Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Council makes statement, approves nondiscrimination bill
After 30 minutes of debate that saw opponents strike a largely religious chord, the Metro Council Tuesday night voted 21-16 to make it unlawful for companies that contract with the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The vote gave preliminary approval of a controversial bill requiring companies that do business with the city to adopt the same nondiscrimination policy already pertaining to Metro government workers. The ordinance, amended Tuesday to exempt small businesses that employ 15 workers or fewer, is up for its third and final vote March 15.
“This sends the message that we believe in equal opportunity for employment for everyone,” said Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project, who was among dozens of gay rights advocates who cheered after the bill’s approval.
Previously noncommittal on his stance, Mayor Karl Dean recently said the proposal “makes sense” and that he would sign the bill into law if it clears the council. But the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce had expressed concern with the ordinance and pushed for its deferral. Tuesday’s vote bucked the chamber’s wishes.
“We’re one reading away from it being the public policy for this city to tell all the world no matter who you are, no matter what your sexual orientation and gender identity is, we’re not going to tolerate discrimination,” said Councilman Jamie Hollin, one of the bill’s sponsors.
“Everybody is welcome in Nashville, Tenn.,” he said. “I’m proud to be part of an effort to make that statement.”
Hollin and fellow council members Erica Gilmore and Mike Jameson introduced the ordinance following the December exit of Lisa Howe, the former Belmont University women's soccer coach who supporters say was dismissed after school officials discovered she planned to have a baby with her same-sex partner.
Leading up to the vote, conservative critics of the legislation had said the policy represents an intrusion of government on the private workplace. On Tuesday, that was one prominent theme echoed from the 16 council members who voted against the bill, but many focused on morality.
“An alcoholic can be likeable and have redeeming value in spite of the addiction,” said Councilman Phil Claiborne, who voted against the ordinance.
“But that doesn’t mean the behavior is acceptable to the masses of the people,” he said. “In the case of sexual orientation, the vast majority of the world’s religious population is willing to embrace the individual, but they do not find the actions acceptable.”
Councilman Jim Hodge, who also voted against the ordinance, said the nondiscrimination policy actually prevents contractors employing 16 or more from exercising freedom of religion.
“Jesus said love your neighbor,” Hodge said. “He didn’t say endorse their lifestyle. I cannot as a businessman with 16 employees conduct my business the way I want to — the way I desire to based on my faith — if this passes.
“We don’t have any reason to interfere in a private contractual relationship between an employer and an employee,” he added.
Those sentiments did not prevail Tuesday. But while the legislation cleared the council’s second reading, and is expected to pass in March, the victory could be short lived.
State Rep. Glen Casada of Williamson County has introduced state legislation that seeks to prevent local municipalities, including Metro, from adopting nondiscrimination measures that affect the private sector.
“If adopted in its present form, it would retroactively nullify any action that Metro government does regarding nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” council attorney Jon Cooper said.
“Whatever the council does would be nullified,” he said.
In other action, the Metro Council authorized an economic development grant not to exceed $2.4 million that is aimed at keeping Asurion LLC’s international headquarters located in Nashville.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati48 Comments on this post:
Mailing list sign-up
3400 Earhart Rd, Hermitage
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
110 Nannie Ola Ct, Lascassas
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
{“Jesus said love your neighbor,” Hodge said. “He didn’t say endorse their lifestyle. I cannot as a businessman with 16 employees conduct my business the way I want to — the way I desire to based on my faith — if this passes.}
Sure you can Mr. Hodge. This bill does not stop you from doing your business how you choose. It just says that you can't do it in the name of the government.
Councilman Jim Hodge considers discrimination against the GLBT community to be "freedom of religion".
Councilman Phil Claiborne sees a parallel between the GLBT lifestyle and alcoholism.
Fourteen other Council members held similar views. There will be resistance. There will be sermons devoted to this "injustice". Professional zealots will keep the juices flowing. This will not be the end of it.
Here we see the ridiculous arguments put forth by those who opposed this bill. Alcoholism typically affects how one does ones work. Show up for work drunk and you deserve to be fired. Homosexuality does not affect how one does ones work. In fact this bill does nothing that affects how a business owner can deal with workplace conduct. If an employee refuses to stop belting out show tunes or comes to the office wearing only a thong and leather chaps then he or she can still be fired. All it does is state that if a business accepts money from Metro it cannot discriminate against a demographic that PAYS TAXES.
Council Member Mathews made a good statement in support of the bill. He said that he was a Christian and did not personally encourage homosexuality -- but he could not allow discrimination of any kind.
My church welcomes gay and straight people, so I have a slightly different religious view than Mr. Mathews. But I have a great deal of respect for him, standing up against discrimination even though his personal religious views might have encouraged a lesser person to justify that discrimination.
The amendments were needed and appreciated. The bill likely
would have not passed without them. Three members voted
present without voting yes or no. What are they worth if they
can't take a stand one way or another on this type bill?
"Councilman Jim Hodge, who also voted against the ordinance, said the nondiscrimination policy actually prevents contractors employing 16 or more from exercising freedom of religion... "I cannot as a businessman with 16 employees conduct my business the way I want to — the way I desire to based on my faith — if this passes."
Let me place Mr. Hodge back a few decade and then re-state his objection: "I'm not going to hire no n***er at my business".
forgot to close the italics tag.
global citizen, Homosexuality is not a race.
There's a bit of sophistry going on among opponents of this bill. They seem to be willfully misleading in their rhetoric with the aim of confusing the public about what this bill does.
So let's be clear. This bill does not require ANY business to change their policies. Not one bit. If discriminating against gays and lesbians is part of your core religious beliefs, you're still free to practice that discrimination. No one is stopping you.
However, if you wish to do business with the government of Metro Nashville, you must meet the conditions of your customer and one of those conditions is that you do not discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Many, many people feel it's their patriotic duty to vote with their dollars. How often do we hear "Buy American"? Metro Nashville has that same right.
Alpha, where did I say it is? I think you're trying too hard to deliberately miss the point.
global citizen, Homosexuality is not a race.
This is the part where Alphadog7 makes a completely disingenuous argument about homosexuality not being 'readily apparent' or some other line of tripe, forgetting entirely that religion is not outwardly visible either.
Global Citizen: Right here, you compared this issue to a racial issue:
"Let me place Mr. Hodge back a few decade and then re-state his objection: "I'm not going to hire no n***er at my business".
Antisocialite: Are you kidding? I said there is no 'broad consensus' in society about homosexuality. Meaning lots of different opinions. Lots of debate. Understand now? Do you deny that?
Back to the real topic, this ordinance, which it looks like the state is going to nullify, mandates that if you have traditional Christian, Muslim or Catholic view on homosexuality, you can't do business with Metro. Even though Metro takes your tax dollars. You could make the argument that gays were discriminated against before, but at least it wasn't mandated and codified by a government that professes to represent you, and takes your tax dollars.
It'll be very interesting and enlightening to see how this issue all plays out. Will the Republican-controlled state legislature ultimately deny the rights of municipalities to enact laws in the best interest and wishes of their own citizenry? That would be the same principle as the federal government denying states the right to enact their own laws -- a principle traditionally supported by conservatives -- except when they disagree with the particular law in question, apparently. Having it both ways?
CM Hodge's statement reminds me of a George Carlin bit.
To paraphrase:
"You want to know what a moronic word 'lifestyle' is? Let's use it in a sentence, shall we?
Attila the Hun had a very active outdoor lifestyle!"
Alpha, I'm not going to entertain your tautology. I didn't say homosexuality is a race no matter how many times you try to say I did. I made a comparison, which you acknowledge. If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.
And you commented that "it looks like the state is going to nullify" this Metro non-discrimination bill. Where on earth do you get that? Glen Casada has introduced a bill. That's all. It doesn't even appear to have any support.
Casada reconsidered his first attempt to write the bill when it became apparent that writing it so narrowly as to target the sexual orientation clause would be unconstitutional and has already been tested at the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans.
The next iteration also has a problem because it would disempower local municipalities. It would prevent any local government from enacting standards or policies that aren't applicable statewide. So that living wage law passed in Memphis, that would have to go. Do you think that's not going to raise some opposition?
Then there's the problem that Casada and his ilk like to position themselves as small government, local government advocates. A bill taking power away from the locality and mandating state control is problematic for that image. And although Casada doesn't seem to lose any sleep over that kind of hypocrisy, I think others in his party might be a little more troubled by it.
Back to the real topic, this ordinance, which it looks like the state is going to nullify, mandates that if you have traditional Christian, Muslim or Catholic view on homosexuality, you can't do business with Metro. Even though Metro takes your tax dollars. You could make the argument that gays were discriminated against before, but at least it wasn't mandated and codified by a government that professes to represent you, and takes your tax dollars.
You mean traditional Christian values like killing all of my workers who have committed adultry, as prescribed in Lev 20:10-12?
I hate how the government gets in the way of my traditional Biblical values.
I also hate when the government tells me I can't execute my workers for apostasy when Deuteronomy 13 clearly tells me that it is my duty.
If I can't do these things it's obviously because the governments overstepping its bounds, and not because my holy book puts forth some of the most disgusting moral guidelines imaginable, which are grounded in nothing more than the prejudice and ignorance of Bronze Age tribal leaders.
Lealand, you're exactly right. Casada couldn't care less about his supposed small government principles. Small government when it suits his agenda or big government when it suits his agenda. The only principle he firmly believes in is getting his way.
Does paying taxes constitute doing business with the city????? Maybe not now, probably later.
GC,
You made a comparison to race, and I pointed out the homosexuality is not a race. No need to take it personally, I know you didn't say it was a race. Let it go.
Also, 'Casada's agenda' is obviously protecting taxpayers from excessive hurdles in doing business with various municipal governments. Quite consistent with small government principals and good for the economy. Too bad it will have to be preempted at a state level, I bet he wishes that it was not necessary.
BTW, Casada's bill does NOT mandate what municipalities do with their own policies, only that they can't force their views onto contractors. Be more inclusive and accepting, right?
FleFew, Great point. When its time to take you money, principles don't matter so much.
Sorry, Alpha, I must have misunderstood what you meant when you posted "global citizen, Homosexuality is not a race." The logical inference is that I did say homosexuality is a race. But you do appear to operate on a different plane of logic than most.
"Also, 'Casada's agenda' is obviously protecting taxpayers from excessive hurdles in doing business with various municipal governments. Quite consistent with small government principals and good for the economy. Too bad it will have to be preempted at a state level, I bet he wishes that it was not necessary."
Yeah, right. Amazing how you can drink that Kool Aid when you happen to agree with the agenda.
Oddly enough, I'm looking for the bill on Casada's website. It's HB0598. But it doesn't appear there. Has he withdrawn the bill already?
I honestly cannot believe that there people stupid enough to argue that this bill is an infringement on their rights. It's very simple: we don't care what you think of gay people, but if your business is in the business of discrimination, we as a community do not want to engage in business with you.
I like the fact that Alphadog7 appears to be on his own here...
Scratch the last sentence, I did find it.
And reading the full bill, I don't see that this will have much of a chance of passage. He's gotten no co-sponsors. It also attempts to reach back and repeal local laws retroactively. So Casada wants to not only legislate during his own term, but in the term of legislators who preceded him.
He's also phrased this bill to so narrowly target gays and lesbians that the animus motivating this bill is tactless, capricious and all too apparent. I don't see many legislators getting on board with this even if they agree with the effect.
Dangerlover, when you say, "we as a community" does that include Christians, Muslims, and Catholics and others who hold a traditional view on homosexuality?
Or do you think there are no such people in Nashville?
GC, You made a comparison, and I responded to it. Or maybe you were just calling the Councilman a racist?
Let's call the 'traditional view on homosexuality' what it truly is... bigotry.
The euphemism is as tired as it is patronizing. Tradition is not inherently good, and its main trouble is that, no matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was. So if you make up a story that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't make it any truer.
@Antisocialite: However tradition DOES have an element of truthiness to it...
God is dead. AMEN.
How truly inclusive, tolerant, accepting and open-minded you all are. How nice that you talk inclusion, but when it comes to a concept you don't like all bets are off. So you don't really mean what you say, its all really about your agenda.
Trying to be inclusive and tolerant of a religion that adheres to intolerance is a dilemma. The two objectives are mutually exclusive.
But religious intolerance is not necessary. It's just bigotry wrapped in a socially acceptable facade. You just don't like the fact that some people see through the charade and won't play along.
Alphadog, yes, our community includes bigots just like any other. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or whatever rationale they provide for being bigoted does not excuse their bigotry. How do you and morons like you not get that it doesn't matter whether you agree with someone or not, it is discrimination to treat them differently? I'm sick of the God argument, too. As far as I am concerned, God has no place in any discussion related to public policy.
How do you not get that being inclusive does not mean that bigots are welcome? Rednecks are fine, but judging people by your own pre-determined criteria is not going to be tolerated by "inclusive" people. Go preach your divine hate somewhere else.
GUARDIAN-This is how it started in San Francisco. No wonder the honorable people are moving out side of Nashville.
Guardian, that's a gratuitous assertion. Who are the honorable people moving out of Nashville?
Now Lisa Howe can go to Mike Jamieson"s child"s school and be the soccer coach......wait a minute, his kids go to a Private Catholic School, they are EXEMPT! Big Mike taking a stand, for the rest of yall!
GUARDIAN, have you ever been to San Francisco? If so, you obviously didn't pay much attention. Either that, or you are confused about the definition of "honorable."
Hey jamie Hollin and Maegan Barry,tell us about your childhood memories growing up in Nashville? Maybe you can ask Jerry Maynard?Maybe even Karl Dean, Phil Bredesen, Bill Purcell? Wow, I have run out of out of towners running this backwards city. Thank God you have saved us from ourselves!
Global Citizen, so religious intolerance is not necessary, but your intolerance of others' beliefs is just fine because its incompatible with your beliefs?
Dangerlover, How gracious of you to deem 'rednecks' OK. Obviously you have no problem slinging the epithets. If all you're going to do is call names, clearly you are the myopic hater.
"As far as I am concerned, God has no place in any discussion related to public policy."
Dangerlover that's great, what makes you think your opinion counts any more than anyone else's?
It doesn't, Radix, but the protection of people's rights isn't a tenet of my opinion, it's in the Constitution, as is the prohibition of "any law respecting an establishment of religion."
Since when is Redneck an epithet? Either you don't know what that means, or you don't know many rednecks.
Dangerlover, Redneck is a derogatory term. Discussion of God in public policy is hardly 'endorsement of religion' by the government nor does it infringe on your rights, last I checked the gov't hasn't endorsed any religion, so you can't really use that argument to silence your opponents.
I don't have any opponents, for one thing. I don't subscribe to an agenda, unlike the religious right. I know a lot of redecks; not one of them thinks the term is derogatory, and use the term freely to refer to themselves and their family. Sorry if it offended anyone. I don't see the need for God to be referenced at all in the context of law, and the mere presence of God in a discussion influences it. It doesn't matter if a "government endorses a religion." I'm not even sure what you mean by that. The simple fact is that people whose beliefs are dicated by their religion have no right to try to impse those beliefs on me or anyone else. It pisses me off that I can't buy beer before kickoff on Sundays because some bible beater thinks it's a sin. I'm not gay, so I can't imagine how they feel, but if my city, or state, or country didn't protect my right to date women, I'd be pretty ticked off.
Yipee! What really worries me though are all the other classes of people who are anxiously awaiting their discrimination protection from Metro.
I'm thinking of cigar smokers, fat people, skinny people, those poor men who are losing their hair, folks who like the color pink and eat vanilla ice cream, people who chew too fast when they eat, men who are 44 and left handed, those uneducated souls who wear white after Labor Day, people who don't like bugs, women who were born in a Leap Year, anyone who cannot play a piano, people who actually like to visit their dentists--oh but I must stop, I have run out of time. They need protection and fast--some of them from themselves! But help is on the way, Metro has plenty of time and money to ensure that you too will receive protection!
Wow. I had no idea that there was a mouth breather out there who knew how to spell dentist.
Danger,
How can you not know what I mean by 'Government endorses a religion'? You brought that up, its a paraphrase of the constitution. "...shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...." or preventing it.
Also, what is wrong with God in the conversation and God influencing the conversation when it comes to making laws? In the end elected officials still vote on it. Are you saying we should do away with murder laws, because it coincides with the bible? Theft should be legal because its one of the ten commandments? You just want to ban the free speech and opinions of religious people? Sounds like discrimination to me, yet you claim to be arguing against discrimination? Its not illegal to buy a beer because someone thinks its a sin, it was discussed voted on and passed in the democratic process. Blame your elected official if you don't like it. Also, what does this law have to do with dating?
I am so proud of the City Council for doing the right thing! While some religions seem to endorse bigotry and try to force the rest of us into withholding the rights of citizenship and a fair chance at a job from many of our fellow-citizens, many religions do not. And further, most non-religious people are not bigoted. Guess what? While the bigots are free to hold on to their small-minded and hateful opinions, they are not free to foist them onto the rest of us in contradiction to the democratic principles of our nation.
Radix, you apparently don't know what "endorse" means. And the rest of your statement is just gibberish. It's pretty obvious why murder is illegal. The act of killing someone takes away the victim's right to live. I have no desire to limit freedom of speech of anybody. Not sure where you came up with that gem. Allowing religion to influence law is contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, plain and simple. And it IS illegal to buy beer before noon on Sundays because the people who voted on it were a bunch of religious hypocritical bigots, and I do blame them.
It is always intriguing to me that you people will go to such efforts to justify a belief system dictated to you by people who have no idea what they are talking about. You take the bible as gospel simply because you are told it is. Sure it has some good ideas in it, like honoring your parents and not killing or stealing, but then it tells you to do stuff like throw your little ones onto stones. Whatever. I stopped trying to rationalize with the bible freaks a long time ago. I just can't stand it when one of you says, "I don't think that laws should be passed to protect homosexuals because the bible teaches me that homosexuality is wrong."
Get a life. Stop worrying so much about what other people do. There is no rational reason that it should even remotely matter to you, except that you find it offensive.
Where did I get that gem? Right here: "As far as I am concerned, God has no place in any discussion related to public policy." That was you, no?
It seems you find yourself in the unique position of thinking you are right and anyone you don't agree with is wrong and stupid and doesn't deserve a voice. I'm not a bible thumper, I just don't like your ridiculous hypocrisy and intolerance while you accuse others of the same thing, so I find myself wanting to argue the other side.
How did you get that I desire to limit someone's speech by saying that the topic of religion should not interfere with laws that govern everyone? I respect other people's opinions, except when those people try to impose their beliefs on others through legislation.
You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, contextualizing, or both.
The only reason metro's passage of this bill would affect you is if you are involved in a business who discriminates against homosexuals, and wish to do business with the metro government. In that context, yes I believe you are wrong. I don't really care if the religious right has a voice or not; lots of morons have voices. But I'm going to call out bigots when I see them.
All right folks, everybody stand back, nothing to see here...
exactly...carpet munchers must unite!