If you have any question as to why South Bend needs to add protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to its Human Rights Ordinance, read the following comments from the wndu website and consider that the people leaving these comments are possibly our neighbors, employers, teachers, etc. They clearly demonstrate why protection is needed on this basis.
Notice also that many fail to realize that the amendment proposed previously exempted churches and religious groups, an exemption asked for by South Bend Equality. They also confuse the issue with others, enabling them to make even more false claims.
Notice also that none are unwilling to sign their real/full name to their comments.
Posted by: Sporty Location: LaPorte on Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56 AM
This should never pass as it could be used against religious institutions for not hiring a gay person. It also is a stepping stone towards 'hate speech' indictments. If someone speaks out against gay relations say in a religious venue,that could be termed 'hate speech' and subject the individual to arrest. We need to be extremely careful how we address this issue as it has great ramifications for the future.
It's a stepping stone to nothing other than the ability to report alleged discrimination an ability that already exists for many others.
Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM
There are Federal discrimination laws already in place to protect people from these types of actions in the workplace. It is actions like this that make it obvious these individuals go to IUSB. This is an attempt to draw attention to themselves for whatever selfish reason they may have. Yes, we know you are gay... no one cares.
There is currently NO state or federal legislation available for South Bend residents. State and federal employees are the only ones who have such protection.
Posted by: tina Location: culver on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Is it S.B. or S.G. (Sodom and Gomorrah)
Unfortunately, tina fails to recognize the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, one in which the sin of inhospitatlity was a grave sin.
Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM
They should be out assisting the needy instead of promoting their sick values.
Last time I checked, we were fighting for the equal treatment of every member of our community. That's sick??? Perhaps Anon is admitting he/she doesn't have an orientation or gender identity?
Posted by: Harry Location: South Bend on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Sporty is correct and it's time that the rest of us stand up for what we believe. These individuals have the same basic human rights as the rest of us, but that is it - no more, no less. I certainly don't believe that they have a right to marry, since that is for a man and a woman. Do what you will behind your doors, but don't expect me to accept your perverted behavior.
This issue isn't about marriage. I'm not sure when holding a job, going to school, maintaining a home or spending money in our community became perverted behavior.
Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:17 AM
if you are not a permanent resident of our fair city, stay out of our council meetings, pushing your agenda, which runs against the majority of the people in this country. This has been my pet peeve for years. When non resident college students can vote in our local and state elections and influence the results. Vote abstentee for your home area, just like I did when I was in the Military. Just a remminder to the city council, you are in a conservative midwestern state that has strong beliefs. We elected you, we can fire you.
Last time around, the leaders of the opposition didn't live in South Bend. Perhaps they should have stayed in their home towns instead of coming to South Bend to push their agenda.
Posted by: Tonya on Apr 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
If you don't feel safe in SB, don't stay.
Hard to comment on someone who demonstrates so little concern for their neighbors.
Posted by: Me Location: Topeka on Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM
They can do as they wish with their meetings, but it seems to me that there are more important issues than whining about the fact that most of us straight people view their acts as sick and disgusting!
Topeka? Home of Fred Phelps,the man responsible for protesting military funerals. We have another individual who doesn't realize that the majority of people, including straight people, actually support protection of this basis. In fact, such support is around 80%.
Posted by: Billie Location: Jean on Apr 28, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Michael Jackson likes young kids. Should the city council enshrine his right to be with young kids?
Pedophilia is a crime and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Posted by: Jenny on Apr 28, 2009 at 01:48 PM
SICK SICK SICK. Totally unatural..and wrong. Quit wasting the councils time. Seek attention elsewhere. I like Jills comment.
I see. Equal protection for all is a waste of time. Interesting.
Posted by: Heather on Apr 28, 2009 at 08:53 PM
To Janna, God does love gays and lesbians, but he did not create them to be that way. If he did it gays and lesbians would be able to have babies, it would not take a man and a women to make a child.
Look out infertile straight couples. Not sure when having babies was a requirement for holding a job,etc.