Proposed Phx. ordinance raises valid concerns & Update

Discrimination?  Toward whom?

A new ordinance being rushed through by Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is being broadly characterized as a non-discrimination law that provides protections for homosexual Phoenix residents. Yet the city’s lengthy Municipal Code already provides protections to residents based on race, gender, national origin and religion.

Faith-based organizations such as Center for Arizona Policy and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix see this fast-tracked issue through a much different lens. On Monday, the Diocese issued this statement clarifying its opposition. “As written, the proposed ordinance could be interpreted as forcing people to actively endorse, support and promote actions and behaviors that violate their own personal, deeply held religious beliefs,” the Diocese states. “We call upon the Phoenix City Council to acknowledge and protect the conscience rights of all people to live and act according to their faith and values.”

Using the pretext of “prohibiting discrimination” against people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, this poorly crafted proposed ordinance holds devastating legal and ethical consequences for Phoenix residents.

More commonly known as the “Bathroom Bill,” the proposed city regulation presents serious problems for every church, pastor, parent, and small business owner within the city of Phoenix.

Faith leaders have questioned whether the ordinance fully exempts religious organizations, as city staff and supporters claim. They also have raised significant concerns that it would allow transgender men to share bathrooms with young girls and women.

Phoenix District 6 City Councilman Sal DiCiccio opposes the measure, saying “Mayor Stanton needs to push back on this radical proposal he’s got, this is his proposal, he wants to get it through and he is trying to cram it through.”

CitizenLink, associated with Focus on the Family, provides in-depth information on this issue.

Mayor Stanton and his wife Nicole were recently featured in Echo Magazine — a homosexual publication — based on the special relationship they have fostered with that community, even marching in Phoenix’ Gay Pride parade. The pair was honored as the magazine’s 2012 Man and Woman of the Year — the first “straight” pair so warmly acknowledged.

The council is scheduled to meet today at 2:30 pm at the Orpheum Theatre, 203 West Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003. (map) The public is invited to participate.

Update-tag

It a flashy display of its own pro-homosexual bias, the daily newspaper heralds the passage of this unnecessary and problematic ordinance with the following Page One headline: Phoenix OKs ban on gay bias.

The clearly one-sided report describes the vote “to broadly outlaw discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents,” peppered with numerous quotes from the homosexual lobbies and descriptions of their advocates in attendance.  The crowd estimated at 500, included those who disagreed with this expansive measure. Called “opponents” throughout the article, they received little coverage, although the latter portion of the report acknowledged  that boos and expletives were hurled at Councilman Sal DiCiccio by the supposedly dispirited contingent.

Although there was no tangible evidence of bias presented, the vote of the supposedly non-partisan city council went mainly along party lines in a 5 – 3 vote.  Republican councilmen Sal DiCiccio, Bill Gates and Jim Waring voted against the measure. RINO Thelda Williams joined Democrat Council members Michael Johnson, Daniel Valenzuela, and openly homosexual Tom Simplot, who united with Mayor Greg Stanton in support.  Michael Nowakowski, who has previously expressed his backing of the measure was not in attendance.

Promotion of homosexual issues have stepped front and center with the Arizona Republic since January 2008, when flagrant homosexual Randy Lovely took over as chief editor and VP of News at the daily newspaper. Under his guidance, in August 2010, the newspaper editorially endorsed same sex “marriage.”

About these ads

25 Responses to Proposed Phx. ordinance raises valid concerns & Update

  1. PeeJay says:

    That these two reprehensible degenerates are “leaders” in our community signals that our society is dangling dangerously on the moral cliff.

    • East Valley PC says:

      Peejay,
      If your comment was intended as sarcasm, it misses the mark. It was not my takeaway from the post that the Stanton’s are “reprehensible degenerates.” What I clearly understand is that they have a decidedly liberal agenda that includes embracing the homosexual scheme of normalizing degeneracy on every level. This is their idea of political expediency, a means of lifting them to higher office by use of the population the bible terms “Sodomites.” The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the acts homosexuals routinely engage in. That might be a joke to you, but I see this differently. I suspect I’m in the majority, but people are intimidated by the loud voices screaming “bias” and sadly often prefer to maintain silence on the issue.

      Leviticus 18:22 “`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=KJV

      • PeeJay says:

        Huh? Sarcasm?
        We are not communicating, Bro.
        That the Stanton’s are “reprehensible degenerates” is substantiated by the fact that, as you say, “they have a decidedly liberal agenda that includes embracing the homosexual scheme of normalizing degeneracy on every level.”
        I believe we are on the same page.
        BTW, what is a “takeaway”???? I was born in the previous century, so I am not up on your modern terms.

    • Villanova says:

      Have you heard the term “moral turpitude?’ It describes gross violations of standards of moral conduct, such that an act involving moral turpitude is considered intentionally evil, making the act a crime ie: engaging in pedophilia. Proof of the existence of moral turpitude can bring enhanced penalties for a criminal defendant. Both of the Stanton’s are lawyers and have that knowledge. They’re obviously part of the “hip” crowd that flaunts the homosexual lifestyle, calling it “Gay.” Would you think it was merely cool and trendy if a male child predator clad in a dress followed your child into a public restroom?

    • East Valley PC says:

      I owe you an apology, PeeJay. I have come to expect sarcasm when I articulate such views — especially with coworkers who are notoriously liberal. I’ve noticed they’ve recently begun calling themselves “progressives” as they attempt to sound more reasonable and hide from the dreaded “L” word. BTW, they engage me. I never instigate political conversations and often avoid responding. Two of the group are flaming self proclaimed gays, one wears mascara and blush and the other has taken up the scarf fad. I find it amusing that these dramatic personas are anything but “gay.” One fellow breaks into tears talking about his usually teetering romantic entanglements. I’ve just learned to be wary. Mea culpa.

      As to the term “takeaway:” It’s most often used to describe the main point. I’ve used it for years and I was also born in the “previous century!” I doubt many 13 year olds are reading political blogs.

  2. eubykdisop says:

    This bill has no legitimate purpose and it meets no real need. It is merely an assault on American values and religious beliefs. It is part of the overall Liberal plan, being directed from the White House, to convince Conservatives that we are defeated. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the end, this, along with all of Obama’s other initiatives, will fail. It’s just a matter of time.

    Remember what Saul Alinsky said: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

    The whole point of measures like this is to wage psychological warfare on Conservatives. Why? Because if Conservatives never surrender, Liberals can never win! Only by getting Conservatives to voluntarily throw in the towel can the Liberals ultimately prevail.

    So the real, hidden purpose of this measure is make Conservatives think that, as Alinsky alluded to, Liberals are more powerful than they really are. They want us to think that it’s already over. Don’t be discouraged and don’t buy into the Liberal propaganda and psychological warfare.

    You can’t legislate away what is in people’s hearts, minds and souls. That only goes if we choose to give it away. Don’t give it away!

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been tasked with “winning hearts and minds”. Why? Because even death and bullets could not prevail against the ideas which our opponents adhere to! Let us learn from that and be unmoved by this attempt to coerce us by force.

    • Rambling Rose says:

      Good points. What is increasingly clear to me is that those who object to this assault on faith and values are marginalized and cast aside as small minded, religious bigots. A lot of people are not willing to be so mischaracterized and prefer to remain silent. What we have to realize is that silence is understood as acquiescence. Like our brave forbearers, we have to stand up and be counted, or we will be trampled in the process. Our children and theirs will ultimately suffer for our weakness.

  3. Westnash says:

    Phoenix will become the next San Francisco……who is he protecting?

    • eubykdisop says:

      ROFL! First, you tell us that Arizona is becoming California. Then you tell us that Phoenix will become San Francisco. What is this obsession you have with things getting morphed, LOL! Arizona is Arizona and Phoenix is Phoenix.

  4. Maggie says:

    After meeting with citizen outrage, Stanton is now offering to amend this crock ordinance to exempt religious organizations from the law. That sure makes me feel a whole lot more secure if some male rapist wearing a dress comes into the ladies room when I’m in there alone. Or my daughter. Or my neighbor’s grand daughters.

    Why are we bowing to deviants in the first place? That this issue is even worthy of discussion is beyond belief!

  5. Vince says:

    This is not a civil rights issue. It’s an uncivil wrong issue.

    • Kent says:

      The media either calls this an “anti-discrimination” ordinance, or declares it “outlaws discrimination.” It’s akin to calling those who oppose abortion “anti-choice” and those who think human life is worthless, “pro-choice.” When liberals are in charge, the world is turned on its head.

  6. LD 7 PC says:

    Remember folks that noncompliance with the new ordinance can result in being criminally prosecuted and misdemeanor charges, along with a $2,500 fine. That sounds pretty damn discriminatory to me! There is obviously a price to pay for not being warm and fuzzy with sodomy. THAT’S what this is all about.

  7. eubykdisop says:

    NEWS FLASH: The bill passed on a 5-3 vote.

  8. eubykdisop says:

    Arizona is being targeted because it has been a bastion of resistance to the Obama agenda. It is the intent of the Obama administration to make an example of Arizona. Hundreds of incarcerated illegal aliens have just been released by Napolitano onto the streets of Arizona:

    “DHS releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants, blaming budget cuts”

    “By Judson Berger
    February 26, 2013″

    “The Department of Homeland Security has started releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails in anticipation of automatic budget cuts, in a move one Arizona sheriff called politically motivated — and dangerous.”

    “ICE officials said that it’s unclear how many ultimately might be released and that only 303 have been released from four Arizona facilities so far, though all those are in Pinal County.”

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., called the move to release illegal immigrants “abhorrent.” “By releasing criminal immigrants onto the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives,” he said in a statement.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/dhs-to-release-thousands-illegal-immigrants-blaming-budget-cuts/

    First, we had the recall of Russell Pearce, facilitated by the LDS Church. We have the hijacking by Liberals of the redistricting process and Sinema goes to Congress. We have the passage of the “Bathroom Bill”. We have an attempted recall of Sheriff Arpaio and DHS releases illegal aliens from detention onto our streets.

    How do I feel about all of this? Bring it on! I have not yet begun to fight!

  9. Delilah says:

    All need to stop buying anything in Phoenix, make them suffer with less bux. I do my shopping in Chandler, that is the closest to sort of conservative I can find. Surely not Tempe or Mesa.

    • Westnash says:

      Nope…need to vote out all those who propose this plus give such huge pay and benefits to employees.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Nope? You want to discourage someone who wants to take action? Delilah can actually DO what she proposes but you can’t do what you propose as you lack the power to do so.

        An ounce of actual action is worth a pound of Westnash esoteric, intellectual ideation.

  10. Fed Up says:

    I’m a hetrosexual taxpaying Phoenix resident and I feel discriminated against by these overt city ordinances favoring a small but vocal group of sodomites. Where do I go for recourse? Why don’t the majority of Phoenix City Council members and the Mayor represent me? I’m part of a majority bloc, I pay their salaries and I vote!

    • Matt DeGennaro says:

      Those of us with no gayness to “celebrate,” don’t count! Simple. There is no mystery to this agenda.

  11. Freedom First says:

    I want to express my gender by requiring gay bars to have straight nights.

    • PeeJay says:

      Right, exactly. And Ladies’ Nights. And Happy Hours for the non-transgenderites, and bartender specials for straights……..

  12. LEO IN TSN says:

    This was posted on SRA last Friday:
    1. LEO IN TSN says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:40 am
    SRA people, bend over and get ready to get MCCAIN’ed by your Phx mayor Greg Stanton. Cathi Herrod at Center for AZ Policy has put out an alert about his pending “Open Bathrooms Ordinance” sneaking McAmnesty-like through the City Council.
    Cathi says “Because of how the Bathroom Bill has been brought through the Phoenix City Council, many on the Council are unaware of the problems it will cause.
    If you call or email the Council, and they are unaware of what the Bathroom Bill is, let them know you are referring to “the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code.” It is scheduled to come up for a vote on Tuesday – please urge them to vote no.”
    For details of the stealth bill and for contact info for the city council members, go to Cathi’s site at http://www.azpolicy.org and educate the valley.
    God bless America.
    Reply

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 322 other followers