Metro passes non-discrimination ordinance
Allie Diffendal
Issue date: 9/25/09 Section: News/Features
|
The first legislation of its kind in Tennessee, the non-discrimination ordinance (Bill No. BL2009-502) passed six years after a similar bill introduced by then Metro Council member Chris Ferrell was defeated by former Vice Mayor Howard Gentry in a dramatic tie-breaking vote.
Fortunately for Nashville's gay and lesbian community, this year's bill did not receive nearly the amount of criticism and stark opposition that its previous incarnation faced. According to the Nashville Scene, the 2003 non-discrimination bill incited courthouse protests and bigoted anti-gay commentary that generally created an environment that even the bill's killer labeled "one of the low points in our city's history."
However, passage of this year's ordinance was not without its share of antagonism from social conservative zealots.
This year's opposition surfaced in many forms - the introduction of a watered-down bill prohibiting discrimination based on "non-merit factors," evangelical e-mail campaigns warning of horrific ramifications, and in one Metro council meeting, council members' social conservative reasoning that homosexuality is an unhealthy "lifestyle choice."
Proponents of the enacted non-discrimination bill asserted that the competing bill based on "non-merit factors" (Bill No. BL2009-529) remained too broad to be legally applicable in its original form. Thus, at its second reading on Sept. 15, council member Phil Claiborne added "sexual orientation" and Erik Cole added "gender identity" to the language of 529. "If the sponsors of this bill want to include everything that's in 502," said Cole, "then all factors there should be included." The amended bill, co-sponsored by Claiborne and Sam Coleman, passed its second reading by a 28-11 vote.
E-mail campaigns against 502 conducted by the Tennessee chapters of the Rev. James Dobson's Family Action Council and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum flooded council members' inboxes with sensationalist inaccuracies. In one such e-mail, the organizations alleged that the ordinance would force people to use courthouse restrooms along with cross dressers, and it would require the city to pay for individuals' sex-change operations. Of course, the bill in question is strictly limited to employment practices; it merely prohibits the city from basing hiring, firing, or promoting decisions on a person's gender identity or sexual orientation.


Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Mark Zamen
posted 9/30/09 @ 1:09 PM CST
This is a very good post: accurate, succinct, and well expressed. The passage of this ordinance is a long overdue step in the right direction, for a large segment of society still regards gay men and women, among various minorities, as second-class citizens - or worse. (Continued…)
Post a Comment