Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Those who attend a public hearing Tuesday to discuss Largo's proposed human rights ordinance should focus on what the proposal is, not on what it isn't.
What it is, quite simply, is a proposed city law that would ban discrimination against minority groups when hiring them for jobs, renting them motel rooms, or renting or selling homes to them.
It is not a plot to upset Largo's social order.
It is not a ban on free speech.
It is not a threat to families.
If this proposal eventually wins final approval from the Largo City Commission, life will go on just as it does now for most residents of Largo. But several categories of people now victimized by pervasive discrimination may find more jobs and housing available to them. And if they are discriminated against, they will have the ability to file a complaint and have their complaint investigated.
Under Largo's proposal, it would be against the law to discriminate in employment and public accommodations solely on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, age, disability, place of birth, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status or familial status.
It would be unlawful to discriminate in housing solely on the basis of all those conditions except age, thereby allowing senior citizen housing communities to continue to exist in the city.
In our society today it is routine for communities to have laws that ban discrimination against people solely because of their skin color, gender, age, religion or a handicap. It also is quite common these days for cities to have laws that ban discrimination in housing and jobs against people because they are or aren't married or because they have children - that's the "marital status" and "familial status" part of Largo's proposed ordinance.
It is less common, but not unheard-of by any means, for communities also to ban discrimination against people solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These laws say, in effect, that you can't kick people out of housing or deny them a job just because they are homosexual or heterosexual or because they have had operations that change their gender.
In Florida alone, about a dozen cities have laws forbidding discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. One of those cities is St. Petersburg. The St. Petersburg City Council added sexual orientation to its human rights ordinance in early 2002, and the sky has not fallen. Monroe County and the city of Key West also ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The sun still shines there, too.
Opponents of Largo's human rights ordinance have argued that the city doesn't need the ordinance because laws passed by the state and federal governments already protect most of those groups. That's correct, they do. But federal fair housing laws didn't give black or Hispanic people equal access to housing in Largo - a recent investigation confirmed that. And federal laws ignore several different minority groups that frequently face discrimination in our society.
Opponents say Largo shouldn't have a law that protects homosexuals - that the law encourages a lifestyle that is immoral. No it doesn't. And it is important for everyone to understand that Largo's proposed ordinance doesn't say discrimination against homosexuals is unlawful. It bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Heterosexuals gain as much protection from that provision as homosexuals.
It is very simple, really. If discrimination is wrong, Largo ought to say so. And be proud.