College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Push for LGBT civil rights should continue

Published: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Updated: Sunday, November 22, 2009 23:11

The Tampa City Council voted 5-1 Thursday to ban discrimination in employment, housing and public facilities against transgender people. The ordinance conforms to a blooming national trend of upholding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights.

Much of the opposition had religious concerns when it came to homosexuality and transgender behavior. However, this thinking does not recognize that in the legal context, denying civil rights is a sin.

 “I spent most of my time as a Christian praying and seeking wisdom and direction on this particular ordinance,” said council chairman Tom Scott just before voting in affirmation. “What would Jesus do?”

Human rights are integral in U.S. ideals, and when in conflict, they ought to supersede other concerns like religious expression and even free speech. The Tampa City Council set a good example for the rest of the country as it embraces change.

The LGBT civil rights victory followed the U.S. Senate passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in October, which extends protection against attacks on people of different genders, sexual orientations, gender identities or disabilities. The long-awaited Employment Non-Discrimination Act is also moving through both houses of Congress and it could pass by the end of the year.

Critics claim that any national protection of LGBT rights coerces communities to accept unwanted behavior and is an undue infringement on freedom of speech. House Minority Leader John Boehner has described it as “radical social policy,” according to the Washington Post.

 “We already have laws against violent crime. The only purpose of hate crime legislation is to stifle politically incorrect speech,” said 2008 Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo on his blog.

But Tancredo, Boehner and other opponents are wrong. Hate crimes and speech go far beyond normal crime. These crimes abuse individuals and persecute entire groups to which they belong.

Members of the LGBT community have been quintessential targets of these attacks. According to the FBI, 25 of Florida’s 166 reported hate crimes in 2007 were related to the victims’ sexual orientation.

There is no worse reminder of the need for extended human rights protection than the recent decapitation and dismembering of 19-year-old homosexual Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado in Puerto Rico.

As the American Civil Liberty Union’s support of LGBT initiatives suggests, hate speech laws are a necessary restriction of free speech. By passing them, the government expresses its condemnation of destructive social attitudes and the violent actions to which they lead.

When coupled with anti-discrimination efforts, this legislation will ensure protection for the LGBT community just as it does everyone else, so even those of different sexual orientations will have a fair opportunity to succeed.

Tampa’s new ordinance is a piece of a much bigger battle for tolerance and human rights. Every little portion counts, and the city council made the right decision.

Neil Manimala is a junior majoring in biomedical sciences.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

14 comments

Luche Mcgee
Thu Dec 3 2009 08:31
We see yet again the Libs like the couple before me attack Americans like Paul who express their freedom and are just trying to get their views out there. Is this REALLY where my country has headed to? Where you can't even THINK of a non-PC view unless you want your "manhood" attacked??? Looks like we really got what we asked for when we elected B.Hussein Obama...........
Jess
Wed Dec 2 2009 00:14
"IT'S THEIR FAULT FOR DRESSING & ACTING PROVOCATIVELY SO THE GOV'T SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BEAR THEIR BURDEN." Thinking like this also makes me believe that you probably think that any woman dressing a certain way or behaving provocatively also deserves to be assaulted. You're a real stand up guy, I'm sure any woman would love to be with a man so secure in his own "manhood". And in case you are too dense to understand, that was sarcasm.
E
Wed Dec 2 2009 00:09
No person deserves to be beat up when they are doing no physical harm to anyone or anything else. If you need to prove your manhood by beating up someone who is expressing his or herself, then I feel sad for you as a person. You can believe in the necessity for laws against discrimination or not, but you can't say anyone deserves to be beat up for being a man "dressed up as a woman" as you say. The reason laws like this have to be in place are because of hateful people like you, Paul.
moff2
Fri Nov 27 2009 13:33
i dont know why we're even debating this tbh. republicans always find a reason to argue!!!
PoliSci Major
Fri Nov 27 2009 08:07
I've been reading up on this quite a bit over the past four years. According to Altman et al, hate crimes are DIFFERENT from simple attacks on a single "PERSON." The simple individualized attacks are associated with causal harm (actual imminent injury-in-fact and sometimes subjective injury) but hate crimes are different because they result in what the Supreme Court calls EXPRESSIVE HARM in addition to the causal harm. Expressive/stigmatic harm is not the same as simple broken feelings. They're direct, violent expressions of not just hate against a vulnerable group of people but the very notion that they do not belong/should not exist. Under the Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses, these harms are definitely recognizable, and they attack a WHOLE group of people, which is why they're much more serious. To ignore the problem and think the laws in place are sufficient, especially when there is an enforcement/reporting problem in the first place, is irresponsible!!
Jeff
Thu Nov 26 2009 12:33
There are laws already that allow for the prosecution of people who assault, batter, or discriminate against another "PERSON". There is no need for these special laws ... its just politicians looking for a vote, just enforce the laws that are already there, plain and simple.
Justin Thomason
Tue Nov 24 2009 07:55
One more thing for those who think J.T. makes sense: these ordinances/legislation extends protection to gays,etc. So it's not like they're getting special treatment. They're now gradually getting the same protection that all of us (including grumpy white men) expect to receive when we face attacks based n our race.
Justin Thomason
Tue Nov 24 2009 07:40
And you're also dead on about the thought crimes J.T. Now that this "hate crime" legislation has passed, the big old government's thought police will surely come along with their brain probes and see if I hate gays and transgenders. Heck, they might even turn me into one!! :-O
Justin Thomason
Tue Nov 24 2009 07:38
You're right, J.T., the life-and-death security of people in this country can be reduced to a simplistic schoolyard analogy!! Right on!!!
Your name
Mon Nov 23 2009 19:53
Any guy that describes himself as a "red blooded american man" is clearly in denial about something, I'm just saying.
Abbas
Mon Nov 23 2009 19:25
You put it so succinctly J.T. I second your thoughts!
J.T.
Mon Nov 23 2009 10:01
I really do take exception with the restriction of free speech on this issue. Should laws such as these pass, we are one step away from "thought-crime" prosecution. It is laws like these that are an infringement on our civil liberties. It is just as much my right to be uncomfortable or outright disapproving of LGBT lifestyles as it is somebody else's right to live such a life. Every conservative Jew, Christian, and Muslim should be very acutely tuned in because these laws will restrict our right to practice our religion. If we see such lifestyles as sinful (which all three do) and express it in our houses of worship, we can eventually expect to be practicing in jail. No one civil liberty trumps all others and somebody's right to be gay does not trump my right to be disapproving or to be honest about it.

In all honesty, all this does is breed contempt. It's like the kid in second grade that told the teacher every time he was picked on. He was never picked on anymore than any of the other kids until the teacher told everyone to leave him alone. After that, all of the other kids hated him and would tease him even more. In short, it is not the government's right to legislate that we all get along or provide unfair protection to any one group. You can't mandate people to play nice or get along.

James
Mon Nov 23 2009 03:07
Thanks for this post!!!
PAUL / SAUL SEE JOHN 3:16
Mon Nov 23 2009 02:27
I AM A RED BLOODED AMERICAN MAN. I DO FIFTY PUSHUPS EVERY MORNING WHEN I WAKE UP AND I ONLY HIT ON WOMEN. IF I DRESSED UP AS A WOMAN AND CAME TO SCHOOL TOMORROW I WOULD DESERVE A GOOD BEATING, WOULDN'T YOU SAY??? SO HOW CAN YOU SIT THERE AND ACTUALLY SAY THESE PEOPLE DESERVE "EQUAL" RIGHTS FOR COMMITTING SINS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY CAN OBVIOUSLY CHOOSE TO DO!!!!! IT'S THEIR FAULT FOR DRESSING & ACTING PROVOCATIVELY SO THE GOV'T SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BEAR THEIR BURDEN...........






log out