Progressive One

If this your thread block me please.........I'm guided by my own decisions....I could give a fk less what YOU do in a given situation...get it?

samtheyank

As always, you miss the point. You are hopeless and clueless.

Progressive One

Block me......since I don't give a fk what racist inbred hicks think or want..........

samtheyank

Nicht Mehr!

Progressive One

LGBTQ court win splits other activists
Some African Americans say the Civil Rights Act shouldn’t cover sexual orientation bias.
By Kurtis Lee
The decision this week by a federal appeals court that said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination raises questions about the intent of the law passed more than five decades ago as the struggle for racial equality gripped the nation.
In a ruling — the first of its kind — the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Tuesday that the act protects LGBTQ people from discrimination by employers.
The decision came after the court threw out a finding last year by three of its judges who ruled that the law doesn’t cover sexual orientation bias.
The case originated from a lawsuit by an Indiana teacher alleging that a community college didn’t hire her full time because she is a lesbian. Many law experts expect the issue to be placed before the Supreme Court at some point.
Although advocates of LGBTQ rights lauded the ruling as a needed step to curb discrimination, some like Bishop Garland R. Hunt said Wednesday it was an “atrocity to the African American lives lost to pass the Civil Rights Act.”
For Hunt, the ruling is an affront to the Civil Rights Act, which he said was meant to undo the ramifications of slavery and Jim Crow laws — inequality, poverty, lack of education, to name a few.
“Blacks have been killed and discriminated against solely because of our skin color,” said Hunt, who is the head pastor at the Father’s House, a predominantly African American church in the Atlanta suburbs.
In recent years, Hunt, along with many black pastors, have been outspoken in their views that LGBTQ rights are not civil rights.
Hunt says that while the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion and sex, it should not benefit gays and lesbians.
“It seems some are trying to make the efforts for gay rights similar to the struggles minorities faced in the effort for equality,” he said. “Really, this should be about racial discrimination.”
For some African Americans such as Hunt, whose Christian views have led him to oppose same-sex marriage, the progress of LGBTQ rights has caused concern that the struggles of blacks who endured Jim Crow laws will be overlooked.
In 2012, when President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, many in African American churches nationwide did not agree with his views on the issue. Many polls showed that black voters — who overwhelmingly supported Obama — viewed same-sex marriage differently than he did.
Still, not everyone views the ruling the same. Some say that discrimination is discrimination and must be banned in workplaces nationwide.
Marc Morial, chief operating officer of the National Urban League, among the nation’s largest civil rights organizations, lauded the decision.
“It’s the correct ruling in the fight for civil rights for all,” Morial said. “These protections need to be granted to everyone — regardless of race, religion or sex.”
Morial said the “foundation of the Civil Rights Act was race, but it’s always been much more broader as well.”
Even though the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, other legal protections, including housing and employment, have not been across the board for LGBTQ people.
Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, a group that advocates for the equal rights of LGBTQ people, lauded the ruling and said that “everyone recognizes and understands that experiences of African Americans in the country are different from the LGBTQ community.”
“Both groups have faced discrimination,” she said. “We should not compare the two struggles. No one should face discrimination.”
Greg Nevins, who argued the case before the 7th Circuit, said the focus must be on Title VII of the act, which prohibits workplace discrimination.
“Of course there are different historical factors,” Nevins said. “This ruling says that gays and lesbians are covered.”
Still, there are those with the views of Bishop Gilbert Thompson, founder of Jubilee Christian Church in Boston. He agrees with Hunt in that gays and lesbians should not be afforded protections under the Civil Rights Act.
“I don’t think anyone should face discrimination — let that be clear,” he said. “But in my view I don’t think gays and lesbians should be lumped in with civil rights, I just don’t.… In a workplace, you shouldn’t be forcing your sexual orientation anyway. Where as if you’re black or a woman, that’s something you can’t hide or put to the side. It’s who you are and for all to see.”
kurtis.lee@latimes.com
Twitter: @kurtisalee

vernon

I personally didn't know anything about roof.I did know if he did this he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

he could have been anything but taking a bunch of peoples lives has to be paid for.

Now when a guy goes down to baton rouge and murders three cops .i don't ever hear you complain about that ,just accuse whitey of some kind of injustice.

same thing in ferguson all that commotion because the local blacks told a bald face lie.the same thing happened in baltimore and it was all based
on lies and a ignorant mayor who said it was all right to loot. Now why don't you admit you have the worst elements in the wworld.

Progressive One

I guess the unarmed guys shot in the back while running, the small kid shot playing with his toy gun in the park less then 4 seconds after the cops arrived and the kid shot in Wal-Mart with a toy gun is justifiable.....that is why there is pushback....it is the only time such issues are taken seriously.....the klan types recruit from police forces and ex military...people with knowledge of and access to weapons...sad that cops families have to feel the pain the cops cause others..............

Harpooner1

Sad that so many parents are unable to monitor their kids behavior....And teach them how to live in a civilized society.....
When the parents have the wherewithal to pay attention to the kids, the kids don't end up being shot.

It all starts at home.

Progressive One

It is not quite that simple....what do you say when that happens to a good kid who was never in trouble, a good student with plans for college. Stereotypical thought stops many from understanding such a concept....

Harpooner1

Give me an example, instead of a hypothetical.... And, you can give me any race........

Progressive One

what I said was self-explanatory.....I don't even "breast feed" my students....I make them think. Review what I said in context as a response to your original statement and it will be crystal clear to you.........

Progressive One

Fair Assn. settles trailer park suit
Pomona fairgrounds operator agrees to pay $325,000 to end case over tax it improperly collected for years.
“SOMETHING is better than nothing,” says trailer park resident Ellen McKeever-Jacobs, shown in 2015. The settlement covers only four years of the “transient occupancy” tax; some tenants paid it 10 years or more. (Irfan Khan Los Angeles Times)
By Rong-Gong Lin II
Every month for many years, tenants living at a trailer park at the Los Angeles County fairgrounds were charged not only rent but also a 10% tax.
It was a tax they never should have been hit with.
Now, the nonprofit operator of the fairgrounds, the Los Angeles County Fair Assn., has agreed to pay $325,000 to resolve a lawsuit over the tax, according to court documents. More than 475 people are believed to be eligible for a reimbursement.
The amount is based on improperly collected taxes received by the fair association for four years before the filing of a lawsuit in 2015, said Raymond Chandler, an attorney for the tenants. Chandler said the average payout will probably be $1,300 to $1,400.
On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ann Jones extended the postmark deadline to May 22 for 477 tenants to file for a reimbursement. So far, only 184 people have requested the refund, Chandler said.
The settlement does not cover all of the improperly collected taxes. Longtime residents say they have been charged the tax for 10 years or more, and some have said they paid as much as $5,000 in improperly levied taxes.
“Something is better than nothing,” said resident Ellen McKeever-Jacobs, 58. But she still was unhappy at the money she has lost over the years, adding: “That was money out of our pocket. I think they should’ve given it all back to us.”
Resident Eric Zavalza agreed. Zavalza estimated he and his mother are owed more than $4,000. “Considering those of us who have been here longer … that’s not a lot of money,” he said.
But the statute of limitations for civil suits alleging unfair business practices is four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Chandler said.
Trying to go back further in time would have required a legal effort that he said would have been time-consuming and impractical.
Last year, the fair association said it was not its responsibility to reimburse the tenants. The association said that the funds were delivered to the city of Pomona and that the fair association did not benefit from the revenue.
But on Tuesday, the new chief executive, Miguel Santana, said the fair association agreed to the settlement to address concerns about how the trailer park has been managed.
“The Fairplex’s interests are in bringing resolution to this issue,” said Santana, who has been on the job for three months . “Bringing closure to concerns about the [trailer] park is part of my effort to move forward and think about the future.”
Santana said the Fairplex has hired a new trailer park manager and has submitted plans to a state regulatory agency for more renovations, which will include giving trailers more space, making improvements to lighting and landscaping and modernizing utilities. Santana said the renovations will reduce the overall capacity of the trailer park from its limit of 158 spaces, but that long-term residents will not be displaced.
The agreement comes after The Times last year reported on problems at the trailer park. Residents complained of open sewer pipes that unleashed the stench of raw sewage, bathrooms in disrepair, overhead power lines peeling insulation, and roads and walkways marked by potholes and cracked pavement.
Santana said the fair association has already spent $250,000 to renovate the public bathrooms and showers.
The fair association has long levied a “transient occupancy” tax, the same levied on hotel guests, on behalf of Pomona.
But the tax is supposed to be levied only on transients renting a location for 30 days or fewer.
The city refunded a year’s worth of the tax money to residents who filed a claim — about $46,000 to 95 people in the trailer park, and about $39,000 to 63 residents in a separate RV park on the fairgrounds — and blamed the association for the improper collections.
Those who claim the reimbursement will receive at least 70% of the improperly collected taxes they paid over the four-year period covered by the settlement, Chandler said. They could receive up to 100% depending on how many people respond to the claims administrator.
The fair association, which operates on land owned by the county, has been in a state of turmoil since 2015, when two rave attendees suffered fatal drug overdoses at the fairgrounds and the parents of one of the dead filed a lawsuit .
The Times subsequently published reports on the lucrative pay and benefits given to the previous chief executive, James Henwood Jr., and other top managers as the nonprofit reported financial losses.
Henwood received more than $1 million in total compensation in 2014, far more than other fair executives in California. Separately, a state audit concluded that taxpayers were denied millions of dollars in revenue from the association’s hotel and conference center and its other enterprises, and government auditors called for the association to pay back rent.
Henwood resigned in 2016. A moratorium on raves at the fairgrounds is in effect.
Henwood’s replacement, Santana, who until last year was Los Angeles’ city administrative officer, has launched an effort to improve the Fairplex’s standing with elected officials and Pomona residents.
Santana said he has embarked on a strategic process to imagine what the Fairplex should look like over the next century. He has scheduled eight public meetings on topics such as governance and transparency to solicit feedback from the public. A schedule can be found at www.fairplex.com/ ceo/strategic-planning .
Santana, who is making roughly half of what his predecessor made in 2014, declined to answer questions about revising the compensation of other executives.
Critics say they welcome the gestures from Santana but say the fair association has a lot of work to do to recover from what they view as the group’s secretive and insular reputation.
They say the association also focuses on maximizing revenue at the expense of the neighborhood, which residents say has been disrupted by alcohol- and drug-fueled events.
“There needs to be more folks from the community that may not always agree with the fair,” Pomona City Councilman Robert Torres said of the association’s outreach. “It’s going to take time to build up trust again.”
Among the suggestions: Meetings of the association’s board of directors should be open to the public, as well as meetings between city and fair officials, said resident Judy St. John. And the association’s governing board should welcome representatives of neighborhood groups, like hers, which have clashed with the fair association.
“They need to include people who will be forthright with them about negative impacts,” St. John said. “Sometimes I wonder about what real change is going to come since the board of directors is remaining the same.”
ron.lin@latimes.com
Twitter: @ronlin

Progressive One

Babies, booze and taxes
A plan to put diapers and tampons on alcohol’s tab faces a tough battle.
By Liam Dillon
SACRAMENTO — The slogans are simple, and meant to convey a clear choice.
“It’s time to tax liquor before ladies,” Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said.
“We should be putting babies before booze,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego) echoed.
Garcia and Gonzalez Fletcher made the pitches at last month’s unveiling of their proposal to eliminate sales taxes on tampons and diapers and make up for the lost revenue by increasing alcohol taxes.
But if history is any indication, their bill is likely to fail.
For more than a decade, polls have shown Californians overwhelmingly support raising alcohol and other “sin taxes.” Yet despite numerous attempts, state lawmakers haven’t increased the alcohol tax since 1991. The reasons for the failures — from the power of the liquor lobby to the general difficulty in raising taxes — reveal the high hurdles the bill will need to clear, even as a growing national movement has pushed for legislation to exempt tampons and diapers from taxes in statehouses across the U.S.
“I know it’s a hard ask,” Gonzalez Fletcher said. “We knew that going in.”
California’s current alcohol tax , $3.30 per gallon of distilled spirits, ranks 39th in the country. Judging by public opinion alone, an effort to raise it wouldn’t seem that difficult. At least 61% of residents have backed raising alcohol taxes in nine Public Policy Institute of California surveys over the last 14 years. The most recent survey in November 2014 found 68% in support.
But alcohol interests have long been powerful at the Capitol. In the first half of the 20th century, liquor lobbyist Artie Samish was so influential he once demonstrated his clout to a photographer by pulling a ventriloquist’s dummy from his closet that he’d nicknamed “Mr. Legislature .”
Though the liquor industry’s power has declined since, it’s still a player. Donations from alcohol interests to state politicians and political committees topped $2.5 million last year, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. When former Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) proposed raising the alcohol tax in 2015 by a nickel per cocktail to boost services for the developmentally disabled, the industry’s reaction was swift and strong, she said.
“They were very alarmed and they did not want to see this conversation happening,” Bonilla said.
Her bill never received a full vote in the Assembly. Bonilla likened the situation to the state’s efforts to increase the tobacco tax, which also had strong support in polls but stalled multiple times in the Legislature. In November, state voters approved a $2-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax despite a $71-million opposition campaign from the tobacco industry .
Bonilla, who supports Garcia and Gonzalez Fletcher’s bill, said it might ultimately take a ballot measure to raise the alcohol tax.
“There is definitely an opportunity for the voters of California to weigh in for where some grave needs in the state could be met,” she said.
Garcia and Gonzalez Fletcher initially didn’t want to take the politically challenging route of raising alcohol taxes. Last year, they wrote bills that would have exempted sales taxes on diapers and tampons and other women’s health products, but didn’t provide a revenue source to cover the $45 million it would have cost. The measures unanimously passed the Legislature, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed them, saying they were too expensive .
The current measure, Assembly Bill 479, would increase the tax by $1.20 per gallon of liquor lower than 100 proof, with a larger increase for liquor with a higher alcohol content, and wouldn’t address beer or wine sales. The lawmakers estimate the increase equates to 2 cents per cocktail.
The legislation fits alongside a boom in statehouses across the country that exempt diapers and tampons and other women’s health products from sales taxes.
Connecticut and Washington, D.C., passed legislation last year to eliminate sales taxes on diapers, and bills in 16 states this year would do the same on at least some purchases, according to the National Diaper Bank Network.
Lawmakers in 23 states have introduced legislation over the last two years to eliminate sales taxes on tampons with successful efforts in Connecticut, Illinois and New York, said Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, author of a forthcoming book on the issue, “Periods Gone Public.”
Garcia said she’s seen the conversation over the exemption change since she introduced her first bill in early 2016. She said her colleagues and others would joke that she should quit talking about her period or refer to the legislation as a “bloody fight.”
“Not everyone was ready,” Garcia said of the initial reaction to her bill. “I’m going to be fearless and unapologetic about it. My health is not something that’s funny.”
She still believes the state should be able to shoulder the eight-figure cost of exempting tampons from sales taxes in a $180-billion annual budget without having to identify an additional source of funds. “I think the fact that there’s a tax that’s discriminatory against women is enough,” Garcia said.
While proposing a tax increase aims to satisfy the governor’s cost concerns, it’s difficult to pass. The state Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature for any tax increase, and a bid to boost the gas tax to pay for road repairs barely scraped by last week .
Lawmakers also could face a supermajority vote this year to reauthorize the state’s spending plan to combat climate change , and multiple other bills to increase dollars for low-income housing development also remain on the docket.
Garcia and Gonzalez Fletcher said they recognized their measure could get lost in the spate of tax votes, but they argued their bill would enable lawmakers to reveal their priorities — hence the “babies before booze” slogan.
Manuel Espinoza, the executive director of California Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Assn., said his industry recognizes that alcohol taxes are low compared with those in the rest of the country. But, he said, the cost of doing business in the state is high.
“New taxes means passing it along to the consumer and no one likes doing that,” Espinoza said.
liam.dillon@latimes.com