Missouri Senator Jim Lembke of St. Louis County discusses a Nov 27, 2012 action of the St. Louis (MO) County Council that is unconstitutional. The Council’s 4-3 vote of approval was made before an overflow crowd that included 75 – 80 citizens, people who signed up to make statements of opposition…approximately 85% to 15% disapproving. The action provides special legal protection and status for sexual lifestyles of choice … to the exclusion of all other lifestyles of choice.
What happened when homosexuality became the dominate culture in San Francisco? From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, (Nov 19th, page A 13) with a proposed law change restricting public nudity:
· “… Exemptions [allowing nudity] would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city’s annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures … naked men [would] gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets “au naturel” (naked) …The proposed [San Francisco] ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last week, about two dozen people disrobed [got naked] in front of City Hall and marched around the block …” (underlining mine) There was no indication of restriction or any arrests for the public nudity around San Francisco’s City Hall.
Quotes on the issue from a front page story of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch can be accessed by clicking on http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/predictions-vary-on-effect-of-st-louis-county-s-new/article_c83fe97c-4f0b-570e-b8a5-a89f5b8e5adf.html … some of which are as follows …
“ … an opponent of the law, state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, asserted on Wednesday that the county’s ordinance conflicted with state law.
“The Missouri Constitution guarantees that people are freely able to worship and practice their faith in any fashion they wish and no authority can dictate their right of conscience,” Lembke said. “And that has got to take precedence over a local ordinance like this….”
Also quotes from the same front page Post-Dispatch article …
“The Rev. Harold Hendrick, of the Bott Radio Network and Hendrick Ministries, said the ordinance was the first step on a slippery slope toward debauchery and violations of religious freedom.
“We already had wonderful protections in place for people with the immutable characteristics of race, age and disabilities,” Hendrick said. “This law sets up a special protected category for one type of lifestyle that is not afforded to other types of lifestyles.”
Government bodies that have discriminated in similar legal action are subject to legal challenge. There are many groups with worldviews that result in lifestyles of choice … but in these kinds of legal actions they are all excluded and discriminated against in favor of sexual lifestyle.”
Download