« Uninsured camp out for free healthcare
Sullivan’s Oath of Office »
Aug 18 2009

Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Posted by emperor in Anchorage, Politics, sexual orientation, tags: , ,

Facts About Sexual Orientation

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.

That is the standard we should be trying to emulate and live up to. Not backing away from because we have a mayor in Sullivan that is clearly a bigot and has been unduly influenced by Political Activist Jerry Prevo and his cult of mindless zombies.

Here is what Mr. Sullivan had to say for his veto statement.

On August 11, 2009, the Anchorage Assembly passed AO2009-64(S-2) as amended. I
have reviewed the ordinance, heard the Assembly justifications for and against it, and understand the sentiments expressed during the many hours of public testimony. Since the passage, I have received nearly 2,500 additional communications from Anchorage residents. I thank all of those who took the time to participate in the process.

My review shows that there is clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance. My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated their position on the ordinance are in opposition.

As elected officials, we are charged with reflecting the will of the community in our decisions, particularly in the absence of compelling data that would supersede that will.

Therefore, I hereby veto AO2009-64(S-2) as amended.

Note: The mayor’s office does not plan to conduct individual media requests today. Questions will be referred back to the statement.

No quantifiable evidence? How about the hatred and vitriol that opponents of the ordinance spewed hour after hour, day after day of testimony? How about going so far as to bus in people from the Valley to testify? How about the obviously orchestrated tactics approved by the Assembly Chair to allow Prevo to manipulate and abuse the system. You don’t think these people wouldn’t refuse to hire, rent to or give credit to people simply based on their sexual orientation?

Do you think the federal government would have such protections for their employees if there wasn’t a reason to protect people from discrimination by bigots against sexual orientation? He didn’t find any evidence because he didn’t look and doesn’t care. That’s just his excuse for the inexcusable.

Being an elected official isn’t about being popular. It isn’t about appeasing people, like religious fanatics. There was no argument presented against the ordinance that wasn’t rooted in Christian dogma. Last I heard we hadn’t official converted to a theocracy, although it appears Prevo effectively controls the Administration and Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander. Read the “An Open Letter To Anchorage Assembly Chairwoman, Debbie Ossiander.” For an example of the lies and pressures brought from the ignorant and narrow minded Christian Right. The fact is that it is the governments responsibility to not simply do what is popular, but what is right. Permitting discrimination isn’t right.

Then to add insult to injury, Mr. Sullivan just issues that short written message and refuses to face the people he is sworn to serve to defend his position, or even to answer questions from the press. The man is a gutless worm, that has no respect or compassion for anyone other than those that line his pockets with campaign donations and deliver votes from their pulpit.

However, this is good news for business owners and landlords. Now they are free to discriminate against everybody they don’t like, for whatever reason. All they have to do is say it’s because of their sexual orientation. Doesn’t matter if they are straight or not, whether it’s true or not, they just have to say that’s what they believe.

I encourage business owners and landlords to use this opportunity to rid yourselves of people that you have wanted to, but were afraid to because of the laws against discrimination. See what those people don’t understand is that sexual orientation includes heterosexuals. So you can now be fired, refused to be hired, refused a promotion, refused to be rented to, refuse to be loaned to, for being straight. Our own mayor has effectively said that discrimination based on sexual orientation is fine.

How many heterosexuals will have to be adversely affected before Sullivan and the assembly will feel the pressure to do the right thing. We’ve got three weeks. How many people can we get fired or evicted in that amount of time?

How many people can we get into the Prevo Cult to stand up and call Prevo and all of his followers bigots and unworthy to follow Christ. How many people can we get to show up to picket and write down license numbers of those that attend the cult meetings to see if their employers or landlords want to make them an example of how sexual orientation discrimination feels.

I sent an email testimony to the assembly members during the testimony period. I posted the letter here. Of the four that voted against the ordinance, Coffey, Starr, Birch and Ossiander, only Ossiander replied. She only replied in response to my criticism of allowing outside agitators to abuse the system. I’m debating whether I should post those email exchanges which in my opinion shows that Ossiander was acting in collusion with Prevo to delay the vote by allowing people to continue to sign up to speak after the original hearing and permitting people outside of Anchorage to testify

Here are the email addresses.

Send to entire Assembly. wwmas@muni.org Probably the best way to get to them all.

Assembly Members that voted against the ordinance. Make sure Ossiander brings the override to a vote, even if the numbers don’t change. I want to be there when they vote and look me in the eye when they say my daughter is less human, less deserving, less worthy of protection from bigots. We especially need to target Ossiander.
Debbie Ossiander ossiander@gci.net
Bill Starr starrwe@muni.org
Dan Coffey dancoffey@gci.net
Chris Birch chrisbirch@gci.net

Assembly Members that voted for the ordinance. Thank them for their prior support and ask for their continued support by forcing an override vote.

Elvi Gray-Jackson gray-jacksone@muni.org
Sheila Selkregg sheilaselkregg@alaska.com
Mike Gutierrez gutierrezm@muni.org
Jennifer Johnston jjohnston@gci.net
Patrick Flynn flynnpp@muni.org
Matt Clayman mattclaman@gmail.com
Harriet Drummond harrietdrummond@alaska.com

Share any responses you get below. I’ll be adding more information about upcoming protests and other activities to bring pressure to bare on the assembly to override the veto.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogsvine
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 18th, 2009 at 3:26 am and is filed under Anchorage, Politics, sexual orientation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • It is the obligation of ANY duly elected representative to pay attention to the desires of and act in accordance with his constituents' wishes. While many politicians do take that to extremes to stay in popularity, Sullivan's statement implies that most of the people who directed opinions at him voiced opposition to the measure. Regardless of his personal feelings, he could not ignore the comments directed at him on the matter.

    As for the measure itself, I think it would be lovely if people didn't have to worry about discrimination in looking for jobs and whatnot. However, I don't believe anti-discrimination laws will help anything. While an employer couldn't officially use that as a reason not to hire people, they could still produce a hostile or unwelcoming environment. With the help of other employees to witness on the employer's behalf, someone could face discrimination in the workplace after being hired with no recourse for relief. Aren't people, then, better off finding a workplace that will welcome them without being required to by law? You're not going to cure the disease by treating the symptoms.
  • The majority isn't always right. The majority once thought slavery was ok. The majority once thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote or own property. This is a case where the minority was asking for equal rights in employment, housing and credit. Even if the majority doesn't believe people deserve protection based on their sexual orientation, he is mayor of the entire municipality, not just the ones he agrees with.

    I'm not convinced that those messages were from Anchorage residents at all. Most of the testimony at the Assembly hearings against the ordinance was bussed in from outside Anchorage. Prevo made a concerted effort to get his cult members to contact the mayor. It was a vocal minority inspired by fascist leadership.

    The law won't stop all bigots, just like there are still people that won't hire or rent to some minorities in violation of the law. But what the law would provide is legal recourse for those people that are victims of discrimination. People wouldn't be in fear of losing their job or their home if it became known they were gay.

    By vetoing the ordinance Sullivan has validated that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation. He did it with the lamest of excuses. He witnessed the venomous hatred that was spewed by opponents to the ordinance and then said there was no evidence of a problem? He's a bigot and his veto MUST be overturned.
  • The fact that the majority isn't always right doesn't change the fact that it's still a representative's duty to *represent.* It's not the representative's fault that the vocal majority of his constituent group is on the wrong track. If non-Anchorage-residents are getting their opinions in disguised as Anchoragites, then that's a sign that the communication system needs checking methods implemented.
  • When it relates to issues like road projects or budget items, then yes the representative should represent their constituents to the degree that they can. When it comes to protecting people from discrimination, then an elected official should do what is right, not what is popular or expedient. Promoting bigotry, hate and discrimination is NEVER right.

    You also neglect that the Assembly members who voted for the ordinance were also representing their constituents. In order for the mayor to be justified in vetoing the vote of those representatives, the bar should be higher than he doesn't think it is needed.

    Even if you could convince me that the Mayor should do whatever the majority wanted (which you can't) it would have to be more than 2500 out of 180,000 registered voters (1.4%). Prevo has that many cult members. This is a very vocal minority that is not representative at all of the majority of Anchorage citizens. They are driven by religious zealotry, not equality for everyone. They are driven by hatred and intolerance and for the Mayor of Anchorage to side with them is more than just disappointing, it's disgusting and shameful.

    As for the question of whether outside agitators were bussed in for the testimony at the assembly, that is a known fact that Ossiander acknowledged and still allowed them to sign up after the original hearing date.

    I'm waiting for the Municipal Clerks Office to email a copy of the Mayor's Oath of Office. I'm sure they were busy with other more important things than emailing me a copy of something that should be publicly available on their website. But when I see it, we can talk about the actual oath that the Mayor took to see if he acted accordingly in vetoing the ordinance.
  • the problem child
    Thanks for this supportive post. And yes, if the discrimination was against breeders this law would have passed easily.
  • I sent an email to the Assembly as a whole and also to Mr. Sullivan.
    To commenter Lena: the problem with your logic about the 'majority' is that 2500 out of over 200,000 ISN'T the majority. It's just the folks who voiced their opinion to the mayor directly. Also, there is no way to quantify these numbers or their intent. It was simply an off hand statement the Mayor made to justify his veto. Not to mention in a representative democracy we elect our decision makers, this is not a direct democracy. Our elected officials who were chosen to decide on this matter are the Assembly. They decided by a majority to pass the ordinance. The mayors veto was undermining, reckless and smacks of a desperate attempt to keep the powerful elite happy. No one can deny that the Anchorage Baptist Temple took a very public stance on this matter and unduly influenced their congregation (which is over 2000 people, as stated on their website.) to complain to local law makers.

    The majority does not generally make good decisions for the minority. That's why this decision wasn't set to a public vote, but instead to a panel of educated and objective officials who can make decisions impartially for the whole.
  • drewM
    Any public official should be aware that the vocal majority will be whining and be nothing compared to the silent majority that is just fine with the status quo. If he did indeed here both sides of the issue equally then he'd be fully aware that many of the communications are from people outside of his jurisdiction and, thus, unaffected by the ordinance. No matter which way you personally feel about the issue, the mayor is a spineless weasel hiding behind a flimsy pretense because Republicans are far better at making elected officials' lives difficult than Democrats are. Darling Lisa has been opposing any sort of action on towards gay marriage or even civil unions for years for that same exact reason. I mean there may be some actual bigotry there too but whether there is or is not is pretty inconsequential, in my opinion.

    In my mind, though, the situation brings up a few questions that I feel should be answered before I can fully throw my support into the ring of the gays. As I'm an unknown here let me first state categorically that I love gays. I think gay people are fantastic. I live near San Francisco and before that I was an actor at UAA. I think it's fair to say that I am around at any given time a fairly significant amount of gay people and, as a straight male, this does not bother me. (I actually get a bit offended if gay men -don't- check me out, to be perfectly honest.) You want yer government-sanctioned gay marriage? I am aaall over that. I think that y'all should be as free to throw yourselves madly into a 10-year, monogamous relationship of candlelight dinners and sponge baths before ending it abruptly when someone comes back to find their partner blowing the pool boy as all hetero couples are.

    That aside.

    I honestly fail to see how sexual preference even comes up in regards to job hiring or getting a loan. While I'm finding it rather humorous to imagine the reasoning that would be used by anyone denying a homosexual person a line of credit ("No offense Jim, but while we're okay with giving the biker gang down the street home loans, you are just too *gayyyy*") I'm finding it equally humorous imagining how that information would even be revealed. "Name?" "Big gay Al." "Sex?" "All the time, from hot, sweaty men!" "Gender?" "I thought I just told you...?" "Never mind." I mean I don't exactly feel the need to talk to random strangers, especially not ones who I'm relying on to think I am not-insane, about how much I *love* to do it with girls. Even the ones I'm pretty sure are themselves straight. They don't care and they shouldn't. It's none of their business. I could see the logic for *keeping* the job (it gets awkward when your cubicle buddy won't shut up about trying to bond over the cute member of the opposite sex that keeps passing by but when you have to tell that person you don't even share a viewpoint on what gender is attractive, that could lead to trouble--not the fault of the gay person, understand, that's totally the straight person's problem in that case but unfortunately the gay person's more likely to get fired. Which, is, ridiculous. Yes. But it's a different argument.) Or if, I dunno, some gay people get evicted because the straight bigots nearby got tired of the constant orgiastic homosexual sex going on next door (Though if it was straight sex and I was that neighbor I would still be tempted to stir up a fuss out of sheer jealous spite). However as far as I can tell the ordinance only covers hiring and acceptance practices, not what comes later. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is different from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or disability because in order to be turned down for a job because you're gay the employer would first have to actually know you're gay. Though, I suppose he could suspect, in which case "your application was denied on the grounds of suspected gayness" would become a legal and accepted reason for not getting a job. This both amuses and frightens me. Moving on.

    As stated previously, all enacting this law effectively does is tell employers that they have to lie about their bigotry and come up with any plausible excuse to cover it up. Considering how tight the job market, and housing market, is these days, opportunities to do this are legion. Assuming that this law is enacted and Gay G. McGay from Gayerton, (a suburb of Ketchican) prances in with the full crossdressing getup on, somehow aces the interview despite this, (another highly amusing visual) and scores well on all the tests... it doesn't matter. These days, an employer will have at least a dozen if not more applications on his desk that will be likely to have similar or better qualifications than whoever my fictional stereotype has. And even if he doesn't, he can just lie and say that he does, and Mr. stereotype has absolutely no legal recourse.

    I think it's insane that people are so up in arms about what sexual orientation other people, or indeed they themselves, are. In my mind, people should care a lot less and be a lot more comfortable with themselves and each other, and just let people do their own thing as long as it's not bothering anybody. However, I fail to see what enacting this law will actually accomplish in terms of real world impact on homosexuals in the working class or trying to break into said class. It gives the activists something to crow about, sure, ego boosts are wonderful, but I think y'all need a little more help than that.
  • The law isn't going to stop bigotry. The law doesn't stop bigots from discriminating against others by race or religion either. What it does do is give those that have been discriminated against legal recourse if they lose their job or homes due to discrimination. To say the law isn't necessary to protect people of ALL sexual orientations, is to say the law isn't necessary to protect ALL races, religions, genders, etc...
  • drewM
    It's not *entirely* the same thing, because it's much easier to descriminate
    against someone for their race or their sex or their disability because
    those things are extremely visible, and impossible to not notice. I'm not
    saying gay people should have to hide the fact that they're gay, necesarily,
    just that it's a lot easier for a racist to pick up on the fact that
    someone's black than it is for a homophobe to pick up on the fact that
    someone's homosexual. Unless, of course, the gay person in question is
    announcing that fact to any and every person in hearing range, in which case
    he's being an annoying prat who deserves to get canned because he's going
    out of his way to make the rest of the staff uncomfortable for no reason at
    all. Er, for applying for a line of credit that argument is a great deal
    weaker, yes. Granted, having the legal recourse to pursue those who
    descriminate is nice, but in the real world I'm finding it hard to see how
    such a case could be won by the gay person. Unless an employer or a
    homeowner or a credit union employee blatantly says, *in writing* or in
    front of *friendly* witnesses, that you're not accepted due to gayness, I
    don't know how anyone could prove in a court of law that descrimination took
    place.
  • Bigotry takes many different forms, it's not always about not getting a job, not getting a home, or not getting credit. It is sometimes about losing a job, your home or credit. Religion is the perfect example because it may not be readily obvious at first glance (and it really IS a choice, unlike sexual orientation).

    Let say you have a great tenant. They are quite, pay their rent on time, never have any complaints, willing to take care of little things around the property without asking to be reimbursed or bothering you with it. Then one day, you see your tenant going door to door handing out literature to the neighborhood. Curious, you ask him what he is doing and come to find out he's a Seventh Day Adventist. Like a lot of "good" Christians you believe that Seventh Day Adventists are evil and you don't want to rent to their kind. Now, the law in this case gives the tenant some recourse, because it would be hard for the landlord to prove that the eviction wasn't due to the tenant's religion. However, given the same circumstance, and instead of handing out religious material, you witness your same sex tenants kissing in a non "roommate" sort of way saying good bye. Well you don't want to rent to their kind and the law does nothing to stop you. You can evict them. If one of them works for you, you can fire them even though they did nothing inappropriate on the job. If you're a credit officer and you see the same thing, you can throw the application in the trash without concern. If anyone questions your decision all you have to say is that you don't make loans, hire, promote, rent to, sell to "that" kind. Even if they may be a part of some other "protected" class, it doesn't matter because you are free to treat ANYONE as you please based on their sexual orientation, even if they are heterosexual.
  • drewM
    I haven't reviewed the ordinence in question, so I could be wrong. However.
    I was under the impression that it only covered hiring for a job or applying
    for a credit or apartment; not to being fired from a job you've already held
    for a while or being evicted. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.
  • The definition used in the municipal code is as follows:

    "Discrimination means any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal or denial or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status or physical or mental disability, or the aiding, abetting, inciting, coercing or compelling thereof."

    Sexual orientation would be added to the list of protected classes.

    I've made the ordinance available for download here
  • drewM
    It's not *entirely* the same thing, because it's much easier to descriminate
    against someone for their race or their sex or their disability because
    those things are extremely visible, and impossible to not notice. I'm not
    saying gay people should have to hide the fact that they're gay, necesarily,
    just that it's a lot easier for a racist to pick up on the fact that
    someone's black than it is for a homophobe to pick up on the fact that
    someone's homosexual. Unless, of course, the gay person in question is
    announcing that fact to any and every person in hearing range, in which case
    he's being an annoying prat who deserves to get canned because he's going
    out of his way to make the rest of the staff uncomfortable for no reason at
    all. Er, for applying for a line of credit that argument is a great deal
    weaker, yes. Granted, having the legal recourse to pursue those who
    descriminate is nice, but in the real world I'm finding it hard to see how
    such a case could be won by the gay person. Unless an employer or a
    homeowner or a credit union employee blatantly says, *in writing* or in
    front of *friendly* witnesses, that you're not accepted due to gayness, I
    don't know how anyone could prove in a court of law that descrimination took
    place.
  • drewM
    It's not *entirely* the same thing, because it's much easier to descriminate
    against someone for their race or their sex or their disability because
    those things are extremely visible, and impossible to not notice. I'm not
    saying gay people should have to hide the fact that they're gay, necesarily,
    just that it's a lot easier for a racist to pick up on the fact that
    someone's black than it is for a homophobe to pick up on the fact that
    someone's homosexual. Unless, of course, the gay person in question is
    announcing that fact to any and every person in hearing range, in which case
    he's being an annoying prat who deserves to get canned because he's going
    out of his way to make the rest of the staff uncomfortable for no reason at
    all. Er, for applying for a line of credit that argument is a great deal
    weaker, yes. Granted, having the legal recourse to pursue those who
    descriminate is nice, but in the real world I'm finding it hard to see how
    such a case could be won by the gay person. Unless an employer or a
    homeowner or a credit union employee blatantly says, *in writing* or in
    front of *friendly* witnesses, that you're not accepted due to gayness, I
    don't know how anyone could prove in a court of law that descrimination took
    place.
blog comments powered by Disqus

  • Search

  •  

    August 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul   Sep »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  

  • Categories

  • My Twitter Updates

    Powered by Twitter Tools

  • Meta

    Entries (RSS)