Friday, August 28, 2009
News All Mayoral Candidates Support Non-Discrimination Ordinance
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM
In last night's mayoral debate on WMC-TV, all nine candidates present — Charles Carpenter, Wanda Halbert, AC Wharton, Carol Chumney, Kenneth Whalum, Sharon Webb, Prince Mongo, Jerry Lawler, and Myron Lowery — declared support for a non-discrimination ordinance protecting city of Memphis employees.
News anchor Joe Birch posed the question, but he didn't specifically mention that the ordinance would protect gay and lesbian workers. One would assume that's what he meant since he framed the question by comparing a possible city ordinance to the county ordinance intended to protect LGBT workers that passed earlier this year.
In other LGBT-related mayoral debate news, panelist and Memphis Flyer political reporter Jackson Baker asked candidate Whalum to explain what happened with the two lesbians who claimed they were ejected from his New Olivet Baptist Church last Sunday.
Whalum avoided the question, saying he would "absolutely, positively not" explain what happened.
Whalum went on to say: "You know what happened. Nothing happened out of the ordinary. Find out. Come over there and find out."
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
Non-discriminatory laws infer that the government can intervene into a private corporation or business and force them into hiring all classes of people. Trespassing laws keep undesirables off one's property that they choose not to associate with. By extension, a company or corporation has the same rights as individuals holding title to the company. As a private entity, it has the right to choose with whom it will associate and when. The 1st and 14th amendment intends that the property owner has rights of association, assembly, and speech in regards to his property, possessions, business, etc. This negates the hiring of certain classes of individuals if so desired. The government does not own a person or the extension; a company or corporation. Since 1964, the Civil Rights Act has allowed a 'slippery-slope' in this area to include all forms of behavior to be accepted by law. The emphasis on 'group rights' strips away individual rights. By implication, the government is stealing jurisdiction from individuals and their extensions of business. By altering the original intent of the Civil Rights Act to include behavior along with race, the door is open for forced acceptance of all types of behavior. Where does one draw the line if we use arbitrary ethics as our foundation for truth?
like
dislike
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
