10/25/2011 City Council - Discrimination Based Upon Sexual Orientation

[MDot]

As a general observation to some remarks made by both sides in this thread, if it is at all possible, can the tit-for-tat stuff be "stuffed" so that this thread remains on topic? If that can be done, perhaps this thread might qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize, or, if not that, perhaps an OkcTalk Peace Prize, or if not that, at least a thank you from me. Mucho gracias in advance.

Or not.

Doug, I was writing that in advance to you're request that this stay on topic so I didn't see your post untill after I had already posted mine so just disregard my post please and everyone else as well, that way we don't give Doug a heart attack from frusteration of people posting off topic BS on his threads. If you find this post off topic as well, then report me and ask that they delete all my posts from this thread cause I hate nothing more than disturbing the "peaceful". (or if the Mods would like to delete them anyways, go ahead)

P.S. I love you.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, I was writing that in advance to you're request that this stay on topic so I didn't see your post untill after I had already posted mine so just disregard my post please and everyone else as well, that way we don't give Doug a heart attack from frusteration of people posting off topic BS on his threads. If you find this post off topic as well, then report me and ask that they delete all my posts from this thread cause I hate nothing more than disturbing the "peaceful". (or if the Mods would like to delete them anyways, go ahead)

P.S. I love you.

Love you too, MDot. Thanks.

[slotbacky1]

I think we overthink some things here. I know policemen/women, firemen/women, who protect you. You are probably working with someone, or have a family member that is gay. We are everywhere, and we work hard, and we pay our taxes, and for me (us) not to be treated equal is pretty astounding to me. Everyone always gets there panty's in a wad when someone even mentions "gay rights". Just don't get it and never will. You can preach all you want, and quote out of the Bible all you want, but show me 1 person who has never sinned, then maybe we can have a good discussion on the subject. I consider myself a religous person, and I was born this way, this was not a life choice decision. I can live with myself, I am your next door neighbor, your bank teller, your best friend, your mother, your child, your cousin, a veteran, military, government worker. We are everywhere, we just ask to be treated like everyone else. Don't think that's too much to ask.

[oneforone]

I would like to think all city hiring managers are going to hire based on an applicants background, experience and how they conduct themselves in the interview. For example Oklahoma City Police more or less takes a person and look at them from every angle and in some cases they turn the applicant inside out. The more less tell you be on the level with us about everything there is to know about you. If we find out your hiding something or you lied about something your finished. I know this because I have several friends that were recently hired or in the hiring process. I was going to go that route myself however, I found a job in the private sector that is working out pretty well for me and I would be crazy to walk away from it with all the time and effort I have invested in it now. Come to think of it every city job is like that in some respect just simply because they don't want the negative publicity on the city.

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world. Just simply because most managers are focused on finding the right person who can do the job. Sexuality, Gender and everything really don't matter. Finding a person who will do the job and do it well is traditionally the main focus of anything. If a gay man or woman applies for the job and has an outstanding resume their going to get hired. After hiring it is all about how well the person performs the duties of the job and that they can work well with the existing employees. If they create a problem you deal with it. If an existing employee creates the problem you deal with it.

Protective Class status really does not play a roll in the hiring process unless you are government contractor and you have been instructed to hire people from all protected classes. The only time protective class comes into play is when an employee belongs to protected class and is not living up to performance goals set for all workers. Protected Employees will use their status to their advantage. When they are cornered for performance issues or policy violations they threaten to complain because of their protected class status some will go as far as having a lawyer call the office and threaten to sue. Because of that managers have to lay out an elaborate plan for terminating them. It usually takes forever because the manager has to build a case that is fit to go to the Supreme Court. Under normal conditions they could have completed two counsel sessions on paper and terminated on the third offense.

[soonerguru]

I would like to think all city hiring managers are going to hire based on an applicants background, experience and how they conduct themselves in the interview. For example Oklahoma City Police more or less takes a person and look at them from every angle and in some cases they turn the applicant inside out. The more less tell you be on the level with us about everything there is to know about you. If we find out your hiding something or you lied about something your finished. I know this because I have several friends that were recently hired or in the hiring process. I was going to go that route myself however, I found a job in the private sector that is working out pretty well for me and I would be crazy to walk away from it with all the time and effort I have invested in it now. Come to think of it every city job is like that in some respect just simply because they don't want the negative publicity on the city.

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world. Just simply because most managers are focused on finding the right person who can do the job. Sexuality, Gender and everything really don't matter. Finding a person who will do the job and do it well is traditionally the main focus of anything. If a gay man or woman applies for the job and has an outstanding resume their going to get hired. After hiring it is all about how well the person performs the duties of the job and that they can work well with the existing employees. If they create a problem you deal with it. If an existing employee creates the problem you deal with it.

Protective Class status really does not play a roll in the hiring process unless you are government contractor and you have been instructed to hire people from all protected classes. The only time protective class comes into play is when an employee belongs to protected class and is not living up to performance goals set for all workers. Protected Employees will use their status to their advantage. When they are cornered for performance issues or policy violations they threaten to complain because of their protected class status some will go as far as having a lawyer call the office and threaten to sue. Because of that managers have to lay out an elaborate plan for terminating them. It usually takes forever because the manager has to build a case that is fit to go to the Supreme Court. Under normal conditions they could have completed two counsel sessions on paper and terminated on the third offense.

This is a thoughtful, well reasoned post, but it is wrong. Yes, gays and lesbians are refused employment -- every day. Many have to hide their identity to keep their jobs. Your post reads more like how you would like to see the world versus how the world really is.

This "protected class" argument is hollow and tired. Yes, we protect people from hiring discrimination on the basis that they're Mormons, or atheists, or black, or even military veterans. There are reasons for these protections, namely that these are reasons people have been denied employment.

Is it possible to have "too much freedom?" Can we have "too much happiness?" Along these lines, why are we limited in whose employment we can defend from discrimination? Is it really such a big deal to add gays and lesbians to the list? Of course not. All of the counter-arguments exist to sidestep the issue because conservatives don't like to admit we have gay and lesbian people and that their rights are worth defending.

[Midtowner]

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world.

That's a pretty laughable situation considering the volume of discrimination litigation which results in awards to the plaintiff.

[Doug Loudenback]

As I've already said, there were two surprises for me in the council's 10/25 discussion on this topic: (1) Skip Kelly made remarks which inferentially if not specifically identified him as being against Shadid's proposal; and (2) Patrick Ryan unequivocally identified himself as being in favor of Shadid's proposal.

Kelly's remarks still boggle my mind. Does he mean to say that litigation is a predicate to establishing the identity of a group which should be included in legislation/policies which prohibit discrimination against that group?

That makes no better (even less) sense to me than when, in 1962 or 1963, my OSU debate team's gift for a job well done was to a trip from Stillwater to Okc to have a nice dinner in the city. The place our debate team's coach (Fred Tewell, father of Doug Tewell, the Edmond golfer) chose was a steak house located immediately south of Frontier City and I think that its name was Wright's Steak House, though I'm not sure about the name. On entering, the host person noticed that we had a black person in our group. The host said that we (the white guys/gals) could eat there but that he (the black guy) could not.

In my lifetime, I have never been more ashamed of the color of my skin than on that night so many years ago.

Naturally, we left the whites-only establishment and traveled further south to Sussy's on Lincoln to have a fine meal and good camaraderie.

We should have just had a fine steak dinner and good camaraderie at the initial eatery and we shouldn't have had to go to Sussy's or wait for the law to require that we (meaning our black member who was part of our "we") had that privilege/right.

But, according to Skip's rationale, we should have just lumped it and taken in stride since there was no lawsuit pending. Good grief, there is something systemically wrong with that sort of logic.

As a black man, Skip has got his mind screwed up on this for reasons that I do not know. Skip is a friend of mine, and if the opportunity exists I intend to discuss this matter with him and I'm certainly e-mailing him about this matter. Of all council members, Skip (one would think) would be the most sensitive to matters concerning discrimination. At 1st Blush: Doug Mistake #1. I remain hopeful that Skip will reconsider his objections to Shadid's proposal and will vote to approve this Okc policy change.

Ryan's statement also blind-sided me. I've never met Ryan but, by reason of other of his council remarks I had put him in a pigeon-hole which would everlastingly oppose anything that Shadid proposed. At 1st Blush: Doug Mistake #2. I was quite clearly wrong about that.

[Urban Pioneer]

Can't really speak on it, but I suspect that later this week the conversation/debate will get much more interesting. Let's just say the timing of the resolution is ironic.

[soonerguru]

I find it somewhat perplexing if not bewildering that McAlester, Muskogee, and Vinita already have such language passed in their communities, but we do not in OKC?

[Doug Loudenback]

Can't really speak on it, but I suspect that later this week the conversation/debate will get much more interesting. Let's just say the timing of the resolution is ironic.

Not uncommonly in my little computer world, I am myopic and don't know what's going on elsewhere ... what is happening later this week which gives rise to irony?

[Urban Pioneer]

Not uncommonly in my little computer world, I am myopic and don't know what's going on elsewhere ... what is happening later this week which gives rise to irony?

Doug, I wish I could say. I would assume that a few other on here might know what I am talking about, therefore I mentioned it.

[Urban Pioneer]

Now that it's out, I was reffering to the Gazette cover. It's my understanding that the historical summary printed today was purely coincidental with the current resolution at City Hall.

We obviously have had a history with these issues thus the piece explains.

[urbanity]

Delayed reaction

A measure to amend the city’s nondiscrimination policy will be revisited at the Nov. 15 council meeting.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-reaction.html

[Doug Loudenback]

Delayed reaction

A measure to amend the city’s nondiscrimination policy will be revisited at the Nov. 15 council meeting.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-reaction.html

That, but, more, the cover story article:

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...community.html

[Doug Loudenback]

As a reminder, Shadid's motion to adopt his proposed resolution is item X.A. on tomorrow's city council docket.

[OKCMallen]

Follow @OKC_Beat on Twitter if you want a great live-tweet string.

[onthestrip]

Have been following @okc_beat as well and it's pretty disgusting reading what some opponents are saying

[Doug Loudenback]

Shadid's resolution just passed, 7-2, with only Kelly and McAtee voting no. Wow.

On edit: the Oklahoman was quick to report on the vote, up by 11:07 a.m. Here's the article.

[soonerguru]

Shadid's resolution just passed, 7-2, with only Kelly and McAtee voting no. Wow.

On edit: the Oklahoman was quick to report on the vote, up by 11:07 a.m. Here's the article.

Major milestone for our city. I heard from one of the attendees there that Paul Blair and the loonies at Windsor Hills Church said some ridiculous stuff, such as: Gays are responsible for half of all murders. Wow. What nut-tards.

Happy for OKC and for the many people who will now feel more secure in their employment regardless of their orientation.

As a resident of Ward 3, I will be voting against Larry McAtee in the next election, and will encourage all of my neighbors to do so as well.

[Doug Loudenback]

I will have the videos for the respective council members available shortly.

[onthestrip]

I will have the videos for the respective council members available shortly.

Interested to see those, especially Skip Kelley's. I just dont get his opposing stance on the issue.

[dankrutka]

Even if it doesn't have many practical implications, it's really great to see the city go on the record that they won't participate in discrimination of our gay community. The comments from the religious fanatics are amazingly ignorant and sad, but they are just footnotes in all of this. Great for OKC!

[Doug Loudenback]

Here are all video clips from the 11/15/2011 discussion and vote. For ease of viewing, I've broken them into pieces ...

Part 1: Ed Shadid makes his pitch


Part 2: Skip Kelly makes his ...


Part 3: Larry McAtee reads his ward 3 position paper ...


Part 4: Pete White explains his support ...


Part 5: Skip Kelly speaks again ...


Part 6: 11 citizen speeches ...


Part 7: David Greenwell


Part 8: Kelly's 3rd set of remarks


Part 9: Gary Marrs explains his position ...


Part 10: The vote ...

[rcjunkie]

Here are all video clips from the 11/15/2011 discussion and vote. For ease of viewing, I've broken them into pieces ...

Part 1: Ed Shadid makes his pitch


Part 2: Skip Kelly makes his ...


Part 3: Larry McAtee reads his ward 3 position paper ...


Part 4: Pete White explains his support ...


Part 5: Skip Kelly speaks again ...


Part 6: 11 citizen speeches ...


Part 7: David Greenwell


Part 8: Kelly's 3rd set of remarks


Part 9: Gary Marrs explains his position ...


Part 10: The vote ...

Thanks Doug, as usual, great work!

[Doug Loudenback]

Thanks Doug, as usual, great work!

Thanks. I'll be working up a blog post on this today, but Shadid's resolution contained some unexpected surprises for me ...

1. Given the bad vibes which I perceive existed on several other previous matters between Shadid and Ryan, Marrs & Salyer (particularly Ryan & Marrs), I was pleasantly surprised, if not amazed, that all 3 supported the resolution.
   
   
2. Given the pretty decent history between Shadid and Kelly, and given that Skip is a black person, I was surprised, if not astonished, that he opposed the resolution.

Life is strange.