tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post7711487751922264207..comments2023-08-29T04:23:57.598-05:00Comments on New BBC Open Forum: Memphis City Council to Vote on Non-discrimination OrdinanceNew BBC Open Forumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-50715642761876040242020-05-04T20:34:14.259-05:002020-05-04T20:34:14.259-05:00Eddie Struble<br /><a href="https://newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com/2020/05/information.html" rel="nofollow">Eddie Struble</a>New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-90662804715341983442012-10-16T23:35:07.004-05:002012-10-16T23:35:07.004-05:00From the latest Commercial Appeal article:
It app...From the latest <i>Commercial Appeal</i> article:<br /><br /><i>It applies only to employment by the city of Memphis, not private individuals or groups that may contract with the city.</i><br /><br />Sleep tight, Bellevue. Your city contracts are safe!New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-49073160000074803982012-09-29T19:48:34.766-05:002012-09-29T19:48:34.766-05:00Steve Gaines addresses the Memphis City Council<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogoaaE32q4" rel="nofollow">Steve Gaines addresses the Memphis City Council</a>New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-1074162262872267302012-09-20T07:10:34.717-05:002012-09-20T07:10:34.717-05:00This person, whether knowingly or not, hit upon th...This person, whether knowingly or not, hit upon the real issue, and that's that Bellevue likely has contracts with the city. Steve's objection to this ordinance is not how the city treats their employees but rather that Bellevue will be forced NOT to discriminate against THEIR employees based upon sexual orientation. Get it now? Steve doesn't do anything for no reason. Follow the money. Always follow the money. It's a choice between not discriminating against their employees (and you just know someone is itching for a test case) or losing any lucrative city (and county) contracts. The county has voted against similar ordinances, and Steve led the charge against them, too.<br /><br /><i>Plenty of people read these comments, so I'd like to clear some things up for all of the folks commenting who are confused and those reading who might also be.<br /><br />The ordinance under discussion applies to city contracts only. It is stating that it shall be city policy to not discriminate in the hiring, firing, promotion, or otherwise in the workplace, against employees of the city <b>or those contracted by the city</b> based on the listed factors, to which "sexual orientation" is being added.<br /><br />Identical language has already been adopted via ordinance in Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga.<br /><br />It does not alter state or federal employment law. It does not affect private employers. It also has nothing to do with gay marriage.<br /><br />To oppose this language, one must believe that the city somehow needs to continue to discriminate if they have been, and/or will need to discriminate in the future, against homosexual employees based solely on their sexual orientation. Of course, I don't think anyone actually believes that. I think they are buying the Pastor Gaines argument that this language gives "special rights to homosexuals" - of course, it does not - and that this language "violates the freedoms of the majority" - again, what universe Pastor Gaines was in when he said that yesterday, reasonable folks can't be sure. What freedoms, Pastor Gaines? Does the city need the freedom to discriminate against homosexuals in city contracts because of their private sexual lives? No, of course not, the argument is absurd.</i><br /><br />Follow the money.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-65236324341789810512012-09-20T07:07:08.375-05:002012-09-20T07:07:08.375-05:00Okay, someone wins the internet for this one! The...Okay, someone wins the internet for this one! The logic here is beautiful. Except it would be the county <i>and</i> city coffers that would benefit because Bellevue is part of Memphis.<br /><br /><i>Mr. Gain</i>[e]<i>s, being a Christian is also a choice... you weren't born a Christian, it's not genetic... it's a choice you made. You also made a choice to join the church... so under your argument maybe we should cut all "special privileges" enjoyed by the church now... all those tax exemptions. What do you think the property tax on the Bellevue</i> [properties]<i> would bring into the county coffers.....hhhhmmmm.</i><br /><br />Hhhhmmmm, indeed!New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-158805400100751242012-09-20T07:02:45.199-05:002012-09-20T07:02:45.199-05:00Comment: Factually, you could be fired for being s...Comment: <i>Factually, you could be fired for being straight if it struck your employer to do so. It would be highly unlikely but not impossible. Adding sexual orientation to the protected liberties would, however, be a two way street and protect both sides.</i><br /><br />Reply: <i>Technically yes, but first you would have to be outed as straight in your office. Then you would have to explain that being straight is not a choice. Then you would be judged by all the gay employees who would tell you that you were going to hell for being straight. Then you would get fired. But yes, that could happen.</i>New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-81768612918234392212012-09-20T07:01:31.330-05:002012-09-20T07:01:31.330-05:00You can bash gay American tax payers all day long ...<i>You can bash gay American tax payers all day long with your religion. But you cannot do the same with your government.</i><br /><br />Let me make it clear that I'm against "gay marriage" as "marriage" in my mind is defined as being between one man and one woman. I'm <i>not</i> necessarily against civil unions between two committed parties. Perhaps it's time to rethink the connection between civil "marriage" (a legal contract) and "marriage" as defined by the church (a spiritual covenant) and eliminate the "married filing jointly" tax status and a lot of the other legal perks that married couples currently enjoy. Two can live more cheaply than one, so why should two individuals who often both have incomes be afforded tax breaks two other individuals aren't? Either that or recognize civil unions.<br /><br />This seems to be where the line blurs, and both sides are simply talking past each other. The pro "gay marriage" folks seem to want the legal recognition of their commitments and the legal privileges that accompany such a legal contract. The anti "gay marriage" folks want to impose the biblical definition of marriage on everyone. I don't know. Maybe it's time to rethink the terminology.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36564514.post-20624337617822613862012-09-20T06:45:57.936-05:002012-09-20T06:45:57.936-05:00Some of the comments on the Commercial Appeal arti...Some of the comments on the <i>Commercial Appeal</i> article were interesting...<br /> <br /><i>At some point in the future, people are going to look back at our society and regard these religious zealots the same we view the the 17th century Salem witch trials. They'll think, "how could people be so ignorant and so mean?" Gaines is the new Cotton Mather.</i>New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.com