(a)
The fundamental rights of citizens include the right to live unfettered by unlawful discrimination and this right is consistent with the American ideals of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility for one's own actions.
(b)
The preservation of this right is necessary both for individuals, to be free to live productive, rewarding and satisfying lives, and for society, so it may reap the benefits of the fullest utilization of the capacities and talents of each of its members.
(c)
It is the responsibility of governments to take action to prevent such discrimination and make provision for redress for those not treated in accordance with the American ideals of justice and fairness.
(d)
The California Legislature has clearly stated its intent that municipalities have, and should exercise, the responsibility to create civil rights ordinances that extend protections to cover needs and concerns at the local level.
(e)
Existing state and federal restraints on discrimination are commonly recognized as inadequate to meet the particular problems of discrimination in this community.
(f)
Unlawful discrimination poses a substantial threat to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, it foments strife and unrest within the community, and to counter such threats is a reasonable exercise of the city's police powers.
(g)
The city and its citizens have been highly aware of the serious problem of discrimination within its borders, and this has led to extensive community discussion as well as presentation of incidents of discrimination contrary to prevailing community standards.
(h)
Many community groups exist to report acts of discrimination and deal with them effectively, and such groups have conclusively demonstrated disparate treatment against members of a wide variety of groups.
(i)
The Davis human relations commission, after holding multiple public hearings and discussions, unanimously recommended to the city council that it draft a comprehensive ordinance to provide remedy to those suffering under discriminatory acts, and the Davis 2000 study committee directed that its final report include a recommendation that discrimination in its various forms will not be tolerated.
(j)
The city council held its own hearings on the matter, and the combined testimony to the human relations commission, Davis 2000 study committee, and city council shows the acute need for such an ordinance.
(k)
Various community groups have petitioned the city council for relief, and over six thousand citizens of the city petitioned their city council to enact an ordinance outlawing arbitrary disparate treatment on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment and business establishments.
(l)
An antidiscrimination ordinance is consistent with the caring nature of the Davis community and its citizens, will raise awareness of the issue of discrimination in the city, and act as an effective deterrent to intolerable practices.
(m)
Such an ordinance can, and should, be enacted in a way that does not imply the superiority of any particular class or lifestyle above another, and does not infringe on other fundamental rights of citizens such as freedom of association, speech and religion.
(Ord. 1359 § 1; Ord. 2390 § 23, 2012)