News Release: Real Agenda Exposed in Hatboro
November 23, 2010 // afaofpa // Homosexual Agenda
News Release
For Immediate Release: November 23, 2010
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078 or 1.814.437.5355
Real Agenda Exposed During Hatboro Meeting
(Philadelphia) – By a vote of 4-3 the Borough of Hatboro Council Members chose to ignore the concerns of their constituents and the real life consequences presented them and chose instead to extend special rights to homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide traditional values group, expressed disappointment in the vote and again stated the real purpose of these ordinances is to silence those who oppose using the force of law to validate these destructive lifestyle choices.
“One citizen complained during the meeting about green flyers mentioning ‘family values’ being distributing in the borough. He said the ordinance needed passed because ‘these are the people we need to be protected from.’ How was the distribution of that flyer discriminatory? It was not, but such assertions will be used to intimidate and silence those who hold traditional values that engaging in homosexual acts are sinful,” Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA remarked.
Stephen Glassman’s statement during the meeting about such ordinances having resulted in “no major repercussions” failed to mention the 140 Kmart employees in Philadelphia who had to receive sensitivity training because one of their clerks hesitated to allow a man who thinks he’s a woman in the women’s fitting room. He also failed to mention the fight the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council in Philadelphia has been engaged in for years trying to stay in their headquarters. And totally ignored other examples provided from other states.
Glassman has made it very clear that his intention of getting these local ordinances passed is to place pressure on the state legislators to get ‘sexual orientation and gender identity or expression’ added to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
“This ordinance and all others like it have everything to do with special rights, not equal rights. These special protections are being extended to homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders simply because of the sexual activity in which they engage or who they think they are. There has been no evidence presented that there is any need for these ordinances. They are trying to fix a problem that does not exist by bowing to a special interest group. The question is ‘What is their ultimate goal?’” questioned Gramley.
Comments during the Borough of Hatboro meeting Monday night exposed two problems for its residents who hold traditional values:
1.) The ordinance will use the force of law to force all to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal
2.) The ordinance will be used to silence all who oppose the normalization of this dangerous lifestyle even to the point of claiming the distribution of flyers is discriminatory.
# # #
Topics: Borough of Hatboro, intimidate, special rights ordinance, stephen glassman
“He also failed to mention the fight the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council in Philadelphia has been engaged in for years trying to stay in their headquarters.”
Mr. Glassman did, in fact, go into a lengthy talk on this exact subject during the public comment portion of the evening. Why do you continue to lie?
“And totally ignored other examples provided from other states.”
You’re the AFA of PA, he’s a representative of PA’s HRC, no examples from other states were provided – again, with the lies.
The only ‘agenda’ at work here is the ‘agenda’ of your organization to promote misunderstanding and deliver misinformation. These are not ‘special rights’ ordinances, they insure equal rights.
Municipalities of Pennsylvania will continue to fight to adopt them despite your underhanded and disgraceful techniques. The only intimidation surrounding this ordinance was done on the behalf of your organization.
Yes and I’m sure Mr. Glassman totally agreed with Philadelphia’s attempt to eject the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council from their headquarters because of their ‘discriminatory’ actions as he made it quite clear in comments he made in 2004. Via fax and e-mail, the AFA of PA provided the Hatboro Council Members with examples of problems in other states where such ordinances have passed and,yes, they chose to ignore those examples. These are special rights – based upon the sexual activity in which these individuals engage or who they think they are — what other group gets rights based upon these factors. What history of discrimination was laid out to justify this ordinance, what immutable characteristics, what political powerlessness?
For anyone interested in standing against the Humans Relations Ordinance passed in Hatboro…
On 12/6, at a council meeting, Mayor Norm Hawkes exercised his right to veto the ordinance. It is my understanding that his personal information (e.g., e-mail etc..) has been listed on Facebook in retaliation.
The council memebers in support of the ordinance have called for a special meeting on Tuesday (12/14) in which they are hoping to vote to override the veto. In order to do this, they will have to persuade one of the 3 council members that originally voted against the ordinance to “change his mind” and vote with them.
I would encourage any resident of the Borough of Hatboro, that is is support of the mayor’s veto and against this ordinance, to contact the mayor and all members of council (Their e-mails are listed on the hatboro.gov website). Also, attendance at the meeting on 12/14 is critical as the mayor has been virtually accused of lying about community members speaking out against the ordinance.
“It is my understanding that his personal information (e.g., e-mail etc..) has been listed on Facebook in retaliation.”
I would hardly call information found in a google search (his e-mail) and re-posted ‘retaliatory.’ Just as this organization provided their members with a form letter to e-mail to council and the mayor, those in favor of the ordinance have been writing their own e-mails and making their own phone calls to Borough Hall voicing their support of anti-discrimination legislation.
“I have no religious or moral issues with this ordinance,” he said. “I understand there’s not currently a provision to cover [sexual orientation and gender identity] at the state level, but I would like to see that enacted.” – Mayor Norm Hawkes.
You may be celebrating his veto – but you should come to terms with the fact that his intentions are in no way aligned with your ‘group.’
An e-mail sent out to our list on Thursday acknowledged the Mayor did not share our moral conviction . . . but he did veto the ordinance.