Aaron Bowman to submit new HRO bill

[spuwho]

WOKV and WJCT are reporting that Aaron Bowman is going to submit a modified HRO to City Council.

http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-councilman-aaron-bowman-cosponsor-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill

[KenFSU]

MY MAN.

Get it passed, not because we're afraid we won't be able to host tHa bIg gAme, but because it's clearly the right thing to do.

[Tacachale]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

[Tacachale]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2012 versions).

[fsquid]

so what are the chances one gets passed?

[Tacachale]

so what are the chances one gets passed?

It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.

[spuwho]

so what are the chances one gets passed?

It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.

Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?

[Tacachale]

so what are the chances one gets passed?

It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.

Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?

The ones I know of:

Solid Yes:
Tommy Hazouri (D)
Aaron Bowman (R)
Jim Love (R)
Joyce Morgan (D)
John Crecimbeni (D)
Garrett Dennis (D)

Solid No:
Bill Gulliford (R)
Doyle Carter: (R)
Matt Schellenberg (R)

Lori Boyer, Greg Anderson, and perhaps Anna Brosche are Republican maybes who may lean yes if there are protections for small businesses and religious entities. The other 3 Democrats, Reggie Gaffney, Reggie Brown, and Katrina Brown, are also under intense scrutiny to support, due to the embarrassment of 2012 when 3 Democrats voted no (under pressure from a Democrat mayor). However, the organized opposition hasn't gone anywhere, so getting a majority is still an uphill fight.

[Tacachale]

so what are the chances one gets passed?

It depends. Three signed on to co-sponsor today (Bowman, Hazouri, and Jim Love). They need 10 to pass Council and go on to the Mayor, 13 to be veto-proof. There are reportedly 8 solid yeses and 6 solid no's, the rest are swing votes, and the ones the supporters will need to convince.

Anyway to know the list of yes, no, swing members?

The ones I know of:

Solid Yes:
Tommy Hazouri (D)
Aaron Bowman (R)
Jim Love (R)
Joyce Morgan (D)
John Crecimbeni (D)
Garrett Dennis (D)

Solid No:
Bill Gulliford (R)
Doyle Carter: (R)
Matt Schellenberg (R)

Lori Boyer, Greg Anderson, and perhaps Anna Brosche are Republican maybes who may lean yes if there are protections for small businesses and religious entities. The other 3 Democrats, Reggie Gaffney, Reggie Brown, and Katrina Brown, are also under intense scrutiny to support, due to the embarrassment of 2012 when 3 Democrats voted no (under pressure from a Democrat mayor). However, the organized opposition hasn't gone anywhere, so getting a majority is still an uphill fight.

In the news this afternoon, Anderson said he supports the principal of a fully inclusive HRO, but is withholding judgement on this bill until reading what it says. It further sounds like the need for some bill or another is registering with the other business Republicans on Council.  As expected, transgender protections are a hangup for some, as they were the last 2 times. Curiously, the Democrats have been pretty quiet.

[Adam White]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

[Tacachale]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

Sorry, I don't follow.

[Spitfire]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.

[Tacachale]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.

is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?

Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes.  They just aren't.

Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?

Because it will prevent discrimination in a lot of cases.

[Spitfire]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.

is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?

Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes.  They just aren't.

Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?

I think you mistook what I meant. It feels like our local opponents to the HRO don't seem to realize that there are protections in place for many of the examples that they bring to City Council chambers as reason to deny the HRO. They would just rather perpetuate lies than actually sit down and read the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v Hodges or other basic laws that are already in place.

I bring up that ruling because, as laid out in Obergefell v Hodges, pastors/churches STILL have a constitutional right to not be compelled by a court to solemnize, host, or perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Even with that laid out there and other places, one of the biggest lies that is spread concerning equality laws, on the opposing side, is that those same pastors or churches will be forced to marry LGBT couples. It's just blatantly untrue, but the rhetoric still goes on because of the belief that those pastors/churches could be forced to marry or counsel gay couples. 

The same goes for small businesses when it comes to the under 15 employees law, as the same ruling that they are using for the HRO is across the board for Title VII and ADA. I'm with you that local laws shouldn't be modeled after federal statutes. However, when it comes to the under 15 employees, it's not just federal but Florida state law, as well. I agree with you on the fact that's where we'll see more discrimination, but the effort would have to be put in at our state level to get that changed.

If you look at this link from Workplace Fairness (it is the same one that I linked earlier), you can see that Florida shares the 15 and under with the federal government, but there are also states like California that reduce it to 5, Connecticut to 3, Alaska to 2, and there are even a few, like Hawaii, that don't have a minimum at all. So it can be modified, but we need some dedicated folks to help push and get it done.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/minimum#

[Tacachale]

Great news. FWIW, Bowman is cosponsoring along with Tommy Hazouri.

Its the non inclusive hro, apparently.

According to what I've heard and what's been reported in the media, it's fully inclusive of transgender people. However, it will have more exemptions for religious entities and small businesses than last year's version (but fewer than the 2014 versions).

Honest question: what's the point of passing a non-discrimination ordinance if it has loopholes that allow discrimination? On the one hand, I can see some protection as being better then none. But on the other hand, I see it is legitimizing some forms of discrimination.

It really doesn't have loopholes in the way you're probably thinking, but reiterates what is already stated via federal law since many opponents can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that what's being added won't affect their churches, small businesses, etc.

is 'federal law' a magical phrase for you?

Local laws are not modeled after Federal Statutes.  They just aren't.

Why on earth pass an anti discrimination law that doesnt prevent any discrimination?

Because it will prevent discrimination in a lot of cases.

In all honesty, what would you say are five examples?

I literally cannot think of any.

discrimination of this sort is forbidden on federal and military property. Most national corporations already have the policies in place. Churches are exempt, and small business with less than 15 full time employees are exempt.

What are the top five things that this bill would prevent?

I can name five businesses that would have to change their hiring policies, if they haven't already. These are randomly selected from a list of employers from my old office:

WW Gay
Unison Industries avionics
Peninsular Pest Control
Wingard Creative
Acamas Civil Engineering