Washington state *finally* isn't clumsy: passes sexual-orientation civil rights bill

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257316_gayrights27ww.html

It won't become law until the governor signs it on Tuesday, but she's been behind this bill from the beginning, so it's pretty obvious it's going to become official.

Essentially, this means that no one in the state can be discriminated against in the workplace (excepting businesses of eight people or less, and religious institutions) based on sexual orientation or being transexual. The bill had been trying to pass since 1977, but something has always made the passing of the bill fall short just barely every time.

Last year, despite local homophone reverend Hutcherson claiming victory because he "made Microsoft go neutral on the issue" (when in fact the company took the stance well beforehand, and has since jubilently backed the civil rights bill again after realizing its goof), it didn't pass because one Democrat in Hoquiam (near Aberdeen) went against it because he considered homosexuality a sin.

This time, the bill *passed* by one vote instead of failing by one because, essentially, one moderate Republican, Bill Finkbeiner, was worried about losing his seat to a more popular moderate Republican this coming year, so he decided to increase his re-electability by showing he's just as moderate and voted for the bill. To his credit, he succinctly argued why it was stupid to not allow this bill to pass to his fellow Republicans and stood up to them. No one behind the bill minded this at all, obviously. Then again, the spokesman against the bill actually had the nerve to say that his daughter was lesbian, and that he was voting against the bill as "tough love" to her, because the Bible says so.

Anyway, this should have happened a long time ago, and who knows what creeps are already plotting to create some voter initiative to rescind this bill, but I'm really happy about today's news, because not that this matters too much for people in Seattle, Tacoma, and other big cities that *already* have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.. but now that one person (or two.. or hundred) somewhere in the middle of the state who is/are openly gay no longer has/have to hide it anymore when applying for jobs. It's a symbolic victory, mostly.. but is also a practical victory as well, just for the principle.

Dom iNut (donut), Saturday, 28 January 2006 03:42 (twenty years ago)

[this is where the Alexander/homo-clapping jokes begin again]

Dom iNut (donut), Saturday, 28 January 2006 03:44 (twenty years ago)

Now he can clap like a homo w/o ph3ar

Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Saturday, 28 January 2006 03:49 (twenty years ago)

Um, am I to understand from this that in some (most?) of the US you *can* discriminate at work on the grounds of sexual orientation??? ie, fired/refused work for being gay?

Thats been illegal in aus for years :/

Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 28 January 2006 05:58 (twenty years ago)

yep, sexual orientation is not a protected class in a lot of places. i knew a woman in tennessee who worked for a public housing authority and wouldn't keep pictures of her girlfriend on her desk for fear her supervisor would figure it out and sack her. that's the kind of "special rights" that right-wing gay bashers are always warning about, the right to not get fired for having a picture of your girlfriend on your desk.

anyway, good job washington.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 28 January 2006 06:53 (twenty years ago)

Here are the states that already have anti-discimination legislation -- some of which may vary slightly from state to state, but the principle is there:

* California
* Connecticut
* District of Columbia
* Hawaii
* Illinois
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Minnesota
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New Mexico
* New York
* Rhode Island
* Vermont
* Washington state (as of this coming Tuesday)
* Wisconsin

It's worth noting that a good chunk of the U.S. population is covered in these states... and while there may not be legislation in other states, surely a LOT more bigger cities have referendums banning discrimination... even in a lot of "red" states.
Seattle has had anti-discrimination-per-sexual-orientation laws many years before this, for example. This now helps stamp it state-wide.

These state laws mainly just fortify the principle of anti-discrimination, as well as help those who are closetted to survive who happen to live in less gay-friendly, more rural spots in the above states... which is important, no matter how little the population of gay people getting unchained is.

Note that this law works for straight people who are turned down in a predominantly gay business (that has more than eight people) as well, just because he or she is straight.

(On the flip, anti-discrimination laws unfortunately doesn't stop discrimination altogether, unfortunately, no matter how liberal the city is... managers can always find ways to B.S. their decisions)

Dom iNut (donut), Saturday, 28 January 2006 07:30 (twenty years ago)

this thing was shot down in Oregon last year due to the republican head of the state House refusing to let it come up for a floor vote, IIRC...

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 28 January 2006 07:32 (twenty years ago)

STOP
TIM
FUCKING
EYMAN!...

http://www.43things.com/things/view/509650

(While you're at it, I highly recommend browsing through 43places.com, 43people.com, and allconsuming.net.. all Robot Co-op related websites that I feel are going to be a great peripherals for profile sites.. far more external and "wiki"-ish than, say, the more "me me" profile style of MySpace.. which isn't bad, mind you, but has limits that 43*.com sites don't have.. and vice versa, of course. Anyway...)

For those outside WA state: in brief... yeah, Washington state just passed its sexual orientation civil rights bill as stated above. (Seattle, Tacoma, and other bigger cities had such city laws in place for years. But now that kid in Yakima or Richland doesn't have to hide his/her picture of his/her S.O. at the desk at work.) Race, religion, physical handicaps, and other "born with"/"forced to have" factors were already there.

Tim Eyman has been known primarily as an anti-tax initiative crusader, having passed several initiatives to prevent city developments from occurring.. many of which could have been important developments. His motto was once "cutting the pork from Olympia." Very Libertarian friendly stuff.

Well, now that his profile has been ignored and slightly tainted, he's now going back to his roots, he's hoping to make money selling his initiative lobbying powers to reverse the sexual orientation civil rights bill that just passed. Essentially, he's just flipped to bird to Libertarians and is now saying he can make more money being the intiative guy to the Religious Right in this state.

I never supported any Eyman initiative based on principle: he carved a niche exploiting the voter initiative process in this state as a means of making money... Now that he's doing this for the Religious Right (i.e. the bigotted organized institutions, not most churches and Christians who would otherwise not have problems with sexual orientation rights), he's twice as scummy to me, and I feel like I want to actually act on making sure these initiatives don't pass.

(For Oregon folks: Eyman has transmogrified from being a slick Bill Sizemore type to now being a monster hybrid of that and a 50-foot Lon Mabon from hell.)

It's early, and I don't know how to act on this yet. But if you visit the URL above, and add your profile to the 43*.com sites, we can potentially contribute and discuss ideas on my intended goal (mainly if you're in WA state.)

Dom iNut (donut), Thursday, 2 February 2006 20:24 (twenty years ago)

texas sadly just takes legislative steps backwards. :(

Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Thursday, 2 February 2006 20:36 (twenty years ago)

It may not technically be *illegal* to discriminate based on sexuality or anything else, but it can be seen as harassment and a company can get sued for terminating/mistreating an employee based on sexuality, gender, race, religion, etc... "Protected Class" is not important in these cases ....

Dave will do (dave225.3), Thursday, 2 February 2006 20:52 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.