UPDATE: Human Rights Ordinance Passes 6-1 in Royal Oak
Commissioners poised to create ordinance that would prohibit discrimination.
Photos
Pdfs
Monday, 9:16 p.m.: The Royal Oak City Commission passed a human rights ordinance on Monday by a vote of 6-1. Commissioner David Poulton was the lone dissenter. He indicated that the city has proven it is "tolerant" and preferred the matter be put before voters. More details will be posted when available.
Sunday, 5 a.m: The much talked about human rights ordinance for Royal Oak could be voted into law today, if commissioners are satisfied with answers to questions about monitoring compliance and processing complaints.
When the ordinance passed 6-1 on a first reading in January, commissioners also wanted to know if its protections were covered under existing state or federal laws.
If approved, the ordinance would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodation on the basis of a variety of factors including race, religion, weight, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. A violation would be a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $500, plus the costs of investigation and prosecution.
Similar laws already are on the books in about a dozen Michigan communities, including Ferndale, Birmingham and Ann Arbor. Some of those communities were contacted to glean answers to the questions Royal Oak commissioners wanted before casting a final vote on the issue.
Tonight the council will discuss the findings as presented in a memo by City Attorney Dave Gillam:
- Guaging compliance by outside vendors is often the role of a purchasing agent, someone Royal Oak officials say they can't afford to hire.
- Complaints are handled often by a human rights or human relations commission or the city manager. Gillam suggests Royal Oak's police department take on this task, even though the chief is worried about workload.
- Gillam also wrote that various ordiances already on the books in the state cover some of the protections the city is proposing.
If the council passes the ordinance, it will take affect on March 14. Previously, Commissioner David Poulton was the lone dissenter. He indicated that the city has proven it is "tolerant" so a law saying so wasn't necessary.
But Craig Covey, who is a gay rights activist, former county commissioner representing southern Royal Oak and the former mayor of Ferndale, which approved their ordinance in 2003, said it still makes a huge difference to have the law on the books, saying it is especially important to gay and lesbian residents who often aren't otherwise protected.
"It says to the community and to the world that you are looking at someone by their ability, not by their sexual orientation or race or ...," he said.
The 7:30 p.m. meeting will be held at the Royal Oak City Hall's Commission Room at 211 S. Williams St., on the 3rd floor, room 315.
Jack Manning
7:16 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Don't quite understand the reason for this so-called "Human Rights Law" Doesn't our U.S. Constitution guarantee human rights? This appears to be piling laws upon laws to fit some form of political correctness. I haven't read any real life incidents that any rights enumeration under this proposed law have occurred in Royal Oak...so why is it here or even being discussed?
J.M. Walters
7:16 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
What? Does our fair city need further clarification of the existing State and Federal laws already in place, or Is the purpose of this "ordinance" to effectuate these same State and Federal laws? Sounds like busy work to me. Surely there are more important matters for our commissioners to concern themselves with.
V
10:15 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
There are no federal protections and no state protections in Michigan against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation at this time.
Bill
10:44 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
....and there are no examples, or complaints filed that incidents like this occurred in our community in at least the last ten plus years in Royal Oak.
E.H.
11:04 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
There have been no incidents of discrimination, or complaints about discrimination, for more than 10 years in Royal Oak, yet the mayor and commissioners are ready to jam this on the community.
The mayor and commission blatantly ignore the will of the voters, and ignore the vote on this issue executed in 2001.
Poulton is no better than the others. Why did Poulton vote to authorize the city attorney to originally draft a human rights ordinance?
Ronald Wolf
6:16 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
I remember two individuals were brutally beaten after leaving the "Liberty Bar" in Pontiac, at least one was transgender.
If you are black you probably find yourself involved in discussions on the "racial problem" at least once a week. As a Jew in Royal Oak this happens to me only once every six months because I guess I pass. When my parents moved from NYC and I later followed we were directed as where we should live. It was less than fifty years ago we were not permitted to own homes in Dearborn, and Bloomfield Township still had in its charter a prohibition against selling homes to blacks and Jews though not enforced.
Gays have been denigrated forever. Children still use the expressions I would rather not repeat, the least inocuous "thats so gay". I admit being homophobic myself at times. I am convinced that this in natures way of beginning to deal with overpopulation but then I also believe the same about worldwide warfare that never seems to end. Face the situation, if you disagree with an HRO you should also disagree with freeing slaves, after all there is no forbidding of owning slaves in the same bible bigots quote to disallow gays the same rights you have. Gay discrimination is not prohibited in our bill of rights.
I am not saying Christian claiming bigots are the problem, there are bigots and hypocrites everywhere. Intolerance is as American as apple pie and not to be proud of. FY I. look up "Stonewall riot NYC" for more evidence of USA gay bashing.
Ronald Wolf
6:16 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Jack, EH and JM why did you all feel you have to speak out? Come on let it all hang out.
J.M. Walters
7:37 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Well Mr. Wolf, I would assume there is no difference in my speaking out and your desire to do the same. In response to your comment, while we're at it how about making sure we cover every aspect of potential discrimination; lets include short people, reformed alcoholics, obese persons, persons with tattoos or multiple body piercings etc. I'm sure you get the picture. Every human difference cannot be individually listed; nor should it require the writing and rewriting of more anti-discrimination laws.
V
10:44 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I'd be for a general prohibition on any discrimination. As I suspect many would be. One of the big problems, though, are the courts - especially in the more conservative states - that like to see itemization of the characteristics instead of a general statement.