Developments abound in the matter commonly being referred to as “the gay bill.” To wit: Sponsors of the original bill that would have extended protection to gays and lesbians in the city’s fair housing and employment code are introducing a far narrower bill applying to many fewer people. The most recent version would only apply to employees of Metro Government, whereas the original bill covered all of Davidson County. As well, the new bill would only protect employees from job discrimination, whereas the prior bill would have outlawed housing discrimination as well. Sponsors are hopeful the new measure won’t inspire the train wreck that surrounded the previous legislation, which provoked considerable outcry from churches, conservatives and psychotics on day leave.
Second, Mayor Bill Purcell’s legal director, Karl Dean, has published a legal opinion saying that an avenue already exists to investigate discrimination against gays and lesbians, which, by extension, suggests that a bill might not even be necessary. In his five-page opinion, Dean writes that the city’s Metro Human Relations Commission has the “authority to investigate complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation by private employers in their employment practices and by private businesses in matters related to housing.” The commission also can “provide educational programs related to discrimination based on sexual orientation” and can “gather data, hold public hearings and make recommendations related to discrimination based upon sexual orientation.” The Human Relations Commission, for those unfamiliar with it, was created in 1965 to investigate claims of racial discrimination. While it has the power to investigate complaints of discrimination, it cannot punish offenders. Instead, if the commission determines that discrimination has taken place, it refers that particular case to court.
Lucinda Smith, chairwoman of the commission, says that she’s reviewing Dean’s opinion. “Basically, we’re trying to figure out what this means,” she says.
All of this activity comes after months of unpleasant and agonizing debate over Metro Council member Chris Ferrell’s bill that would have added sexual orientation and disability to the protected classes of people against whom it’s unlawful to discriminate in housing and employment. Nashville’s a conservative, church-going city, to be certain, and despite assurances that a solid lineup of fellow Metro Council members were ready to vote for Ferrell’s bill, his brave coalition collapsed in the face of a sophisticated opposition that suggested that “fags rot in hell.” The council members ran like scalded dogs.
As police officers patrolled the steps of the Metro Courthouse to make sure nobody got hurt during the demonstrations several weeks back, Mayor Bill Purcell’s advisors, meanwhile, were telling inquiring reporters that he considered the matter one for council members to figure. Later, his deputy mayor told the Scene that the mayor opposed the bill.
Ultimately, with a mayor in absentia, the bigots feeding him to the wolves and his own political miscalculations exploding all around him, Ferrell waved the white flag and the bill was withdrawn. Since then, he’s made attempts to get more community support and has held meetings with the mayor, media representatives and community leaders.
Meanwhile, Dean, who is hired by the mayor, wrote his opinion. While it could be construed as unhelpful to the bill’s proponents, Ferrell says he thinks it’s actually positive. “With this new bill, we’re trying to set an example for Metro Government not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” he says. “And we now have a clear opinion that the Metro Human Relations Commission can investigate discrimination against human rights. It’s not as big a step as our original bill would have been, but it’s a step in the right direction.”
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
Non-discriminatory laws infer that the government can intervene into a private corporation or business and force them into hiring all classes of people. Trespassing laws keep undesirables off one's property that they choose not to associate with. By 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. By implication, the government is stealing jurisdiction from individuals and their extensions of business. By altering the original intent of the Civil Rights Act to include behavior along with race, the door is open for forced acceptance of all types of behavior. Where does one draw the line if we use arbitrary ethics as our foundation for truth?
like
dislike
