Friday, August 02, 2013



San Antonio Considers Prohibiting City Workers from Expressing Bias Against Bisexuals

Unconstitutional but the pro-homosexual religion is compelling.  Being pro-queer is the Leftist version of righteousness

The San Antonio City Council is considering an ordinance that would ban anyone who speaks out against homosexuality based on their moral beliefs from being hired as a city employee or government contractor, including businesses owned by Christians.

The draft ordinance seeks to amend San Antonio’s Non-Discrimination Policy, which is based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964. (See SA-Ordinance.pdf)

According to the proposed ordinance: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such a person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any persons, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion,, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability."

“Violation of this standard shall be considered malfeasance in office, and the City Council shall be authorized to take action as provided by law to remove the offending person from office,” the ordinance states.

Source

16 comments:

Stefan v said...

How utterly ridiculous. If they were honest about enforcing this brainfart, they would employ nobody at all. Anyone with a bit of sense, get out of that dump. It is doomed, see Sodom & Gomorrah for details.

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to Freedom of Expression, or is freedom of the press the only part of the First Amendment that's left?

As for the Civil Rights Voting Act, wasn't that voided by the Black Panthers?

It's time America saw another revolution. And this time, a real one.

Anonymous said...

so, don't ask, don't tell for Christians now. Liberals are so hypocritical

Anonymous said...

Interested to see if they enforce the religious part.

Bird of Paradise said...

The marxists city council should just pack their bags and leave america and never come back again

Anonymous said...

Although religions are often a cover for the right to express discriminatory and insulting views about fellow citizens, there is no reason why such intolerant views should be tolerated when expressed by someone in or seeking public office.
Freedom of religion is a right to HOLD views and not a right to actively inhibit the civil rights of others.

Anonymous said...

I am gay and I am insulted by this b.s. I have no problems with people that don't like gay people, I am don't like being around most of them. I prefer the company of straight males.

Anonymous said...

"Non-Descrimination Policy" ?!! The content of the policy renders the title an oxymoron.

Use the Name, Luke said...

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
— United States Constitution, Article VI, Par. 3

This proposal is a religious test, and is thus a clear violation.

Malcolm Smith said...

Let me point out to Anonymous 2.42 AM what the ordinance actually says:
"prior to the proposed appointment ... expressed bias, by word..."
In other words, if you said the wrong thing at any time before applying for the job, you can't be hired. That sounds a lot like a violation of freedom of speech to me.

Anonymous said...

12:59 I don't follow his argument. It seems to say that whatever you said or did before a job interview should not be taken into consideration. Of course you may have had the right to say or do whatever it was beforehand, but you don't have a right to be acceptable as a result for any job in the future, especially not one in public service.

Anonymous said...

2:46 The problem is that the city is planning on not appointing people on the basis of what is clearly protected speech. Furthermore, the ordinance does not allow people to demonstrate a "bias in word or deed" but in effect the city exhibits a bias against certain groups - groups that are protected by frderal and state law. Even worse is that the ordinance only applies to appointed positions, but not the City Council itself or normal hires. That is an "equal protection" issue.

This ordinance cannit legally stand.

Anonymous said...

Why not cut to the chase and hang a sing out that says:

"CHRISTIANS NEED NOT APPLY!"

Anonymous said...

2:42, then by their own standards THEY are being "intolerant."

By not tolerating these views you are yourself being intolerant!

You tolerate everything or nothing. THAT is the essence of the first amendment.

Anonymous said...

Our country was founded upon free thought and free choice to believe. I'd rather live in a city full of law abiding racists than a city full of murderous non law abiding thugs.

Anonymous said...

1:59 You don't make sense. If you tolerate everything you must also tolerate evil. If you tolerate nothing you don't tolerate anything good.