Friday, February 13, 2015

House passes bill to protect gay discrimination

Posted By on Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:27 AM

click to enlarge 'RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY': Rep. Clarke Tucker said support for equality was unpopular in 2015, but would eventually be viewed in the same way as desegregation was viewed — the right thing to do.
  • 'RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY': Rep. Clarke Tucker said support for equality was unpopular in 2015, but would eventually be viewed in the same way as desegregation was viewed — the right thing to do.
The House today completed legislative action on Sen. Bart Hester's bill to protect the ability to legally discriminate against gay people. It passed 58-21, with seven voting present, but didn't muster the necessary votes for adoption of the emergency clause.

The bill prohibits local governments from extending civil rights protection to classes not protected in state law. It was a response to the Fayetteville civil rights ordinance that extended protection to LGBT people, who have no protection under state civil rights law. The ordinance was repealed in a referendum. The bill is meant to prevent any other city or county from protecting gay people.

Sponsors — Rep. Bob Ballinger in the House — presented the bill as a necessary means to avoid differences in the law from city to city.

Opponents included Rep. David Whitaker of Fayetteville who said cities should be allowed to run their own affairs. He said the system had worked in Fayetteville.

Rep. Clarke Tucker of Little Rock, in his first appearance in the well of the House as a freshman legislator, urged a vote against the bill for several reasons: He said the bill violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and he read from a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Colorado law aimed at preventing  laws extending equal rights to gay people. He said the state would pay to defend the bill and pay attorney fees for lawyers who brought suit to strike it down. It is bad for business, he said. Most Fortune 500 businesses have explicit policies that provide protection for LGBT employees. It sends a message that Arkansas doesn't equally value such workers, that it is "out of step with corporate culture." It takes away local control. Finally, he said, "It's fundamentally the wrong thing to do." He said the bill amounted to a "pro-active act of discrimination." He said his grandfathers had taken unpopular stands as school board members in support of school desegregation in Little Rock and Fort Smith. "They did what they did because they thought it was right. In hindsight, we know they were on the right side of history. I know it's unpopular in 2015, but I believe it's the right thing to do."

Rep. Warwick Sabin followed with a plea for protection for people who don't know enjoy it under the law.

Rep. Kim Hammer supported the bill, saying the Tennessee Supreme Court had upheld a similar law in that state. 

Rep. Mary Bentley said she wanted to get the truth out and not hide behind the LGBT acronym, she emphasized that the initials stood for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. She said a pastor shouldn't have to perform a marriage that went against his religious belief. (The Fayetteville ordinance wouldn't have done that.) She said a baker shouldn't have to fear having her business "destroyed" for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person.

The lack of an emergency clause gives the city of Little Rock time to do something, at long overdue last. Mayor Stodola? The bill, if signed by Gov. Asa Hutchinson (as it presumably will be), won't take effect until 90 days after the end of the session. In theory this provides time for a voter referendum. Needing a two-thirds vote, only 54 voted for the emergency clause. UPDATE: He hasn't said yet whether he'll sign it or simply allow it to become law, but Hutchinson has said he won't veto the bill.

UPDATE II: He will allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Here's the roll call.  No Republicans joined the  no votes, but enough voted present or didn't vote to narrow the margin substantially.

PS — Matt Campbell, the lawyer who writes Blue Hog Report, says Hammer (and Ballinger who made a similar statement) are wrong on legal precedent. There was a Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling in favor of a similar statute there, Campbell said, but only because the plaintiffs lacked standing, not on the merits of the argument.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Speaking of...

Comments (27)

Showing 1-27 of 27

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-27 of 27

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • In defense of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights

    An op-ed in today's New York Time by Katha Pollitt says what I've been struggling to say about the reaction to the attack on women's reproductive rights launched by means of the undercover videos made by anti-abortion activists.
    • Aug 5, 2015
  • Lawyers plead for mercy in Fort Smith forum shopping case

    Twelve of the lawyers facing punishment by federal Judge P.K. Holmes in Fort Smith for moving a class action case against an insurance company out of his court to a state court where it was speedily settled have filed their argument against sanctions.
    • Jun 16, 2016
  • Matt Campbell files ethics complaint against Dennis Milligan

    Little Rock attorney and blogger Matt Campbell, whose knack for deep research brought down Mark Darr, Mike Maggio and Dexter Suggs, now has his sights trained on another worthy target. Today, he filed a 113-page ethics complaint against state Treasurer Dennis Milligan that includes 14 separate allegations.
    • Aug 20, 2015

Most Shared

Visit Arkansas

Forest bathing is the Next Big Thing

Forest bathing is the Next Big Thing

Arkansas is the perfect place to try out this new health trend. Read all about the what, why, where and how here.

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation