Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
In a special work session June 16, the Largo City Commission took an official second look at the creation of a human rights policy statement for employees of the city and a human rights ordinance for all residents and business owners within the city limits of Largo.
City Manager Steve Stanton, under pressure from Commissioners Pat Burke and Pat Gerard, is proposing three new protected classes in addition to those protected under state or federal law. They are: sexual orientation, gender identification or expression, and familial or marital status.
During the discussion of whether there was any evidence of discrimination or whether anything more than a workplace statement of policy would be necessary, Commissioner Burke forcefully stated, "This is the right thing to do," referring to the creation of the three protected classes in both the context of city employment policy and a citywide ordinance. Ms. Burke further stated, "This is the right time to do it," which was affirmed by Commissioner Gerard.
The policy statement would prohibit discrimination in the Largo city workforce based on the three protected classes. The human rights ordinance would prohibit discrimination by all residents and businesses in the Largo city limits based on the sexual behavior or expression associated with the three protected classes in the areas of employment, housing and accommodations.
A second and related issue is the payment of benefits to same sex and opposite sex couples co-habitating outside of traditional marriage.
I am writing this letter in response to the assertions that "this is the right thing to do" (since there was no opportunity for public comment at the meeting).
In reply I ask, who says that creating protected classes giving special protection rights of sexual expression in the areas of sexual orientation, gender expression and familial status is the right thing to do?
I don't think it is the right thing to do. My family doesn't think it's the right thing to do, my business associates and a number of members of the Chamber of Commerce that I have talked to don't think it's the right thing to do. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't think so. The numerous evangelical churches, in addition to the Southern Baptist Convention, don't think this is the right thing to do. Fundamental Jewish and Muslim believers don't think it's the right thing.
Anyone who reads and believes the Bible would realize the sexual behavior associated with these three categories is condemned. The state of Florida has two unrepealed statutory provisions which suggest such conduct is illegal.
I will ask a second and follow-up question. Besides two commissioners, possibly the city manager and a small group of lesbian activists, who is for this? No blind survey of city employees as a whole has been made. No survey of the citizens and residents at large in Largo has been taken. Isn't it interesting that this package appeared fully developed and ready to go shortly after the municipal election of two commissioners and the appointment of a third?
If this was an election issue, we would know for sure how the community feels about it. To date, few people in Largo are aware of what is taking place. We few who know what is happening are witnessing the city of Largo giving the stamp of approval and official protection to social policy and sexual behavior opposed by a substantial portion, if not a majority, of the community.
It is my personal feeling that enactment of this proposed policy and ordinance which approve and protect classes of sexual behavior would be detrimental to the image and atmosphere now prevailing in Largo as a family, child-friendly place to live and work.
Re: Largo's proposed human rights ordinance.
The city of Largo had two instances happen in 2002 that were eye openers. The first was a city employee using a derogatory racial slur and finding nothing wrong in it. The second was the "poor" rating the city received from the county on our most recent Fair Housing Report. The City Commission knew it was time to do something.
Commissioner Charlie Harper suggested that the city write a human rights ordinance to ensure this type of behavior would not be allowed in Largo. I feel honored to sit on a board of elected officials that is courageous enough to address an issue that is so meaningful and long overdue.
If we, the city, were to write a human rights ordinance with a blanket prohibition against discrimination but lacking specific protected categories, it would not be sufficient to protect all of our citizens in Largo. Therefore, we as elected officials must make sure that the ordinance is written to be all-inclusive, and that our fundamental, basic rights are for all citizens.
There is no greater purpose for an elected official than to protect the safety and well being of all citizens.
Diversity is a strength to be valued, not something to be feared. As the "City of Progress," Largo has the momentous opportunity to be a leader in protecting the basic safety of all residents through progressive and inclusive ordinances.
How sad that we have to write laws to protect living human beings. It is such a simple issue that is made so complicated by those who fear others who are different from themselves.
- Editor's note: The following is a letter that was sent to Largo city commissioners and also copied to the St. Petersburg Times.
We, as former elected representatives of the people of Largo, have a very strong interest in the operation of the city. The laws that you, as a body, enact to ensure the fair and equitable operation of the city should be steeped in all levels of government from the federal, state and county to the municipal. All these levels of government have passed laws making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, age, handicap or place of birth. These facets of life have withstood challenges in courts at all levels.
It has come to our attention that the City Commission is considering a further expansion of the practices to be protected under city statutes. The following reasons, we believe, are sufficient to defeat the inclusion of such practices in the protective ordinance.
1. It would protect an illegal act.
2. These practices are not protected at higher levels of government.
The practice of unmarried persons cohabiting is illegal. Additionally, a person who commits any unnatural or lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor. (This was lifted from a St. Petersburg Times article.)
With regard to item No. 2, Largo should not initiate changes to, or the expansion of, laws not in the public's best interest. It is our feeling that should such an ordinance come before you, it should be defeated.
It's really not very exciting stuff, except if it's your life and rights that are being denied.
Under current law and policy, persons in Largo can be discriminated against solely on the basis of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Those individuals who are discriminated against have no legal recourse when they face such unfair practices. It is a good decision for the Largo City Commission to have a nondiscrimination policy with an ordinance to include "sexual orientation."
Such an ordinance does not promote an alternative lifestyle. It doesn't push hiring quotas or any type of affirmative action. It just says that persons cannot be discriminated against when buying or renting a house or applying for a job or doing all the things to which other citizens are entitled.
The argument has been rightly made that civil rights for all people are addressed in laws already on the books, but that legislation is not comprehensive enough for the increasingly pluralistic community in which we live. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. Obviously, at one time Congress felt those "special protections" were necessary to be spelled out as a reminder that all people have equal rights.
If one believes in the premise of liberty, then one must believe in all constitutional liberties, including that of personal identity. Protection from discrimination based upon one's gender, disability or sexual orientation is just as essential as protection from discrimination based on religion, race, national origin or ethnicity. This is a simple issue of justice and human rights that, unfortunately, needs to be addressed legislatively.
With focus on individual rights and individual dignity, antidiscrimination laws are inherently compatible with democracy. Such laws aim to provide individuals with the protections any person may need at one time or another while endeavoring to undertake a life with dignity.
Why is a human rights ordinance needed?
Look nationally at recent appointments to federal judgeships of people who have openly discriminated against people of diversity. Look at the promotion of an Army general upon whose base a murder was committed against a gay man and he basically condoned it. The mean-spirited actions of our leaders are the main reason why this ordinance is needed. The Largo City Commission is to be commended for entertaining it and applauded when it passes.
Some years ago people questioned it when commissioners proposed turning the county fairgrounds into Largo Central Park. It was the right thing to do. People criticized them for the redevelopment of Largo's downtown. It was the right thing to do. They're working on cleaning up the Clearwater-Largo Road corridor and building a new library. Again, the right thing to do.
Passing a human rights ordinance in Largo will require courage from our elected officials. It's the right thing to do.