Cross-dressing activist John (now “Julie”) Nemecek of Spring Arbor, executive director of the Lansing-based homosexual activist group Michigan Equality, failed August 11th in his attempt to compel families, businesses, and community organizations by force of law in Jackson to pretend that his psycho-emotional delusions are reality.
Thankfully, the discriminatory “gay rights”/cross-dressing ordinance he’s pushing — which in other communities has violated the privacy rights of women and children in public restrooms, while being used to discriminate against and punish individual business owners as well as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and United Way — was rejected outright by the Jackson City Council on a vote of 5 to 2. (See Jackson Citizen Patriot story below.)
Concerned citizens in Kalamazoo face a ballot campaign this fall on the same issue, which will be heavily funded by homosexual activist billionaire Jon Stryker, a resident of that city.
“The City Council voted 5-2 to reject the (so-called ‘gay rights’/cross-dressing) ordinance at its meeting Tuesday. …About 20 people addressed the city council about the ordinance, the majority of whom voiced opposition. The proposed ordinance says no person shall be denied equal protection of the law, their civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of their…’sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status.’ …Points of contention about the ordinance centered around the sexual-orientation protections it provided, the potential for lawsuits for business owners and additional cost for employers.”
August 12, 2009
Jackson City Council rejects civil rights ordinance in 5-2 vote
by Fredricka Paul
JACKSON, Mich. — A highly debated civil rights ordinance that first came before the Jackson City Council 10 years ago and was revived this year was rejected by the council Tuesday.
The City Council voted 5-2 to reject the ordinance at its meeting Tuesday. Councilmen Carl L. Breeding and Kenneth Gaiser voted in opposition of rejecting the ordinance.
“It appears to me, the majority of the council doesn’t believe certain citizens in the community deserve to be protected,” said George Brown, a member of the Human Relations Commission that brought the ordinance before the council.
“I think they showed that with their vote. I strongly believe they trivialized the process.”
About 20 people addressed the City Council about the ordinance, the majority of whom voiced opposition.
The proposed ordinance says no person shall be denied equal protection of the law, their civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of their “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities or status, educational association, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status.”
The ordinance was initially brought to the City Council in 1999 but eventually stalled in 2002. Points of contention about the ordinance centered around the sexual-orientation protections it provided, the potential for lawsuits for business owners and additional cost for employers.
Kathleen Conley, chairwoman of the Human Relations Commission, said the group has several options it will explore. The commission could send the issue to a public vote, but Conley said she would rather not do that yet.
“We are talking about refining the ordinance,” she said. “We need to talk to other council members and find out what their concerns were.”
Conley said she would also like to talk to residents who still had concerns. But despite being shot down by the council, she said the commission will still work on getting the ordinance considered.
“It is not the end of the story either just a different direction that we need to go in,” she said.
(Cross-dressing activist) Julie Nemecek of Spring Arbor said (he) found it troubling that people were not in support of the ordinance and that its passage is long overdue.
“It is not special rights, it is equal rights,” (he) said. “I can assure you it is needed.”