By Terrence McCoy
By Allie Conti
By Chuck Strouse
By Scott Fishman
By Terrence McCoy
By Ryan Yousefi
By Ciara LaVelle, Kat Bein, Carolina Del Busto, and Liz Tracy
By Pepe Billete
I thought Kirk did a good job of not taking sides on the issue, which is supposed to be a primary journalistic creed. I myself am divided on the issue, not wishing for this particular group to be discriminated against but also not wanting the matter to be pushed further -- as it already is by some -- toward adoption by homosexuals. I am firmly opposed to that. (One need look no further than the male-seeking-male ads to understand how much value is placed on "youth" and adolescence in these relationships, not to mention the scandal in the Catholic Church.) Anyway, thanks for being impartial.
Just you watch -- we'll be climbing a mountain of lawsuits: It's the ordinance stupid! It's not about gays, lesbians, Hispanics, Negroes, Latinos, Jews, Italians, Irish, homosexuals, or heterosexuals.
Case A: A homosexual applies for a job as a beautician, a nurse, a banker, a decorator, a handyman. He or she is hired to perform the job, but after awhile it is noticed that he/she is not competent enough to do said job. The company terminates his/her employment for that reason, or possibly because the company hired him/her prematurely, at a time when the company's situation could not accommodate another employee. Where do you think that individual will go? To apply for another job? Guess again. He/she will go to a lawyer to sue the employer!
Case B: A homosexual (it's irrelevant whether it's a man, a woman, or a couple) applies for and rents some form of living quarters, and for whatever reason does not live up to the contract. Thus he/she gets evicted. Where do you think he/she will go? To find another place to live? Guess again. He/she will go to a lawyer to sue the landlord!
It is a Pandora's box! Be ready to fork over millions of dollars to lawyers to defend yourselves against sexual discrimination, and regardless of winning or losing, it will cost you money. It is a bad ordinance, stupid!
Staff writer Brett Sokol's "Kulchur" column of August 1 ("Requiem for a Lightweight Nightclub"), about Billboardlive in Miami Beach, contained three factual inaccuracies. Owing to an editing error, Patrick Loughary was referred to as a co-owner of Billboardlive. Loughary is an employee, not an owner.
The federal lawsuit filed against Billboardlive by the company's former vice president, Peter Cohen, does not allege "cooked books." It alleges "fraud" and "gross mismanagement." And Cohen is not seeking a court-ordered audit of Billboardlive but rather a court-imposed receiver to assume control of the company. New Times regrets the errors.