Aaron Bowman to submit new HRO bill

[remc86007]

I'm streaming the City Council meeting tonight 1/24/17. Lori Boyer mentioned that they were at fire capacity for city hall. Does anybody know how many people showed up for this, and roughly what the breakdown for and against is among the public?

[JaxUnicorn]

The Public Hearing will reconvene at 9:00 this morning.  At the time City Council recessed for the night, Lori Boyer shared the number of speaker cards FOR and AGAINST (I don't recall the exact number).

            FOR the HRO - over 500 speaker cards
   AGAINST the HRO - just under 200 speaker cards

And there were around 106 speaker cards left to be heard. 

I'm sure there were many more people there who did not turn in speaker cards....

[Tacachale]

The HRO bill is progressing. Bill Gulliford, council rep for the Beaches, filed a counter-bill that would have sent the matter to a referendum. This option is seen as the nuclear option of the anti-HRO side, as a referendum of this kind would divide the city, generate negative national press, and generally cast the city in the worst light. He proposed similar last year to thwart the last attempt at an HRO, which was subsequently shelved until last month. Apparently, Gulliford's proposal died in committee today and will not progress. This is fortunate, but it's hard to picture Gulliford in any positive light after this.

Several years ago, I served on a young professionals' advisory committee for Gulliford along with Ennis, Mike Field and several other Metro Jacksonville regulars, and I told him repeatedly how bad this idea was. It's disheartening that his startlingly strong desire to squash the HRO led him down such an objectively harmful path.

[Tacachale]

The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.

On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.

As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.

Get writing your council members, folks.

[FlaBoy]

The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.

On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.

As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.

Get writing your council members, folks.

And those are full time employees.

With the same wildly discriminatory religious exemption still included.

This HRO version may need to be throttled in the cradle.

50 employees would be both full time and part time on the books for 20 or more weeks during a two year window unless the amendment specifically states otherwise. That is the FMLA limit to provide further contect. Honestly, most small businesses hit with a suit, whether valid or not, have no choice but to settle because they can't afford the representation. Attorneys in the employment field see that every single day. I think the move is a good one and makes the point that we want LGBT peoples protected, but also protects small businesses from the litigation that comes. The other idea to limit frivolous litigation is to insert an attorney's fees provision to the prevailing party.

[Tacachale]

The HRO moved out of the Neighborhoods, Community Investments and Services Committee today, with a major new amendment. The hiring exemption for small businesses has been increased from 14 (the size for the exemptions for race, religion, gender, etc) to 50. That is, businesses would have to have 50 or more employees to be challenged for hiring discrimination.

On the other hand, Gulliford's ill advised referendum bill was roundly defeated, 6-2.

As for the 50 person amendment, it will be up to the future committees to reject or support it, until the final version is presented before the full council on Feb. 14.

Get writing your council members, folks.

And those are full time employees.

With the same wildly discriminatory religious exemption still included.

This HRO version may need to be throttled in the cradle.

50 employees would be both full time and part time on the books for 20 or more weeks during a two year window unless the amendment specifically states otherwise. That is the FMLA limit to provide further contect. Honestly, most small businesses hit with a suit, whether valid or not, have no choice but to settle because they can't afford the representation. Attorneys in the employment field see that every single day. I think the move is a good one and makes the point that we want LGBT peoples protected, but also protects small businesses from the litigation that comes. The other idea to limit frivolous litigation is to insert an attorney's fees provision to the prevailing party.

The idea of the *15 and under* exemption is to protect small business from frivolous suits they can't afford. 15 is the number used for all the other categories like religion, race and age. There's no legitimate reason to set it at 50 for this one area and not the others. Unless the HRO would fail without the amendment, it should be rejected outright.

[JaxNole]

Councilman Bowman stated businesses with no more than 15 full-time equivalents account for 80 percent of population. Any idea what the percentage drops to if the amendment stands?

[Tacachale]

The 50 employee exemption needs to go back to 15, but there's no need to "kill" the bill simply because it's not perfect. It's a good bill otherwise. No bill will pass without an exemption for religious organizations, that's just the reality of where we live.

[remc86007]

I don't understand why a weak bill is worse than no bill. I'd like it to be stronger, but if this gets the city over the threshold with fortune 500s considering relocation or expansion, at least it's a start.

[Tacachale]

The HRO bill is progressing. Bill Gulliford, council rep for the Beaches, filed a counter-bill that would have sent the matter to a referendum. This option is seen as the nuclear option of the anti-HRO side, as a referendum of this kind would divide the city, generate negative national press, and generally cast the city in the worst light. He proposed similar last year to thwart the last attempt at an HRO, which was subsequently shelved until last month. Apparently, Gulliford's proposal died in committee today and will not progress. This is fortunate, but it's hard to picture Gulliford in any positive light after this.

Several years ago, I served on a young professionals' advisory committee for Gulliford along with Ennis, Mike Field and several other Metro Jacksonville regulars, and I told him repeatedly how bad this idea was. It's disheartening that his startlingly strong desire to squash the HRO led him down such an objectively harmful path.

I misspoke here. Gulliford's substitute bill wasn't to allow a referendum, it was to change some of the wording, broadening which entities would be exempted by the religious exemption, and changing "gender identity" to "transgender identity". This was what the committee rejected. He did mention the threat of a referendum as happened in Houston, but did not advocate it. So, my apologies.

[CG7]

I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.

[FlaBoy]

I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.

What if you are a fine dining establishment who doesn't want to hire someone with purple hair and their face tattooed? What if you are a nudist, love nudity, and feel discriminated against by wearing clothes, but a business doesn't want to hire you for that reason? What about if you are really conspiratorial, won't stop talking about politics in the workplace (upsetting people) and listen to Alex Jones, and a business wants to fire you for your beliefs? What if you are a complete asshole to people in your office, but you are naturally just an asshole, and your employer wants to fire you? What if you are late to work but you are not a morning person and prefer night hours? What if you really hate the Yankees and you have someone apply for a job that won't stop talking about the Yankees? Can you discriminate against that? What if you are a store that caters to hipsters and you discriminate against preppy kids?

[Bill1234]

Please read about "rational basis", "intermediate scrutiny", "compelling state interest" and "police powers" before you post such a stupid straw man argument.

[KenFSU]

I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.

You can't take away the church folks right to judgement and hate.

[KenFSU]

I don't understand any legislation making it legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The bill should be short and sweet, NO ONE can discriminate against ANYONE for any reason.
Just treat everyone equally, it is a no brainer. Which of course is the issue, the people crafting the bill have no brains.

You can't take away the church folks right to judgement and hate.

But you can limit it.  The city has already proven that it doesnt handle organized and illegal discrimination in housing very well.  It is currently having to settle with the Feds in a pretty significant Fairness in Housing suit.

And that happened with the clear language of the statute there for anyone to read.

This is a poison pill, and needs to be stopped.

Amen, totally agree.