State Human Rights Law Set A Floor To Protections, Not A Ceiling

  Hello All,

I am tired. Sick and tired. Sick and tired of hearing about states spreading an agenda of just asshattery all over the country. TN Rep. Glen Casada decided that gay and lesbian people shouldn't be covered by their municipalities and that companies shouldn't be forced to protect LGBT, and persons with disabilities from discrimination in its jurisdiction. So he came up with a bill called the Special Access to Discrimination bill which would void out those protections. NV GOP Rep has introduced a similar bill and MT's HB 516 is dead for the year. Most of those states don't have sexual orientation protections that are listed alongside race, creed, religion, national origin, etc.

It amazes me that some of these Republican led Legislatures will do whatever they will without the peoples' say so. Now, there are some things that the people shouldn't have a say in where it comes to peoples' civil rights. In CO, the Legislature is trying to pass a personhood bill that has been voted down not once but TWICE. But what I am going to talk about is simply this: State Human Rights Law don't set a ceiling for protected classes, they set a floor.

Protected statuses of race, gender, creed, religion, national origin, marital status, military status, etc--and in MO gun owners, are there to tell people that discrimination based upon these characteristics isn't lawful. Then let's say the city of Nashville, TN says: You can't discriminate on this basis. That person is bound by city law not to discriminate on that basis. Yet, they passed a bill called Special Access to Discrimination that said that the city can't use that when negotiating contracts, because that protection for them is no longer there. I believe there is a lawsuit pending in court that will overturn that law

So, human rights law set a floor not a ceiling simply because of the fact that in the case of localities they have an autonomy that is meant to coexist with the state. The state passes laws and the localities will too. Omaha, NE recently passed a law that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and a little while ago I remember Joe My God saying that a NV rep was introducing a bill to do what they had done in TN.

For a state to say that the localities can't provide protections beyond that of the state is unconstitutional primarily because it interferes with the ability of the locality to govern itself, but also because of the fact that in the very fact that in that scythe swipe, you can see that the state wants to primarily punish people who are not covered in writing under its laws, which makes this law in the words of Justice Kennedy in the Romer case "too broad and too narrow" I would venture to ask: What happens if I were fired because I was a gay black man working in MT and they didn't like me because I was black and then they fired me because I'm gay. I sue and then because of a law like this the judge decides that because a law didn't cover my sexuality, they were well within their rights, but overstepped the line because I'm black and race is covered under the law.

That's one of the points I wonder about.

Also, this is simply about overriding a law that the Legislators think shouldn't be on the books. This is comparable to Prop 8, which qualified the ballot before the CA Supreme Court decided on the merits of the In Re Marriage cases. I wonder also about why the Legislators feel that they HAVE to weigh in on this with a law that would not benefit anyone, but stigmatize an already oppressed minority--it's simple, to express moral disapproval.

I am sure that this Special Access law that the Gov of TN signed will be struck down, but with the way it passed in the House and Senate, that's very unlikely if the reported figures that Haslam cited is correct approx. 70%. I can't see any way that this could be constitutional at all since it doesn't do anything that they say might justify it such as: uniformity of laws across the state (which would then raise a question of: Why doesn't the state make all laws for localities) Conserving state resources to fight against discrimination for those already covered (That doesn't stand up because it would be burdened anyway by those who are not covered under state law) going to court for redress of grievances.

It is mind-blowing to say the least, but I am sure that at the end of the day, these bills, voter ID, forced ultrasounds, marriage equality repeal will become laughable lore

Laters yall!
Please Comment!