Welcome to CHFWeb.com  The Christian Homeschool Fellowship on the WEB
Quick Start
[Support our Advertisers!] Getting Started on the Homeschooling BUS!
SheLaughed.com
CHFWeb Forum Area Articles of Significance on CHFWeb.com CHFWeb Mall --For all your resource needs! Library Area on CHFWeb.com Advertise Contact Us
CHFWeb Help!
[Support our Advertisers!] Contributions from our Members:   An example of sibling rivalry from the first family. ... Barbara writes, "Going back to Genesis 4 -- interestingly titled in an NIV Study Bible as "The Beginnings of Civilization" -- Two brothers and one attitude problem." [Support our Advertisers!]
Home » CHFWeb Forum » HotTopics » HROs
HROs [message #819547] Thu, 16 February 2017 18:30 Go to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
In particular, I'm interested in those who live in a metropolis but will still be interested in hearing about smaller towns.

What is the state of HROs in your town?

Ours passed the, I think, third time around and the LGBTQ community and their supporters are angry rather than fully celebrating, because there is a "problematic" religious exemption made. There was a 30-day in jail and/or $500 fine for violators, but was edited on behalf of the religious exemption. There are churches who are posting "love wins" though. Our city's mayor, who earlier maintained that additional legislation was unnecessary, did some crafty footwork so that he came out unstained on either side (think: race for re-election). The 30 day in jail clause would, I imagine, cost most people their job security. Another edit clarifies that along with churches and religious schools some religious non-profits will also be exempt. To be sure, they'll be tried in the public arena. Our expansion includes sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the list of protected categories under the ordinance, which ensures that people aren’t discriminated against in the workplace, the housing market, or public accommodations (restrooms, locker rooms, and so on). One counselmember gave a brief nod to understanding that ultimately people would loose freedom of speech. Another noted that some small companies would certainly suffer. Overall, the reply is that the city seems to be losing business opportunities w/o the suggested HRO over other large cities in our state. I don't really find that true - we have the abilities but have a horrid city government and low taxes. A proposed amendment to let he public vote on this was turned down. Another amendment would be to remove transgender as part of the bill. This was also turned down.

Editing to add: the Washington State case regarding the florist inspired me to write about my own city's recent steps.

[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2017 18:32]


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819548 is a reply to message #819547 ] Thu, 16 February 2017 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sherry in NH  is currently offline Sherry in NH
Messages: 9559
Registered: April 2005
Location: Small Town New Hampshire
Senior Member
uh.....I don't know what an HRO is. Smile


In Jesus

Sherry from NH
Re: HROs [message #819549 is a reply to message #819548 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 00:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Sherry in NH wrote on Thu, 16 February 2017 19:08

uh.....I don't know what an HRO is. Smile

Sorry, Sherry.

Human Rights Ordinances. Perhaps the terminology is one just for our state? Depending upon whom one asks, for our city, we're expanding the definition as an LGBTQ preference law or an anti-discrimination law aimed at individuals in public and private business. The laws already in effect would already protect/defend a person under that law, so this is an extra level.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 February 2017 00:16]


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819550 is a reply to message #819547 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 03:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
carolinec
Messages: 621
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Jamie wrote on Thu, 16 February 2017 17:30

One counselmember gave a brief nod to understanding that ultimately people would loose freedom of speech. .


How is that? Is there a law against people saying what they believe/want? The HRO could be blocked as unconstitutional if it does this.
Re: HROs [message #819551 is a reply to message #819547 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 08:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14896
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Quote:

Human Rights Ordinances.


Thanks...I had no idea, either.

Quote:

One counselmember gave a brief nod to understanding that ultimately people would loose freedom of speech.


Does your ordinance call for fines and jail time for speech? If the ordinance causes people to lose (opposite of "find"--"loose" is opposite of "tight") freedom of speech or be jailed and fined for speech, there's going to ---or should be--serious problems with it.

The biggest problem I see with all of these new laws and trends is that these issues run right up against God's laws in a way that makes it really hard to balance civil protections for those who don't follow God with religious protections for those who do.

As a Christian (or a person), I should not be allowed to be hateful to those who believe different from me, but I should absolutely still be allowed to hold my beliefs and speak of them in a kind and loving way.

And people who choose counter-cultural lifestyles need to learn to be strong in their stand. For instance, homeschooling has required me to face some ridicule over the years, to have to "fight" for some rights, including college admissions and so forth, and sometimes it has meant I have to do without (high school sports and band, for instance) in order to keep my freedom to do what God has led me to do.

In fact, the issues of sports and band is a good example...I really couldn't both homeschool and have my kids in public school sports/band UNLESS I was willing to give up a good bit of my freedom to self-govern my own homeschool program. There really are some issues where you simply cannot have it both ways. But as I mentioned in the other thread...I don't have all the answers for my own conscience just yet, much less answers for society as a whole.

But in terms of local ordinances, I have no idea of any new ones popping up. I should probably google that. Smile


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: HROs [message #819552 is a reply to message #819547 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 12:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Of course "loose" was a typo. The *potential* loss of freedom of speech is what the counsel person was giving a nod to(who voted against, seeing a difference between a civil right and an HRO expansion).

Yes, the original language this week would have have imposed a $500 fine and/or a 30-day jail time for violators of anti-discrimination laws aimed to protect the LGBTQ community (I'll have to admit to ignorance at this time of what the punishment is for other protected groups). Fortunately this portion was struck down. However, here in our city among pro HRO expansionists, losing that portion is seen as a huge loss. I have since heard rumblings of readdressing this in the future.

Acknowledged somewhat by both sides, is that people of faith who still believe in strict, traditional gender roles will be seen as anti-gay and, further, will be (and have been) politically and socially ostracized. As to the councilman giving nod to it, I included the word (as I think they did) "ultimately" which means "not as it stands now, but the potentiality is there." I interpret his statement to hint at the same Pandora's box of acceptance and law making for hate speech as has happened to supporters of the euthanasia argument some twenty years ago. Twenty years ago we were assured that legally assisted suicide would never ever end up with forced euthanasia. But in our 2017 world, this has taken place in the Netherlands. But I digress.

I'm sure the counsel member was acknowledging the hate speech vs free speech conundrum outside legal parameters. As to the people appealing for a no vote, I'm sure that they were giving voice to the potential legal evolution of what a yes vote would bring. I think the two were talking past one another without realizing?

I have no compunction about the protections afforded to citizens as they stood a week ago. There's no conflict there for me with my God. In our city, there were already protections put in place - protections that when brought to defend in the courts, afforded those members of the LGBTQ community victories. However, I have also seen small businesses and just man-on-the-street deluged with misrepresentations, labeling of hate speech and attacks and financial fall outs for false or wrong accusations within social rather than legal matters. I suppose that is where my interest lies in what will happen with the advent of special laws put into place for one group over another. I'm probably naive, but I see the social slams and how they shut down speech and freedoms in those arenas as far more debilitating for either mindset. While there are definitely voices and philosophies out there that I strongly abhor, do not agree with and yes, may make me feel not just offended but scared, I'm also of the mind that I really need to know who is who and who thinks what. I find that incredibly helpful and really do not want that squashed either.

But to the topic at hand, I'm curious to know how these things are being played out in states that have long had supportive anti-discrimination laws and for those who are just coming into them...and for those states without them, if your county or town are adopting them...and how your people are adapting to them.


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819553 is a reply to message #819551 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 13:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Quote:

As a Christian (or a person), I should not be allowed to be hateful to those who believe different from me, but I should absolutely still be allowed to hold my beliefs and speak of them in a kind and loving way.


I have come right up to being told I am unloving simply by given positions I hold. No doubt there's a difference of belief, but there's also the presumptive baggage I'm accused of bringing with. It's increasingly becoming difficult to just talk with one another fresh from either side, I imagine. Though, even so, respect should not be difficult to give.



Quote:

But as I mentioned in the other thread...I don't have all the answers for my own conscience just yet, much less answers for society as a whole.

What post would that be, Lisa?

*Edited to make the quote boxes and one sentence less nonsensical.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 February 2017 13:18]


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819555 is a reply to message #819553 ] Fri, 17 February 2017 21:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14896
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Quote:

What post would that be, Lisa?



The one below this one (as I type) entitled "Boy Scouts"


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: HROs [message #819657 is a reply to message #819547 ] Mon, 13 March 2017 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rosemary-MI  is currently offline Rosemary-MI
Messages: 1309
Registered: April 2005
Location: Lower mid Michigan
Senior Member
Ours is called a non-discrimination ordinance. It would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for jobs, housing & public accommodations. The city had a meeting and had so many people show up they had to relocate to a theater. They passed it and then a week later the local churches had petitions against it and now they are having to stop the ordinance. It's a very hot topic in our city.

Here's how ours works - All complaints must be filed within 30 days of the incident to the city's Human Relations Commission. From there, complaints are forwarded to the city attorney's office for action.
If mediation between the parties doesn't solve the issue, a civil infraction citation is issued - punishable by not more than $500 for each day the violation occurs.

So all public properties must let transgender use which ever bathroom they want, you cannot say "no" to renters of the same sex. You cannot say "no" to an applicant on the basis of being a transgender etc. So churches or anyone could get fined for not hiring said persons.

BUNNY TRAIL---What really kills me is that people who give out scholarships can and do discriminate against everyone and no one says a thing. All colleges discriminate too. This is considered normal practices. So what is the difference?

~Rosemary


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Re: HROs [message #819659 is a reply to message #819657 ] Tue, 14 March 2017 01:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Rosemary-MI wrote on Mon, 13 March 2017 14:46

Ours is called a non-discrimination ordinance. It would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for jobs, housing & public accommodations. The city had a meeting and had so many people show up they had to relocate to a theater. They passed it and then a week later the local churches had petitions against it and now they are having to stop the ordinance. It's a very hot topic in our city.

Here's how ours works - All complaints must be filed within 30 days of the incident to the city's Human Relations Commission. From there, complaints are forwarded to the city attorney's office for action.
If mediation between the parties doesn't solve the issue, a civil infraction citation is issued - punishable by not more than $500 for each day the violation occurs.

So all public properties must let transgender use which ever bathroom they want, you cannot say "no" to renters of the same sex. You cannot say "no" to an applicant on the basis of being a transgender etc. So churches or anyone could get fined for not hiring said persons.

BUNNY TRAIL---What really kills me is that people who give out scholarships can and do discriminate against everyone and no one says a thing. All colleges discriminate too. This is considered normal practices. So what is the difference?

~Rosemary




I'm curious, Rosemary, do you know how "hate speech" is handled under the ordinance?


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819660 is a reply to message #819657 ] Tue, 14 March 2017 06:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
carolinec
Messages: 621
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Rosemary-MI wrote on Mon, 13 March 2017 13:46


BUNNY TRAIL---What really kills me is that people who give out scholarships can and do discriminate against everyone and no one says a thing. All colleges discriminate too. This is considered normal practices. So what is the difference?

~Rosemary



This one I have been thinking about for a while, and I have an answer. I think.

The underlying purpose of the discrimination is the difference. So, when Yale, or UNC, or Pensecloa differentiate between students to determine who is admitted, it's in service of creating a particular learning environment - do you want an environment with a diversity of perspectives? Or a group of people with the same beliefs? Or only of a certain intellectual ability? etc. Society has deemed this an acceptable form of discrimination. Scholarships serve a similar function.

FWIW: it's not all 'one way' discrimination for scholarships either: they might be limited to alumni's descendants; or to children of a particular worker; there is even one at the University of Sydney (australia) that's limited to men from a rural background! In addition to scholarships that target minority groups, or are needs based, etc. Again, the function (ensuring the children of soldiers can attend college; the kids who will end up running farms; that family relationships with an institution can continue etc..) Same for advanced placement classes, for employers who only have to hire people who think they can do the job, or have the physical ability etc.

The question being with these anti-discrimination provisions, IMO, turns on the purpose of the discrimination. What is the purpose in not letting same sex couples rent a house? (usually, it's because the owner doesn't want to encourage the behaviour, right?) 'Society' is declaring, in these laws, that that type of behaviour doesn't warrant overt discouragement - it's not acting so much as an incentive (like the scholarships), rather it's saying well, we're not going to add additional hurdles.

Similarly, the civil rights movement wasn't so much about creating benefits for black people in the south, it was about removing the hurdles that were placed before them because of their race. When women were given the vote, much the same -- it was about removing an obstacle to the full enjoyment of social rights that other people had, not creating a special set of benefits.

We discriminate between options *all the time*. But at the core is the purpose of the discrimination.

I was then thinking: do these laws act as a disincentive for people to act in accordance with their beliefs? And the difference, as far as I can see, is relationship between the act and the actor. What I mean is: not selling someone a cake, or renting them a house, is about the actions of another person (i.e.: someone else being in a problematic relationship etc); vs. wanting to vote, attend school, etc is about the rights of the individual that is subject to the discrimination (i.e.: the black/g*y/etc person). It seems that the form taken is that belief should inform how you act vis-a-vis your beliefs, rather than how other people act. Which, IMO, seems like a fair distinction -- and is very much tied up with that series of posts LisaR made in the other thread.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something obvious? I do think there is a pretty big difference between the discriminations you raised, and these, but I'm still thinking it through.
Re: HROs [message #819663 is a reply to message #819660 ] Tue, 14 March 2017 08:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14896
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Quote:

It seems that the form taken is that belief should inform how you act vis-a-vis your beliefs, rather than how other people act. Which, IMO, seems like a fair distinction


This is good food for thought! I'm going to be thinking on it for a bit.


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: HROs [message #819669 is a reply to message #819547 ] Wed, 15 March 2017 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rosemary-MI  is currently offline Rosemary-MI
Messages: 1309
Registered: April 2005
Location: Lower mid Michigan
Senior Member
Hate speech is not mentioned in the ordinance because there is a federal law covering that.

Our ordinance has 22 exemptions. This one is so vague-A person subject to Sec. 15-44 is exempt from this section if race, color, religion, national origin, sex, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation or gender identity is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. I have no idea who determines this!

Plus all religious institutions are exempt, from everything.

Many Christians think-If I allow someone to rent my house and I know they are a same s*x couple or transgender I am somehow excepting that behavior. I become a part of that behavior. I allow sin to continue = I sin.

I do not feel this way. I feel that people are in control of their own lives. I don't like it when they do things I don't agree with but I am not their mother or their God. I feel each person is responsible for what they do. They are also responsible for the consequences. I don't like it when I have to take care of people who do "dumb" things and ask me to pay for it. If it's not my business when you do it, it's not my business when you fail. But it becomes my business when you ask me to pay for it.(stepping off my soap box)

Another Bunny Trail- My niece and her dh own several fast food stores. She said the transgender thing has had a huge effect on them as they want all their customers to feel "safe". She said they are renovating a few of the stores to have single stall bathrooms (the other stores already have them). Any new stores will have single stall bathrooms. Cost a lot more to do this. She said it's not fair to the 99% of the people who are not Trans.

~Rosemary




I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Re: HROs [message #819676 is a reply to message #819669 ] Thu, 16 March 2017 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14896
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Quote:

I become a part of that behavior. I allow sin to continue = I sin.


I used to feel much this way, too...and with the renting a basement apartment thing that was in the news probably a couple of decades ago, I kept thinking about my small children who weren't yet exposed to such things, and didn't want to be forced to expose them at their tender ages.

Turns out, though, it's very unlikely young children will even figure things out..in fact, we lived next door to a lesbian couple whom I sort of wondered about, but didn't really know until a neighbor mentioned it because my kids were talking to them.

Most sins that people commit aren't my responsibility to stop. It's the Holy Spirit's responsibility to convict. I can share the gospel, but folks aren't going to be convicted of their sin because I don't rent an apartment or bake them a cake.

Quote:

She said it's not fair to the 99% of the people who are not Trans.


I love your friend! This, I think, is the most frustrating part of all this gender fluid debate. A few people decide they want to use the opposite bathroom because they are uncomfortable. They can't suck it up and go in the "natural" bathroom---but all the rest of us have to suck it up and be uncomfortable for their sake. IMHO, the solution has to work for all of us, not just the few. I know it's a big expense to have separate stalls, but I'm grateful to your friend for doing it!

As a side note, my dd has spent some time in Europe, and they mostly don't have gender-separate bathrooms at all...it's not big deal to them; they just go where it's available. But I really think you have to have a society where that feels normal, rather than just thrust it upon us.

Quote:

is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. I have no idea who determines this!



I've no idea who determines it, either, but I'm really glad because it is one thing for a Christian to rent an apartment to a gay couple, but quite another to insist that they hire a gay pastor, for instance.

This whole issue seems to be about unity and acceptance, and at one level, it certainly is--but there's a line between accepting others and forcing participation. As I've shared before, I have gay friends, who come to my home and enjoy fellowship with my family...but I still believe, and need to be free to say, that homosexuality is a sin.

[edited for nonsensical typos]

[Updated on: Thu, 16 March 2017 08:20]


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: HROs [message #819679 is a reply to message #819676 ] Thu, 16 March 2017 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4014
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
[quote title=Lisa R. wrote on Thu, 16 March 2017 08:17]
Quote:

Turns out, though, it's very unlikely young children will even figure things out..in fact, we lived next door to a lesbian couple whom I sort of wondered about, but didn't really know until a neighbor mentioned it because my kids were talking to them.



Jonah has been very perceptive where trans is construed. We have a number of homosexual acquaintances and neighbors, and while occasionally I have caught Jonah have an expression on his face like he's trying to formulate a question, he's not come to me with questions. The people that we do know, have known him since he was a young toddler, so he sees them as his friends. I've been very grateful to those who are in our lives and their kindness towards us and our son. Because there haven't been outward and over the top displays, he hasn't asked anything. He did just recently catch a same-gender relationship depicted on a commercial and asked about that. It was a bedroom situation (all very innocent, but it traipsed over in a realm that I'm unhappy having to address, knowing that sooner rather than later, other questions are now going to follow).

However, there has been a grocery bagger at Whole Foods who is what I would have thought was a cross dresser (but I guess trans?) and Jonah has always been *very* put off by it all. He's just beginning to quiz women who look more boyish or manly (we're trying to deal with it, but often I end up having to have a conversation with the individual myself to explain that Jonah's just trying to figure things out). Honestly, he does the same thing if anyone has something vastly different from our family norm.

I honestly think that Jonah may have started too early in compare/contrast people based on their outward appearances and actions, thanks to the angry mob/protests that took place in our neighborhood last year. Sometimes it's alarming to me, as a mom, as I'm sure his questions offend some - but I'm not quite at the "shh" stage, either since he's not trying to be rude. I figure, this is going to be, at least in part, his world, and he deserves to inquire. I'm there to buffer or field questions that go beyond the initial, and to explain things if need be. He's been a bit hurtful "Are you a boy or a girl?" (at least, I would be hurt hearing that, LOL, but there's an emphasis in the city with "check your pronouns" that I'm not really on board with). The best I can do is to give him better phrases to ask, and let him know when and when it is not appropriate to question/comment. Which, of course with a five year old, comes with a learning curve.


Peace
Re: HROs [message #819683 is a reply to message #819679 ] Thu, 16 March 2017 22:47 Go to previous message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14896
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

That can be difficult. The difference between what my now-30yo was exposed to at, say 5, and what my nearly 15-yo was exposed to at 5 is amazingly different! I realized it when I said something about "Rebekah's gay friends" to someone, meaning my then 8yo's college "friends" that she knew through her older siblings. (Friend thought there were a large number of 8 yo gay people...though even less than a decade ago that would have been far more weird than it might be today).

As to the other, we actually taught our kids to ask their questions of us later, and not to comment about how people looked. From "Mommy why doesn't he have an arm?" or "Wow! That lady is fat!" to "are you a boy or a girl?" or "why was that man kissing that other man?" Those are things we tried to teach them to ask at home or in private. Of course, we ran into quite a number of people who were very gracious and willing to talk about how they lost their leg, or like my friend who said, "Lisa, I *know* Im black! I've been black all my life!" when my dd wanted to know why the mommy was black and the daddy was white.

I do hope most people will understand a kid just figuring things out, but it can be hard and with the way society is going, it will continue to get harder, for him to figure things out. Things are weird out there!!


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Previous Topic:Homeschooling & Child Abuse
Next Topic:Boy Scouts
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jun 25 13:25:41 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06974 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Enjoying Homeschooling! ... If you and your child haven't enjoyed homeschooling lately then it's time for a change! Homeschooling young children (1st-3rd grades) can either be a joy or sheer drudgery--it all depends upon your method and attitude.

CHFWeb.com Interactive is Powered by: FUDforum 2.6.12.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software