Monday, June 1, 2009
Watered-Down Non-Discrimination Resolution Passes
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM
In a nine-to-four vote Monday afternoon, the Shelby County Commission passed a substitute non-discrimination resolution that removed the phrases "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression."
The new resolution, proposed by Commissioner Sidney Chism, instead offers protection from discrimination against any Shelby County government employee on the basis of non-merit factors.
"I don't want the county government to discriminate against anyone, but I don't want to give special privileges to any one group," said Chism.
According to county attorney Brian Kuhn, the new resolution will still offer protection to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. But if challenged, those investigating complaints would have to refer to Monday's Shelby County Commission records for proof that the ordinance does apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the ordinance was changed to a resolution, it does not need to go through the three readings required by an ordinance.
Before the meeting began, every seat in the commission's chambers was filled and some ordinance supporters were turned away at the door. A few were allowed in later as seats became available. Nearly 50 people spoke both in favor and against workplace protections for the GLBT community.
One man in opposition to the original ordinance compared homosexuality to pedophila and beastiality, igniting jeers from much of the audience. A number of religious leaders came out in support of non-discrimination protections for gay county government workers.
Among them was Rabbi Micah Greenstein: "This is not a gay issue anymore than racism is a black problem. Gays should not be held accountable for the discrimination against them. It's the rest of us that should held accountable for bigotry."
Those voting in favor of the resolution included commissioners Steve Mulroy, Henri Brooks, Sidney Chism, Deidre Malone, J.W. Gibson, Matt Kuhn, Joe Ford, Mike Ritz, and James Harvey. Against the resolution were Wyatt Bunker, Mike Carpenter, Joyce Avery, and George Flinn.
After the meeting, Will Batts, executive director of the Memphis Gay & Lesbian Community Center said he was pleased with the passage of the resolution as a first step.
Said Batts: "I'm satisfied based on the discussion that happened beforehand, even though the resolution doesn't explicitly state 'sexual orientation' or 'gender identity.'"
Comments (15)
Showing 1-15 of 15
Wow... starting to look almost civilized. Can equal rights for us kinksters be far behind?
like
dislike
This infers that government can intervene into a private corporation or business and force them into hiring all classes of people. Trespassing laws keep undesirables off of one's property that they choose not to associate with. Be extension, a company or corporation has the same rights as individuals holding title to the company. As a private entity it has the right to choose with whom it will associate and when. The 1st and 14th amendment intends that the property owner has rights of association, assembly, and speech in regards to his property, possessions, business, etc. This negates the hiring of certain classes of individuals if so desired. The government does not own a person or the extension; a company or corporation. Since 1964, the Civil Rights Act has allowed a 'slippery-slope' in this area to include all forms of behavior to be accepted by law. The emphasis on 'group rights' strips away individual rights.
CNG, you have zero understanding of this meaningless "resolution."
Tseneau how can you consider this pacification intended to kill the NDO, which allows no protection and no legal recourse, to be something that makes us "look almost civilized?" It is, indeed, a giant step backwards--it was the same as a no vote to the original NDO, but one that will not provoke the anger necessary to regroup and move forward.
I guess tail between legs, Memphis accepts institutionalized oppression once again.
CHG, "group rights" are as much a part of this country's beginnings as are individual rights. Otherwise, why give each state, regardless of population, 2 senators? Otherwise, why the 3/5 Compromise? There are other examples, but my point is that society works toward some sort of balance between polar ends of anarchial individualism and collective domination. Besides, this ordinance doesn't address private employers so you're factually wrong in your statements. This isn't much, but for a city in the middle of the buy-bull belt, it's some progress. It's enough for now that that idiot Wyatt Bunker doesn't like it.
Wyatt Bunker needs to be voted OUT. I can't imagine what other matters will arise where his ignorance will only move Memphis even further backwards. The next campaign should be to make sure he is replaced. People like him are why the founding fathers made sure "THE" people were given the power to vote. Can't wait till election day!!!
john, the district Bunker represents won't vote him out for his stand on this issue. That's just reality.
Sally, your disappointment at the compromise is understandable, but I think you are too pessimistic. This Resolution is binding on county government. Because of the clear legislative record, there's no question this Resolution protects GLBT employees. And even though it's a Resolution, not an Ordinance, it can still be used in court. An employee claiming discrimination goes through the Civil Service Appeals Board relying on the Resolution. If the Appeals Board doesn't grant relief, she can sue in Chancery Court, relying on the Resolution, and get the court to order relief (e.g., reinstatement). This is a clear legal right which did not exist before. So, while the reluctance to insert the phrase "sexual orientation" specifically in the text of an Ordinance should definitely stick in your craw, please understand that this is a real step forward.
If a resolution is legally binding, but does not require a public vote, then it would seem that the council is doing what's right rather than knuckling under to bigoted special interests.
And, as a member of the GLBT community, I do not seek special treatment - only equal. It would seem the omission of "orientation and identity" clauses is positive, not negative. That means there are no special treatments for any reason.
While some seem to see this as "watered down," I see it as "punched up."
Sally, until the US Supreme Court reverses their position that being gay is not a 'protected class', no local ordinance claiming otherwise is going to be enforceable.
And you apparently don't remember that just a few years ago, before Lawrence v Texas, it was illegal for us to even have sex, and no state recognized gay marriages.
You and I will just have to disagree that small gains in equality for gay people is not a 'giant step backward'.
Thanks y'all for the clarifications. Been a rough week in Memphis, please understand my frustration.
this IS a small gain but it is also watered down. so, CNG, since I own a business I can just fire someone because I don't want them? Hmmm... The senior citizen? Ok, you're gone. too old and may have a workplace accident. black guy? gone because you live in a low income area and you may know some "undesirables". Stupid, right? Could I fire a right-wing, bigoted crackpot? Do you know any? Not a protected class...
Vwdan has it right in that it's disappointing this doesn't reach private businesses.
But Tseneau has it wrong about the need for the US Sup Ct to call GLBT a protected class. If the Ct did so, no fed, state, or local legislation actively discriminating against gays could pass constitutional muster. But even without that word from the Supremes, a local ordinance is enforceable.
(Unless and until the state legislature votes to override it, of course. But even if Nashville tried, there's a Supreme Court case called Romer v Evans which might support invalidating such a law.)
The merits and worth of the compromise is a matter of opinion and debatable. The legally binding nature of the current compromise is not.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
