Posted on 04/03/2015 7:43:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BISMARCK – For the third time in six years, North Dakota lawmakers have killed legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, despite warnings from some Democrats and Republicans that it could tarnish the growing state’s image and attract backlash similar to what Indiana and Arkansas have faced in recent days.
Kevin Tengesdal, a gay U.S. Navy veteran from Bismarck who had testified for the bill and helped fill the House balcony in support of it Thursday, brushed away tears and hugged fellow supporters outside the chamber after the vote.
“It was disheartening. When can our voice be heard?” he said.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, said the state should have at least established protections in the areas of housing and employment.
“I’m concerned that we have missed an opportunity to affirm what North Dakotans already believe, which is that discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation is not acceptable,” he said in a statement.
House lawmakers spent about 90 minutes debating Senate Bill 2279, which passed the Senate 25-22 in February and would have added sexual orientation to state law that already protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability or status with respect to marriage or public assistance. Complaints would have been investigated by the state Department of Labor and Human Rights.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, who carried the bill from the House Human Services Committee with an 11-2 do-not-pass recommendation, said the committee listened to a lot of testimony on the “perceived” idea that discrimination is rampant in North Dakota, but “did not receive any testimony that showed any outright discrimination going on.”
“If we’re going to add this as a protected class, we need to be sure that we’re solving a problem,” he said.
That drew a sharp response from Democrats, who referred to the more than 20 people who testified in favor of the bill, including some who traveled across the state to share stories of being mistreated at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Rep. Joshua Boschee, D-Fargo, a bill sponsor and the state’s first openly gay lawmaker, said that while the discrimination may not be blatant, “We know that it’s happening.
“People have testified that it’s their religious right to do so,” he said. “So what more evidence do we need to say that we need a path for people to visit with their government and say, ‘This happened, will you help me out?’ ”
Twenty-one states, including neighboring Minnesota, have laws protecting workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Boschee noted that two more – Indiana and Arkansas – are moving toward similar protections amid a storm of backlash over their religious-freedom legislation that business leaders and civil rights groups worry would further discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
A dozen Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bipartisan bill, including Rep. Thomas Beadle, R-Fargo, a bill sponsor. He said many large employers and prominent businesspeople in North Dakota backed the legislation, fearing its defeat would send a message that the nation’s fastest-growing state “is only open to some.”
“And while we can see the backlash in Indiana, the mere perception of LGBT discrimination will have negative consequences for our state,” he said.
House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, opposed the bill, saying existing state law provides sufficient protections and the bill’s definitions were too vague and would have unknown consequences for businesses.
“I think there’s an unending list of ramifications for doing this,” he said.
Assistant Minority Leader Corey Mock, D-Grand Forks, who called the issue “the discrimination movement of our generation,” requested Thursday that the bill be divided into two parts.
That required House members to vote separately on banning discrimination in public accommodations and services – a concern raised by bill opponents who worried that business owners would be forced to provide goods and services counter to their religious beliefs – and in housing, employment, credit transactions and brokerage services.
The House defeated the public accommodations division 30-61, with three members absent or not voting. The second division failed 35-56, defeating the bill as a whole.
The margin was close to the House’s 34-54 vote that killed a similar bill in 2009 after it had passed the Senate 27-19. Two years ago, the Senate rejected a similar bill 21-26.
Boschee said Thursday’s defeat was frustrating, but he predicted the legislation will keep coming back in future sessions until it passes – a sentiment shared by Rep. Kathy Hawken, R-Fargo, who said the emails she received from constituents were 4-to-1 in favor of the bill.
“It will happen. It is a matter of when,” she said.
Republicans who will stand up to the gaystapo are as scarce as hen’s teeth.
Memories Pizza was a Bridge too far.
Yeah, the multi-billion dollar North Dakota convention industry might take one in the jowls over this.
Another reason to hate Notre Dame and which frat is that powerful?.
Oh, the other ND, my bad.
I remember years ago we were talking about nothing in particular on the Catholic group on usenet. I remarked that (I didn't know if we had discrimination laws about housing or anything except blacks because they were first) I wouldn't ever own rental property because I would refuse to rent to gays.
Several gays or sympathizers showed up (I think they troll comment boards and call in reinforcements) and flamed me.
So years later my granddaughter got refused a rental property because she was not married to her boyfriend, the landlord gave that as the reason. She told me about it, I don't approve of it but when it's somebody you love it makes it a real sticky wicket.
But she opted not to sue or make a fuss about it, just told me. Some years later we had to find her a new place to rent because of some violence at her old place. The landlord-to-be made no bones about informing us that the former occupants had been gay. I don't know why he felt a need to tell us that.
My granddaughter wanted the place, and he held it for her for a couple months until she could come up with the deposit. She looks like a nice girl almost anyone would want to rent to. But they check your credit record now, at least some, and they can discriminate against you based on that.
Now I had a Jewish friend who lived in about a 12-plex that had been almost taken over by gays. He is a liberal politically but he said he had to move away from there because they kept doing stuff in the halls at all hours.
From that description, the existing law is stupid and intrusive enough to destroy most states right there. The folks in ND must be made of strong stuff.
Say, if you don't feel welcome at work or in a neighborhood, first of all, welcome to real life for everyone, not just the Special Peoples of the Protected Classes. I've got a brilliant solution that works every time: GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. It's a big country out there. Worst case, if you can't find a job, you can thumb a ride to San Francisco.
Thanks for the memories “pizza” !
Make no mistake, squishy moderates saw what happened with memories pizza and grew a spine.
Most will go squishy on something or another. I know little of Dalrymple.
Thank goodness the State House is more conservative than the Governor and the State Senate.
“WHEN CAN OUR VOICE BE HEARD?” Seriously? It’s all we hear. It’ in our faces on tv and in the media. What is the phrase? THE LOVE THAT CAN’T BE SPOKEN IS NOW THE LOVE THAT WON’T SHUT UP.
As a mental disease, homosexuality is already covered in ND’s law.
North Dakota, one notch up in my book.
When 3% of disturbed Americans demand that the other 97@ capitulate to their perverted opinions.....Gay marriage ???...Gay adoption??? PATHETIC
That wording is vague. A law like that would protect pedophiles and zoophiles too.
One thing is clear. Dalrymple has to go.
Proclaim it "nuisance legislation" and ban it from submission, as a freedom of legislators from being pestered by these time-wasters.
Eliminate all “protected classes”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
