
I haven't seen a clear articulation of what the opposition's points are.
The councilman in the OP was quoted as saying that he thought the legislation was redundant (since the state could cover it) and lacked teeth, and that he was interested in making government more streamlines.
Assuming he's being sincere in his claims, then swiftly moving to repeal is something of an odd response. At best, he's arguing that he doesn't want it to be the job of the town to get involved in these matters. But he also said that a bunch of his constituents didn't want the ordinance passed and I find it hard to believe that their big concern is an extra layer of bureaucracy.
I found a bit of the back story, from when this ordinance was first being proposed:
Chambersburg Borough Council meeting heats up with a discussion of LGBTQ rights - Tri-State Alert
It seems there's a bit of a power struggle going on.
so you haven't read the legislation and you don't seem to know that the new republicans want to repeal the entire law. but you are willing to defend them and their plan.
Right
they want to repeal the legislation that prevents LGBT individuals from being fired from their job just because they are LGBT. If they were moving to repeal the law that prevents non-CHristians from being fired from their jobs just because of their religion it would be called bigotry.
they want to repeal the legislation that prevents business owners from refusing to sell goods and services they provide to everyone else to LGBT individuals. If they were moving to repeal the law that prevents business owners form discriminating based on skin color it would be called bigotry
They want to repeal the legislation that prevents landlords from evicting people from their homes just because they are LGBT. If they were wanting to remove such protections from hardscaped people it would be called bigotry.
It would be unnecessary if the State had laws that would apply. As far as I can tell they do not. The Supreme.Court has established Federal protections for employment. So far I don’t think it has gone beyond that.
You see a need for redundant legislation that has no enforcement power?
From the OP: "Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that have no explicit statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations."Check b4 think
It would be unnecessary if the State had laws that would apply. As far as I can tell they do not. The Supreme.Court has established Federal protections for employment. So far I don’t think it has gone beyond that.
From the OP: "Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that have no explicit statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations."
Good. Land lords should be able to choose according to their standards.Central Pa. borough poised to become first to repeal LGBTQ protections
The plan by Chambersburg Borough Council to vote Monday to rescind the anti-discrimination ordinance comes only four months after the borough ratified the ordinance in October.
The ordinance, which extends protections against discrimination to gay, transgender or genderqueer people in employment, housing and public accommodations, was passed in October by the then-Democratic majority council.
The political makeup of the council, however, changed with the November municipal election, which ushered in a 7-3 Republican majority.
If Chambersburg succeeds in repealing the ordinance, it would mark the first time an LGBTQ inclusive law is revoked in Pennsylvania. To date, 70 municipalities, including Gettysburg, Shippensburg, Carlisle, Camp Hill and Harrisburg, have ratified such ordinances.
Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that have no explicit statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Good. Land lords should be able to choose according to their standards.