Ordinance would ban discrimination ag...

Ordinance would ban discrimination against gays

There are 157 comments on the Traverse City Record-Eagle story from Sep 5, 2010, titled Ordinance would ban discrimination against gays. In it, Traverse City Record-Eagle reports that:

A proposed city ordinance that would outlaw discrimination against homosexuals is pretty much a no-brainer to Joel Heady.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Traverse City Record-Eagle.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Sep 08

Muskegon

#143 Sep 17, 2010
say what wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Radell, the question is: was she saved merely by having a conversation with Jesus and being let off the hook for her adultery?
It would seem that your theology is just that Jesus died so now everyone is saved. Period. So we should all just live our lives any way we see fit and sin whenever the impulse overtakes us because we can't help sinning and God knows that so it's all good.
Tell me, Radell, what motivation does anyone have to not sin?
If you told your kids, "I want you to stop stealing money from me, but I won't be upset or discipline you if you do", do you think they'd obey you?
No, it would not seem that is my theology. That's not what I said, and you simply want to interpret it that way.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#144 Sep 17, 2010
say what wrote:
<quoted text>
1 John 3:6:“No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.”
1 John 3:9-10:“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God
I have serious Donatist leanings myself.

Still, that does not change the fact that only the NOACHIAN LAWS apply to gentiles.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...
Sandy

United States

#145 Sep 17, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
One's sexuality or sexual orientation -- real or perceived -- should never enter into the issue of employment or housing. That's my point.
Still, it does enter into those issues.
As I have demonstrated with links to specific evidence, in many states it is completely legal for an employer to fire, or refuse to hire or retain someone solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, or for a landlord to refuse to rent or sell to a person on that basis.
You apparently would agree that those considerations should never be brought into the issue. That's good. But without legal protections (like ENDA), people have been and are fired for being gay
http://www.newsweek.com/2002/04/30/fired-for-...
http://www.suite101.com/content/fired-for-bei...
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Man_fired_for_b...
or denied housing for being gay
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/84994592.h...
http://www.fhcmichigan.org/images/Arcus_web1....
Your point appears to revolve around your quite limited personal experience. Although you may not have experienced such questions before or been discriminated against on the basis of your sexual orientation, it does not logically follow that therefore such discrimination does not exist.
Apparently we have a misunderstanding. I did not mean that discrimination does not exist. Discrimination exists because we re humans and we go with our first impressions. My entire point is a person's sexuality should NEVER come into the equation because what you or I do behind closed doors is no one else's business! So, when groups who want to determine if gays would be discriminated against do the kind of testing they do, they get the results they expected so they can scream discrimination. If on the other hand, both groups had gone in and said, "Roommates" or "friends", the issue becomes a non-issue. As to the employment issue, unless someone makes a point of telling someone else they are gay, how would anyone know? Do gay people wear signs??? My gay friends don't, so I naturally assumed others did not. My bad. In the end, we are going to cater to every special "group" because that is what we do.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#146 Sep 17, 2010
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently we have a misunderstanding. I did not mean that discrimination does not exist. Discrimination exists because we re humans and we go with our first impressions. My entire point is a person's sexuality should NEVER come into the equation because what you or I do behind closed doors is no one else's business! So, when groups who want to determine if gays would be discriminated against do the kind of testing they do, they get the results they expected so they can scream discrimination. If on the other hand, both groups had gone in and said, "Roommates" or "friends", the issue becomes a non-issue.


This isn't a misunderstanding. You understand perfectly well that discrimination exists because you cannot deny the evidence for it. Your claim is that the discrimination is the fault of the people being discriminated against because they are honest and may tell the truth.

Why should a gay couple have to lie and say "roommate" or "friends?" If I am legally married to my same-sex partner and go in and attempt to rent an apartment as a legally married couple, what rational basis does a landlord or property owner have in denying us the opportunity to rent?
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>As to the employment issue, unless someone makes a point of telling someone else they are gay, how would anyone know?


You really are stupid, aren't you? Do you work? Do you and your colleagues talk about their daily lives, their personal experiences when on break? Do they display a picture of their spouses and children? Do they talk about what they did last night or over the weekend?

These are common, everyday occurances in the world of work. You want gay and lesbian people to remain invisible because it upsets you or makes you uneasy. In many states, if you are at work and casually say you're going to see a movie that night with your boyfriend or husband, nothing would happen. If I say the same exact thing and the wrong person overhears it, I could be fired and I would have NO RECOURSE.
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>Do gay people wear signs??? My gay friends don't, so I naturally assumed others did not. My bad. In the end, we are going to cater to every special "group" because that is what we do.
I seriously doubt that any gay person would claim you as a "friend," at least no one who knows your beliefs on issues like these.
Smarter

Jackson, MI

#147 Sep 17, 2010
Bob?????????? Boy you are really Obtuse. I don't speak anything like Bob. By the way, I'm gainfully employeed. I know a lot of republicans that are 99 ers, even though you assume they are all on the left.
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>And you know this how, Bob???? Nice try, it sure is nice to know that what you accuse others of doing, you are doing. Typical leftist projection. As to your conjecture about the job, and it is just conjecture, I didn't spend 2 years on unemployment. How about you?
Sandy

United States

#148 Sep 17, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a misunderstanding. You understand perfectly well that discrimination exists because you cannot deny the evidence for it. Your claim is that the discrimination is the fault of the people being discriminated against because they are honest and may tell the truth.
Why should a gay couple have to lie and say "roommate" or "friends?" If I am legally married to my same-sex partner and go in and attempt to rent an apartment as a legally married couple, what rational basis does a landlord or property owner have in denying us the opportunity to rent?
<quoted text>
You really are stupid, aren't you? Do you work? Do you and your colleagues talk about their daily lives, their personal experiences when on break? Do they display a picture of their spouses and children? Do they talk about what they did last night or over the weekend?
These are common, everyday occurances in the world of work. You want gay and lesbian people to remain invisible because it upsets you or makes you uneasy. In many states, if you are at work and casually say you're going to see a movie that night with your boyfriend or husband, nothing would happen. If I say the same exact thing and the wrong person overhears it, I could be fired and I would have NO RECOURSE.
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that any gay person would claim you as a "friend," at least no one who knows your beliefs on issues like these.
I seriously don't feel the need to "disprove" or "prove" anything to you or anyone else. As for my gay friends? I seriously doubt they would want to be around you as they don't usually want to be seen with the extremists and you definitely qualify. As for gays making me uneasy, you are the stupid one. But hey, have it. The angry extremists in any group give the group a bad name. Please, continue with your diatribes. Your hatred for straight people is something to behold.
Sandy

United States

#149 Sep 17, 2010
Smarter wrote:
Bob?????????? Boy you are really Obtuse. I don't speak anything like Bob. By the way, I'm gainfully employeed. I know a lot of republicans that are 99 ers, even though you assume they are all on the left.
<quoted text>
You don't even know what "obtuse" means. Don't use words that you don't know what they mean. It only makes you look dumber than you already do. Go back under your bridge little troll before somebody runs you over with their F-150.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#150 Sep 17, 2010
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>I seriously don't feel the need to "disprove" or "prove" anything to you or anyone else.


Feel free to show where I asked you to "prove" anything. What I've stated is that you have provided no evidence to substantiate any of your claims, whereas I've provided plenty of evidence to support mine.

You've provided no evidence because you don't have any. There is no rational basis to discriminate against persons on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation. Such discrimination exists, as I have shown and as you have acknowledged. But you refuse to accept that the law should provide an avenue for recourse when discrimination occurs simply because of your animus against gay people. The evidence of your animus is your insistence that gay and lesbian people remain closeted or invisible in public employment or in attempts to obtain housing.
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>As for my gay friends? I seriously doubt they would want to be around you as they don't usually want to be seen with the extremists and you definitely qualify.


If advocating for the equal protections of the law and against irrational and unsupportable discrimination on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation qualifies me as an "extremist," count me in.
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>As for gays making me uneasy, you are the stupid one. But hey, have it. The angry extremists in any group give the group a bad name. Please, continue with your diatribes. Your hatred for straight people is something to behold.
"Hatred for straight people"? What a nonsensical claim, one made without any evidence to support it, and one that shows the irrationality and desperation of your argument.

You, however, demonstrate your animus towards gay people throughout your comments. You are unable to articulate a single rational basis for denying gay and lesbian people the equal protections of the law, despite the fact that you acknowledge that such unequal treatment exists. Your argument that gay people are solely to blame for the discrimination they face is one that cannot stand up to even minimal scrutiny, and one that no court has accepted.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151 Sep 17, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to show where I asked you to "prove" anything. What I've stated is that you have provided no evidence to substantiate any of your claims, whereas I've provided plenty of evidence to support mine.
You've provided no evidence because you don't have any. There is no rational basis to discriminate against persons on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation. Such discrimination exists, as I have shown and as you have acknowledged. But you refuse to accept that the law should provide an avenue for recourse when discrimination occurs simply because of your animus against gay people. The evidence of your animus is your insistence that gay and lesbian people remain closeted or invisible in public employment or in attempts to obtain housing.
<quoted text>
If advocating for the equal protections of the law and against irrational and unsupportable discrimination on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation qualifies me as an "extremist," count me in.
<quoted text>
"Hatred for straight people"? What a nonsensical claim, one made without any evidence to support it, and one that shows the irrationality and desperation of your argument.
You, however, demonstrate your animus towards gay people throughout your comments. You are unable to articulate a single rational basis for denying gay and lesbian people the equal protections of the law, despite the fact that you acknowledge that such unequal treatment exists. Your argument that gay people are solely to blame for the discrimination they face is one that cannot stand up to even minimal scrutiny, and one that no court has accepted.
You are being logical, articulate, reasonable, with a thoughtful perspective and evidence...

...which is why you aren't going to get anywhere arguing with a 60 year old republican.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#152 Sep 17, 2010
Arctic49519 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are being logical, articulate, reasonable, with a thoughtful perspective and evidence...
Thank you.
Arctic49519 wrote:
<quoted text>...which is why you aren't going to get anywhere arguing with a 60 year old republican.
Ah, but that assumes that she is my primary audience.:-)
Red_Fist_nolog

Lawton, MI

#153 Sep 17, 2010
I want to walk around naked, but nobody likes me, we need a law damn it !!!!

wonder why people don't like that, we where born naked.
can't change nakedness
they even arrested me

I wonder why

nakedphobes anyway

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#154 Sep 18, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a misunderstanding. You understand perfectly well that discrimination exists because you cannot deny the evidence for it. Your claim is that the discrimination is the fault of the people being discriminated against because they are honest and may tell the truth.
Why should a gay couple have to lie and say "roommate" or "friends?" If I am legally married to my same-sex partner and go in and attempt to rent an apartment as a legally married couple, what rational basis does a landlord or property owner have in denying us the opportunity to rent?
<quoted text>
You really are stupid, aren't you? Do you work? Do you and your colleagues talk about their daily lives, their personal experiences when on break? Do they display a picture of their spouses and children? Do they talk about what they did last night or over the weekend?
These are common, everyday occurances in the world of work. You want gay and lesbian people to remain invisible because it upsets you or makes you uneasy. In many states, if you are at work and casually say you're going to see a movie that night with your boyfriend or husband, nothing would happen. If I say the same exact thing and the wrong person overhears it, I could be fired and I would have NO RECOURSE.
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that any gay person would claim you as a "friend," at least no one who knows your beliefs on issues like these.
Well put, but it is a waste, I fear.

Some people stubbornly refuse to admit to your points because they are unprepared to cope with the fact that the world is far less of a hallmark card than they wish it were ... AND that they are part of the reason that it is so. They cannot tolerate the awareness that in their way they contribute to the suffering of the world.

“Everybody gets one (L)”

Since: Apr 09

Traverse City, MI

#155 Sep 21, 2010
Red_Fist_nolog wrote:
I want to walk around naked, but nobody likes me, we need a law damn it !!!!
wonder why people don't like that, we where born naked.
can't change nakedness
they even arrested me
I wonder why
nakedphobes anyway
You, my good man, Win.
say what

Farmington, MI

#156 Sep 21, 2010
Red_Fist_nolog wrote:
I want to walk around naked, but nobody likes me, we need a law damn it !!!!
wonder why people don't like that, we where born naked.
can't change nakedness
they even arrested me
I wonder why
nakedphobes anyway
LOL Now that's funny right there.
Thewayiseeit

Cheboygan, MI

#157 Sep 21, 2010
Red_Fist_nolog wrote:
I want to walk around naked, but nobody likes me, we need a law damn it !!!!
wonder why people don't like that, we where born naked.
can't change nakedness
they even arrested me
I wonder why
nakedphobes anyway
Brilliant, Agree, Helpful and ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!

“lover”

Since: Feb 09

Dorr MI

#158 Sep 21, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_military Another blow to gay rights, but shouldn't the headline read Republicans and Demacrats block bill?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#159 Sep 21, 2010
Nope, not a blow. Just the next card in a hand of Texas Holdem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Woods Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clients accuse massage therapist of molestation (Sep '07) 7 hr naw 23
Top dog fires employee for alleged racism Aug 14 Fairforonefairforall 1
Michael fletcher (Feb '17) Aug 7 MickFletcherCanBu... 3
Tiny Tim's Slot Car Racing and The Boys and Gir... (Sep '06) Jul '17 Dale Cramer 36
Lemonade stand on east Drayton street Jul '17 @Kelly 2
Hostas $5 Jun '17 Chardo 1
News Owner accused of selling drugs at party story (Oct '09) Jun '17 Samiyah 200

Huntington Woods Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Woods Mortgages