"You can't give notice to the effect that certain protected groups are not welcome."
According to the Chicago Tribune in an article "Peoria Gays React To Unwelcome Sign" City Council Woman Barbra VanAuken (Left) singlehandedly and unashamedly conferred "protected class status" on gays living in Peoria. This particular class status has normally been reserved for individuals who have struggled or struggle to gain civil rights based on color or ethnic heritage. The disabled, and those discriminated against in housing and employment have also been afforded "civil right" status and in some cases have been made a "protected class". What's more it seems that not only has Mrs. VanAuken expanded the definition of "protected class" to include gays, but also to include public displays of gay affection as acts being "protected" under the law.
According to the Chicago Tribune in an article "Peoria Gays React To Unwelcome Sign" City Council Woman Barbra VanAuken (Left) singlehandedly and unashamedly conferred "protected class status" on gays living in Peoria. This particular class status has normally been reserved for individuals who have struggled or struggle to gain civil rights based on color or ethnic heritage. The disabled, and those discriminated against in housing and employment have also been afforded "civil right" status and in some cases have been made a "protected class". What's more it seems that not only has Mrs. VanAuken expanded the definition of "protected class" to include gays, but also to include public displays of gay affection as acts being "protected" under the law.
It all started when the Elbow Room Bar located downtown Peoria, owned by Mr. Greg Quast placed this sign in the window of his establishment because he had noticed an increase in gay couples, many involved in open displays of affection either in or around his facility. As should be his legal right, he let the public know his establishment's position on certain activities and gave individuals an option to go to another location to fulfill their public passionate displays.
This led a newly formed gay activist group, One World One Equality, to stage 3 protests in an effort to draw attention to their cause and shame the owner of the bar as a "homophobic".
Obviously the tactic worked on Barbra Van Auken, as she levied "protected class" citizenship status on Peoria gays and also unwittingly endorsed public displays of "gay affection".
Although played down by Peoria media as an inconsequential event, this sparked the following email to Mayor Ardis, and Councilmen Gulley, Turner and Van Auken, from Gay Christian Movement Watch's Rev. D.L. Foster who will appear in Peoria on May 7th 2009:
As an African American minister, I must admit I was stunned to read where Council member Barbara Van Auken stated in an article out today in the Chicago Tribune that homosexuals are a protected group. This is in response to a bar owner's clarification of the nature of his bar. Additionally, the article noted that the Peoria city council said state law prohibited such actions. Specifically, what state law says that the owner of a business cannot prohibit certain individuals from coming into his or her establishment and exhibiting behavior unwelcome or not an indigenous aspect of such an establishment? Could this same law be used against churches who prohibit homosexuals from showing open "affection" in the on church property?As an elected official, did Van Auken really mean to say that homosexuals are a "protect group" as if they are some sort of endangered species? Please tell me if are there any groups of people, in your opinion, which would not be a protected group? I don't understand, what's the criteria for assigned "protected" status to one group and denying it to another? I hope that you will take some time and clarify these remarks.
We stand with the inquiry and sentiments of Pastor Foster. Unless Peoria has enacted a special law under their home rule authority, this was and is the wrong move and certainly the wrong message for Mrs. Van Auken to make. To our current knowledge, Peoria gays are not "protected class" citizens and acts of overt public displays of sexual passion, whether homosexual of heterosexual, are restricted. Further, homosexual rights of sexual freedom are NOT civil rights, neither are they equated to to the struggle for racial or moral equality.
This is all very interesting for an additional reason. In 2007 the Downtown Peoria bars were unaccepting of Black citizens supposedly because of their dress and demeanor which was considered to be "intimidating". Instead of making downtown bars comply in the acceptance of Black patrons, the City Council, under the leadership of Mayor Ardis, undertook the notion of liquor expansion to have alternate places for "Blacks to go". This was done against the sincere pleading of the Pastor's Association, The Citizens For Community Values, The Peoria South Side Mission and many neighborhood associations and other grass roots organizations. In other words, the rights of Blacks are not protected, were minimized and only compartmentalized by this city and it's council, whereas the rights of gays have been expressed to have somehow been protected. This issue needs and deserves immediate attention by this council.
It seems that the Peoria City Council should at least use this opportunity to either educate the public as to what the law states about "protected class" citizens in Peoria or become better educated themselves on the arising gay agenda and the difference between civil rights and gay rights. This is especially poignant since the State of Illinois is considering instituting sexual unions as the law of the land, and citizens need to know where we currently stand.
If homosexual rights is the law of Peoria, we defer to such guidance as received from the council on the matter. If it is not, we advise that Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken issue a public statement of apology to both the bar owner Mr. Quast and the citizens of Peoria for misrepresenting the laws under which Peoria and the State Of Illinois operate.
18 comments:
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3003
You haven't been allowed to discriminated based on sexual orientation or gender identity in Peoria since 2003.
Its not a gay bar. great. That means it doesn't discriminate against straights. What's the problem?
This council has shown for years how they feel about Blacks and their rights. Why would Rev. Foster or Burnett be surprised that they treat other classes differently than Blacks and if it was a problem, why didn't they vote them out?
I don't know what constitutes a "protected class," but I believe what Van Auken was referring to was Peoria's non-discrimination ordinance that was passed in 2003.
Nice job here emerge. Interesting tie in to BVA and Andrew Rand. It shows that they know so much about sensitivity and so little practically about race and culture. If you look at magazine like Detroit Metro and others in Chicago, I don't know but what they specifically label particular types of licensed establishments who ask to be in the "gentleman's club" section, "alternative" section, "urban" section, etc. BVA and "since I don't have a draft card to burn I will burn my bra" have always been looking for some victim to cluck over. And the generation of homosexuals that followed was looking to be clucked over.
I think that the younger generation of homosexuals is pretty much like urban kids, nerds, etc, that think it is actually kind of cool to have relationships with people that are different from oneself. They laugh that the older generation may think that they are so open minded, but I think that they instinctively realized that life is more interesting when you have a diverse group of social contacts in addition to their being long term advantages of being able to relate to people from all walks of life.
Along that line, I don't care that BVA is a Lib, or that Andy is a tad "randy", but I do care that they would gin up a crowd of self imagined victims, when there are kids out there who could use their attention and resources. Got that Eric....those kids might be your own buddy.
Keep reporting. I will be adding you to my google reader.
Van Auken stands up for the gay community, she considers them a friend. Eric Turner (and subsequently Clyde Gulley by his inaction) did not stand up for the black community - they offered segregation as a solution.
Neither want to get their hands dirty. But neither have the particular skill set to understand how to attract a good bar/club manager or owner that would a place that would be cool enough where rivals would behave so that they would not get kicked out.
I have a friend in the adult entertainment industry. Precisely because it is such a dirty business is the reason that guys like him who don't drink, allow drugs or screw the girls, are needed to run such places. Most people who are that way and have the skills to do that, don't want the stigma of owning or running such a place, so you get the worst element from the top down.
I'm not sure I get your point, Emerge. Should Peoria allow discrimination against gay people (even if you think this particular instance wasn't an example of said discrimination)? I would hope not. Intolerance is intolerance, whether against gays or blacks. We should try to stamp all of it out, by all means necessary -- including the law. What if the bar's sign said "This is not a mixed-race couples bar." And the notion that homosexual rights of sexual freedom is not a civil right is terribly wrong.
From what was understand about "gay rights" as Peoria has adopted them:
The measure would amend the local civil-rights ordinance to include sexual orientation protections in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=2450
These are common rights that should be afforded to every citizen. If I understand this correctly (maybe I don't) there is no allowance for gay or otherwise individuals to provide a sexual or intimate public display....Further, the bar owner has a right and obligation to monitor the activities at his club for public safety and decency reasons and the sign at the particular club in question does not say "GAY'S NOT ALLOWED" It says "This is not a gay bar" meaning that activities here are not condusive to the gay agenda or gay activities...
This is the shameful move of the gay rights activitists. They "piggyback" on legislation that wasn't forged with "sexual minority" status in mind...I am appalled that ANY gay, white, black or otherwise, ride the backs of blacks who have suffered because of the color of their skin to create some type of equity for themselves by the use of inequitable means and methods...The stuggle for the right of my SKIN is in NO way equivalent to the struggle of any individual to the right for their SIN.This is shameful to say the least.
Pastor Harvey Burnett
(Unashamed to attach my name to this argument and others)
Wow, Pastor. So, it's really just all about your religious views, isn't it? Do you think that a great many men and women -- some of them black -- have been discriminated against because of their sexual identity? Maybe they haven't been slaves, or fought some of the same sorts of intolerance faced by African Americans, but the face prejudice and discrimination still. Ironically, some of it by the hands of Civil Rights leaders like yourself. How dare you, as though you have somehow cornered the market on pain and suffering.
Wonton displays of public affection are likely illegal no matter what the stripe. I can't hump my wife in public. But I can hug her, and kiss her, and I have no problem with a gay couple doing the same. The sign was a code. Again, if the sign had said "This is not a mixed-race couples bar" what would have been your reaction. For a long time, lots of close-minded folks like yourself would have considered that a sin, too.
Sud O. Nym,
Interracial couples have nothing to do with morality...homosexuality DOES.
Thus the problem...so far as suffering, that's aside from the point, humanity shares it's common suffering, but as a married man it's not considered the same type of "suffering" if I want to divorce or get a girlfriend...those are sexual CHOICES...similar to homosexuality...Society has acquiested to view homosexuality as a given but that's another lie.
So your argument is a "red herring" my friend. But you're entitled. Thanks.
Mr Burnett
You can shake your Bible in the face of your opposition all you want, but discrimination is discrimination no matter what you use to interpret it.
But at one point, a black man marrying a white woman was considered immoral. Just because you think homosexuality is a sin, does not mean the discrimination against said sinners is acceptable. Why not discriminate against divorcees, or fornicators, or masturbators?
Let's face it, your personal sense of morality makes you think that discriminating against gays is OK. But it is against the law and should be. And you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the denial of rights to a group.
How about either of these:
"We not a heterosexual meat market. We are a gay bar. Crusen's is down the street."
"We are not a karaoke bar. We are a gay bar. The Elbo Room is down the street."
Would those be a problem? If so, how are they different?
Sud O. Nym,
"And you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the denial of rights to a group."Ok then, lets give rights to the pedophile...Especially the one that's currently advocating for the reversal of the age of consent to 12...They are a group aren't they? Why do you not advocate for their rights?
Let's give rights to what's left of the KKK to continue hate speech. They are a group. In fact one of my members brought a business card that they placed on his car in a parkinglot advocating hate for other races under the guise of love for their own. This is just one or two...How about other such groups? Why not advocate for them?
What gives the homosexual a superior position because they want to have sex a certain way?
Is there no objective moral value or are values merely empowered by the "group"?
C'mon, you've got to do much better than that. Morals, which all sexuality is based upon, are not to be compromised, they are to be built upon. I'll do Ps. 11:3, to each his own.
In addition, noone points out the fact that the GROUP of blacks were discriminated against in 2007 when the bar owners and the City Council told them (Blacks)to go to LA's because they weren't welcome downtown...and don't tell me they didn't I was THERE both at the liquor commission and the City Council for a number of weeks.
So where is our "fight" against discrimination in that??? Tell me IF you can?
Pastor, equating homosexuality to pedophilia or the KKK is a tragic line of argument on your part. Pedophiles commit crimes; the KKK does too, though they have the right to organize.
We could have a long discussion on the origin of morality, but I doubt we'd agree much. You stick to quoting the Bible. The point is, homosexuals -- like blacks, women, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, etc. -- are and should be a protected class. We shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone based on this status. I'm sure you'd have no problem with me not hiring a gay because he was gay. That is sad.
BTW, I was with you on the bar dress code thing. But your current line of argument makes me seriously question your judgement. Injustice anywhere is justice nowhere.
Sud O. Nym,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and I appreciate a spirited debate on the issues. One last thought from me. You said:
"We shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone based on this status."You are ABSOLUTELY right without question and in my opinion, housing, employment and related issues are rights that come without question...those type of rights are often lumped in with the greater type of civil right as I express and are made to seem the same type of right but there is a distinction.
As you properly note, I am discussing the moral right based on one's sexual identity. Once again my references are to Pedophilia (which has a legitimate growing movement- who feels that YOU discriminate against them by calling them a criminal) and the KKK (same feelings toward your assertions also) are on point because in both cases individuals CHOOSE to adopt, accept and promote such practices, JUST like homosexuality...That's the ONLY similarity.
Yes, as you believe from your argument that morality has a cultural starting point instead of an objective starting point we would not agree.
You also said: "I'm sure you'd have no problem with me not hiring a gay because he was gay. That is sad."That's TOTALLY untrue. A gay individual has a right to fair and good employment and a nonthreatening work environment, housing etc. just like everyone else. I would be as equally concerned if news reports were that people were being mistreated for it. The bar owner in this case didn't mistreat or threaten anyone, he simply made statements directed toward the control of his environment. That was his right to do and what I have been advocating that bar owners do...Secular places of employment do that everyday with their employees, in this case its emotional because homosexual activity was specified. In other words there's special or preferential treatment. That's not what the law was intended to do.
BTW: I've quoted one scripture that had NOTHING to do with homosexuality. it's interesting how when a Christian starts to speak about public moral issues people start saying they're "waiving the bible" or "quoting the bible" to support their argument. FYI: There is MUCH more than the bible that can be used to support morality.
Thanks for the discussion.
Heya i'm for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you helped me.
Feel free to surf my web site ... loans for bad credit
Post a Comment