Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 <br />does not provide incidentally, for attorney fees for the respondent even if he wins. So <br />you see what is going to happen, he stated that he would guarantee it. The people will <br />come in here, and the choice will be presented to the Catholic School or whatever other <br />agency do what we tell you or go hire your lawyer. And if it’s an employment case, pay <br />our lawyer too! He has recently been involved in a case, where the bill for the ACLU’s <br />lawyer was $450,000.00, were not talking chump change. So in five minutes that all he <br />wanted to do is make those two points because, we tend to overlook this, and tend to <br />regard this as some kind of benign thing, it isn’t, it’s the worst piece of legislative trash, <br />he believes in his experience. He is not throwing rocks at the Council, because you <br />didn’t write it, the definitions come from the Indianapolis law, and this thing came from <br />some national outfit and he thinks it is perhaps purposely vague. But it is extraordinarily, <br />vague and imprecise and opens the door to abuse and oppression. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice if he read the existing ordinance that governs the <br />Human Rights Commission? <br />Mr. Rice stated that yes he did. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice his opinion of it? In terms of how it is written? <br />Mr. Rice stated that he had no problems with the existing ordinance. He may have <br />written parts of it differently. <br />Ms. Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice if it was a piece of trash. <br />Mr. Rice apologized for getting exuberant. He stated that didn’t mean to. <br />Ms. Pfeifer stated that it was alright. She asked Mr. Rice again if he thought that the <br />existing ordinance was a piece of trash. <br />Mr. Rice stated no it is not. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked if the present one is well written. <br />Mr. Rice stated that he found no comparably objections to the present one, compared to <br />the objections to this one being presented tonight. <br />Jon Wilson, 5625 Abshire Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a pastor of <br />thirteen years, and been in the helping profession for a number of years. He stated that he <br />has a number of friends on both side of this proposed amendment. He stated that this <br />argument is not about people, it is about behavior. Mr. Wilson stated that everyone can <br />love one another, disagree and be friends, because he has friends on both sides of this <br />argument. But, this something that must be addressed. Mr. Wilson read into the record a <br />statement “I have attended these three open meetings at the County-City Building, <br />regarding the proposed amendment to protect the gay community from discrimination. <br />Although the people have been polite, the topic is loaded with tension and potentially <br />devastating ramifications. How naïve and short sided to believe the impact of this bill to <br />be limited only to the specific actions. It was interesting that the South Bend Tribune ran <br />a series in the paper about the personal and societal high price of teenage pregnancies at <br />the same time that one of the meetings was being conducted in May 2006. Our young <br />people pay the price with a seemingly endless cycle of poverty and fatherlessness with no <br />end in sight. My generation in the 1960’s opened wide the door of a celebration of sexual <br />freedom. Of which none of us understood how far reaching and destructive impact <br />would go. We along with our children have eaten the fruit of our rebellion impacted our <br />families and our society. Now, we stand again at another door, for the same empty <br />promise, that sexual freedom is something to be celebrated and legitimized. He proposed <br />a questioned that he has not heard anyone ask publicly in these meetings. What is the <br />will of God about this issue? He speaks as a pastor at this point, many do not care but for <br />many others in this City it is the primary question to be considered about this amendment. <br />Our God is both loving and holy, he loves people and shines in the brightness of moral <br />purity. As with sexual immorality practiced between both males and females, these act of <br />homosexuality are in direct rebellion to the nature of his will. He will is clear in the <br />25 <br /> <br />