Tennessee can now discriminate...

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
... on the basis of sexual orientation, and cities/counties are prohibited from passing ordinances that prevent discrimination.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...s-Metro-s-anti-discrimination-law?odyssey=mod

Gov. Bill Haslam has signed the bill reversing Metro's new nondiscrimination ordinance, dealing a blow to opponents who had mounted a campaign urging him to veto the bill.

Haslam signed the Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act, HB 600, Monday afternoon, a spokesman confirmed without additional comment. The bill effectively reverses an ordinance passed by the Metro Council that required contractors with the city to agree to follow Metro's rules barring discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgendered people.

The move comes despite an effort by opponents of the bill to convince Haslam not to sign the bill, which passed by a more than two-thirds margins in the Republican-led state legislature. Gay rights activists from across the country have been pushing companies to issue statements against with the legislation.

The campaign led the executive committee of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which had supported the bill while it was in the legislature, to reverse its position Monday.

"The Tennessee Chamber supports a standard regulatory environment at the state level as opposed to potentially conflicting local regulations covering employment practices," the executive committee said in a statement released late Monday.

"That principle was the only interest the Chamber had in this bill. Because (the bill) has turned into a debate on diversity and inclusiveness principles, which we support, we are now officially opposing this legislation in its present form."

A significant step backward for Tennessee, to be sure.

http://www.echelonmagazine.com/index.php?id=2156

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and Tennessee’s major businesses are united in opposition to SB 632/HB 600, which prohibits cities and counties from banning discriminatory practices by any means and passed the state legislature earlier this week. The bill, endorsed by the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, denies local units of government the opportunity to decide if discrimination is wrong. Clearly based in anti-LGBT sentiment, the bill comes after the city of Nashville passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Today, Tennessee’s largest businesses, including Alcoa, Federal Express, and AT&T have publicly stated their opposition to this discriminatory bill.

“This bill is not only discriminatory in nature, but also goes against the old Republican value that what’s good for business is good for the country,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “The fair-minded people of the Volunteer state are above anti-LGBT discrimination and so are the major businesses that call Tennessee home. We are happy to have these corporations join us in the call for fairness.”

Tennessee-based major corporations have made the following public statements in opposition to SB 632/HB 600:

Alcoa:

“Alcoa provides equal employment opportunity without discrimination and supports state and local legislation protecting the rights of all community members. We do not agree with the chamber on this issue and would ask that the governor veto the bill."

FedEx:

“FedEx values and promotes the unique contributions, perspectives, and differences of our team members worldwide. FedEx does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and is committed to diversity and inclusion in the workplace. FedEx did not lobby for SB632/HB600 – it is our policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While FedEx is a member of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, we do not support every position proposed by the Chamber.”

AT&T:

“AT&T does not support any laws or efforts that are discriminatory. AT&T does support the principals of ensuring that state and local laws are consistent, which is the stated purpose of HB 600/SB 632. However, the bill has become implicated in efforts to erode the rights of the gay community, which we do not support. AT&T has a long history and longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion, and its policies address diversity in areas including race, creed, religion, sex, and particularly sexual orientation. In fact, Diversity Inc. has ranked AT&T in its Top 10 Companies for LGBT employees, and we were honored to be recognized as one of the ‘2010 Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality’ by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. We are proud of our commitment to this community.”

Currently, more than 135 cities and counties have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with more than one-sixth of those cities and counties located in southern states.

HRC applauds the efforts of the Tennessee Equality Project, the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, and the City of Nashville to defend against this unwarranted state intrusion into local affairs. During the course of this campaign, HRC contributed $10,000 to support the Tennessee Equality Project and asked its members and supporters in the state to contact state lawmakers in opposition to the legislation.
 
Last edited:

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
A significant step backward for Tennessee, to be sure.
Actually a step forward. Protections are already in place and this bill prevents cities from telling private companies what their policies must be. This creates an environment that is consistent across the state.


Edit: This bill was is response to the city of Nashville for enacting the original ordinance.
The nashville bill set up companies doing business in there to be potentially subject to frivolous lawsuits. It was a poorly written bill.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Actually a step forward. Protections are already in place and this bill prevents cities from telling private companies what their policies must be. This creates an environment that is consistent across the state.

It's not a step forward at all. There are no state protections; sexual orientation/identity is not included in the THRA. Only the smallest scope of government (cities/counties) should have any legitimate ability to make rules in these matters... not the state.

Edit: This bill was is response to the city of Nashville for enacting the original ordinance.
The nashville bill set up companies doing business in there to be potentially subject to frivolous lawsuits. It was a poorly written bill.

Documentation?
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
materially misleading title

Not really. The only words I should add would be "continue to" as in "Tennessee can now continue to discriminate", because sexual orientation/identity is not included in the Tennessee Human Rights Act.
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Do you really want nothing but force of law stopping someone from discriminating against you?

I want to let people discriminate, I want to know who's racist, who's bigoted against homosexuals, or women etc. So I know not to give them a single cent of my money.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Well, you have to draw the line between "illegal discrimination" and freedom of association at some point.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Do you really want nothing but force of law stopping someone from discriminating against you?

I want to let people discriminate, I want to know who's racist, who's bigoted against homosexuals, or women etc. So I know not to give them a single cent of my money.

This x1000000. This is the reason why racism only endures where government force is involved (e.g. Jim Crow laws, Davis Bacon Act, and other similar laws passed by Democrats designed to hurt minorities).
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Do you really want nothing but force of law stopping someone from discriminating against you?

No, but I also don't want the state to decide whether cities/counties can make tougher anti-discrimination rules than what the state has.

I want to let people discriminate, I want to know who's racist, who's bigoted against homosexuals, or women etc. So I know not to give them a single cent of my money.

Consider who's behind this, Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) and one of their ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o2YGH8bacE ... If you don't support this bill, you're supporting pedophiles, because pedophiles = GLBT individuals. I find the motivation for this bill highly suspect.
 
Last edited:

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Not really. The only words I should add would be "continue to" as in "Tennessee can now continue to discriminate", because sexual orientation/identity is not included in the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

bullshit. They still can't discriminate you twit. There are already protections in place, blocking even further controls(and who knows how rigid) is not suddenly allowing it to happen.

... sheesh...
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
bullshit. They still can't discriminate you twit. There are already protections in place, blocking even further controls(and who knows how rigid) is not suddenly allowing it to happen.

... sheesh...

Look up the THRA. Sexual orientation is not in it.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
is there no article in the constitution, federal law, state law, or local law that states that discrimination based on sex, creed, sexual orentation and race is forbidden?
if there is, I don't see the problem.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
is there no article in the constitution, federal law, state law, or local law that states that discrimination based on sex, creed, sexual orentation and race is forbidden?
if there is, I don't see the problem.

There isn't.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
As a proprietor why shouldn't one be allowed to discriminate? Is it not a free country? Freedom of association and all that?

I don't mind gays at all. Have a good pharmacist friend that's gay. But I would not make his employer hire him if he did not want to.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
As a proprietor why shouldn't one be allowed to discriminate? Is it not a free country? Freedom of association and all that?

I don't mind gays at all. Have a good pharmacist friend that's gay. But I would not make his employer hire him if he did not want to.

I would agree, but this is a matter of the state imposing its anti-discrimination rules on cities/counties. The state dictating the discrimination policies of private companies is more egregious than cities/counties doing so.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Issue not found, the governor did the right thing. It doesn't make any sense to have a bunch of different and potentially conflicting local laws on this. I'm sure the lawyers were salivating at the thought of that.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Issue not found, the governor did the right thing. It doesn't make any sense to have a bunch of different and potentially conflicting local laws on this. I'm sure the lawyers were salivating at the thought of that.

It's not at all clear that it is within the state's rights to impose these changes on cities/counties.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Tennessee is a state. I don't see how this means "Tennessee" can discriminate ?
 

sonicdrummer20

Senior member
Jul 2, 2008
474
0
0
Fuck the faggots!



Infraction for homophjobic slur

Anandtech Admin
Red Dawn
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
So? You really think they are allowed to do so at the moment? Man you are dumb...

No, you're the one who's dumb. Right on Tennessee's Human Rights Commission website, it says that complaints cannot be filed for discrimination in either employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation.

And the title is still materially misleading and just flat out false.

Wrong.