Archive for Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Manhattan City Commission repeals ordinance adding sexual orientation, gender identity to anti-discrimination policy

May 4, 2011

Advertisement

— The Manhattan City Commission has voted to repeal a controversial ordinance that added sexual orientation and a new definition of gender identity to its anti-discrimination policy.

The vote Tuesday was 3-2 and a second reading must be approved before the ordinance is officially repealed.

The previous commission had passed the ordinance in February, making Manhattan the second city in the state to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. But new council members were elected in April and opponents of the ordinance continued to push for its repeal.

KMAN reports that a large crowd attended Tuesday's meeting, with both supporters and opponents speaking before the vote.

Comments

consumer1 4 years ago

Good for them! No special treatment for anyone. Now all the haters will bash my comment by calling me names.

drewsmith84 4 years ago

I will not call you names.

I will say that including sexual orientation in an anti-discrimination law isn't giving anyone special treatment, its giving them equal treatment.

Saying it is not against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation is giving everyone else special treatment, and essentially endorsing homophobia.

always_correct 4 years ago

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antoine Scalia agrees with you. Congratulations. However, the majority opinion is that ordinances to protect individuals from discrimination, as drewsmith84 stated, simply make sure everyone is treated equally. Consider reading Romer v. Evans, and any discussion related to that case.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Yes, no special treatment for anyone. Except heterosexual couples.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

How is equal access to the basics of daily life--employment, housing, and commerce--special treatment? Majority groups receive that without even asking.

Do you think the existing federal Civil Rights Act, Kansas Act Against Discrimination, and countless local ordinances banning discrimination based on race and sex are special treatment for racial minorities and women?

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

The gender identity definition in the Manhattan ordinance required the person's gender presentation to be consistent over time and made in good faith.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

Re "capitalist pigs:" I've lobbied for the Manhattan ordinance, in part because I'm gay and have witnessed discrimination first hand. I'm also a corporate & securities law student, so definitely raging against the machine here... I can think of several LGBT professionals that you'd never even recognize were gay or trans. Customers aren't freaked out until they learn that one fact about them. That's a sign that prejudice, not kookery, is at play. This issue is mainstream, even though you don't want to cast it that way.

Re: "being all about me:" If you want to label victims of discrimination selfish for asserting they deserve equal treatment, good luck with that argument.

ivalueamerica 4 years ago

The special treatment seems to only be reserved for straight people who have privileges in society that gay people do not.

In fact, the GAO has listed at least 1,100 benefits heterosexuals have that gay people do not.

Calling equal rights "special rights" is a lie.

ivalueamerica 4 years ago

really? you get that from this?

OMG, rich, too funny.. wow...

Of course 85% have non discrimination policies, 75% offer domestic partner benefits and they seem to thrived, have for decades.

Your hysteria is just that, hysteria and it makes you look like a lunatic.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

One step forward, two steps back.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

There is a simple answer. Don't live, work, or spend in Manhattan.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

That's not a viable option for LGBT locals/natives. I believe more change happens by staying and living openly/accepting.

homechanger 4 years ago

Manhattan as bigoted as you think

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years ago

I didn't know Lawrence had passed one at all. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of those City Council meeting minutes. Oh right.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

Lawrence bans discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation. Citizens tried to add gender identity, but the Human Relations Commission vetoed it twice (Nov. 09 & Feb. 10).

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

I do want to borrow your U Haul. Where can I pick it up?

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

Since kicking gays when they're down wasn't enough fun, you had to throw in the homeless for good. You're a class act RC.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Either that or RC77 lives in Baldwin City.

You know what they say. Maybe RC77 just wants to remove all temptation.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

What a cruel sentiment asking native Kansans who are LGBT to leave. Don't you have puppies to kick or candy to steal from babies?

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

You know what they say. Maybe RC77 just wants to remove all temptation.

kuhusker 4 years ago

Not gonna happen. You see, Lawrence is a liberal town. Lawrence voted in FAVOR of same-sex marriage back in 2005. If anyone should leave, it is you. Perhaps Manhattan is more to your liking?

kuhusker 4 years ago

Huh?

Former mayor Mike Rundle (one of the most popular elected officials in this town's history) was gay. Lawrence will elect gay candidates. The particular candidate you mention, however, doesn't, uh, have the temperament for public office!

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

@RC77: You're trying to argue Lawrence isn't a liberal town. And your best evidence is that Sven Alstrom wasn't elected. Yeah, that strategy looks winning...

orbiter 4 years ago

ooooo, scary! the teeny weiny (anonymous) Republican has a gun!!!! surprise surprise. why is it that you homophobic/ xenophobic conservatives are also always the ones bragging that you have a gun that you are just dying to shoot a human with? Freud much?

kuhusker 4 years ago

Wonder why they didn't put it to a public vote...let the people decide. I thought there was going to be referendum on this topic in Manhattan.

Joseph Jarvis 4 years ago

I'm sure a majority of voters in Mississippi and Alabama would have voted for desegregation or the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. /sarcasm The concept of popular votes on civil rights is ridiculous.

As for why no vote materialized, opponents tried but kept botching the legal technicalities of the petition process.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

"I'm sure a majority of voters in Mississippi and Alabama would have voted for desegregation or the Civil Rights Act in the 60s."

Or now, for that matter!

Kirk Larson 4 years ago

Jeez, you give one group equal rights, pretty soon everyone wants equal rights.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

I wonder just how many got the irony of that sentence, Cappy.

missmagoo 4 years ago

Let's take away the "new councilmen/women's" civil rights for a while and see how they like it.

Just one more reason to hate Manhattan :)

evilpenguin 4 years ago

I'm going to start discriminating against those Christian types, seeing as they seem to enjoy discriminating against others so much

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Don't you know? White christians are the most discriminated against group in our society.

They have no marriage rights, and they are kept from jobs and education by atheist socialists who run our society.

Oh, and Obama's long form birth certificate is a forgery. Duh.

question4u 4 years ago

So you ridiculed people that, for no good reason, you didn't like by making a dumb joke attributing sexual perversity to them. That does seem to be an example of bigotry and a good parallel to the kind of thing that gays are faced with. Was that your point?

Kirk Larson 4 years ago

Actually, since I am sorta from Manhattan, I once wrote under the said bit of graffiti: KU: Where men are men, and men are scared. I eventually got over my homophobia and would never write such a thing again, but at the time I thought it was pretty clever.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

You can certainly marry all of the people you want.

Mormons do it all of the time.

However, the state recognizes special benefits for heterosexual married couples.

To my knowledge, that state does not recognize polygamous heterosexual relationships.

To deny same sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples is discrimination pure and simple.

If the state recognized polygamous hetero relationships and not same sex polygamous relationships, I would make the same argument.

skinny 4 years ago

Instead of having all these laws for all the weirdo's how about they just have one law that says everyone is to be treated equal! Makes since to me!

deec 4 years ago

African-Americans, women, religious practitioners and the disabled are "weirdos"? They have protection under civil rights laws, too.

DRsmith 4 years ago

Lawrence, gayer than you think. I suggest moving to CA.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

Maybe the Manhattan City Commission should adopt a new policy that's not so confusing:

"Only white Christian males are to be employed by the city of Manhattan, except for secretaries."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.