The City Council voted 12-0 for a resolution by Councilor Tito Jackson (Roxbury) to block city workers from traveling to Indiana on official business due to its new law allowing companies to discriminate against lesbians and gays.
The council passed a similar resolution related to Arkansas - even as that state's governor was vetoing a similar law.
The resolutions go to Mayor Walsh.
"I don't believe money from the residents of the city of Boston should be expended in those states while these laws are on the books," Jackson said.
"I'm proud to stand in the state of Massachusetts, where you can marry anyone you want to marry," he said. "I'm proud to stand in the city of Boston, which had a mayor, in Mayor Menino, who took on organizations who didn't accommodate the people we know and love. ... It's incumbent upon us to actually defend the things we believe."
City Councilor Josh Zakim (Fenway, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Mission Hill) strongly supported the measures.
"I strongly share [Jackson's] outrage and, I think, the outrage of millions of Americans" at the Indiana law, Zakim said, adding he found it "troubling in this day and age that we're fighting battles like this."
"In the year 2015, in the United States of America, we need to say we are open to business for everybody," he said.
Councilor Matt O'Malley (West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain) agreed with Jackson and Zakim on the "odious" Indiana law. "Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana, ought to be ashamed of himself."
Councilor Steve Murphy (at large) left before the vote on Jackson's resolutions, which were not listed on the official council agenda and which were added to the agenda only at the end of the meeting.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Presuming this is on business
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:56pm
Presuming this is on business travel, not personal?
Yes, just business travel
By adamg
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:46pm
Councilors don't think city money should go to support states that discrimate.
Why
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:34pm
Are they flying via Indiana Air, or staying at The Indiana State Hotel. It's an empty gesture because one would have to assume that every private entity in the State supported this measure.
It's only going to hurt private business, many of whom don't support it. It would be like me hacking your webpage because you were domained in Indiana.
Big Gesture
By KellyJMF
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:10pm
If private entities that oppose the measure lose business because of it, they will get their state government to repeal the law. Or they will leave IN and AZ for more tolerant states.
See also, South Africa.
Welcome to the 21st century
By Lecil
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:33pm
The Supreme Court has made it clear through such rulings as Hobby Lobby and Citizens United that corporations are more important that individuals, and the buck is in fact almighty. The only way to effect political change is through the wallets of businesses.
And it's effective; the Governor of Arkansas has done an abrupt 180 after Walmart expressed some displeasure over that state's proposed "religious freedom" law.
I can dream
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:57pm
It would be nice if Marty doesn't sign off and scolds the Council for wasting the City's time.
Do you even live in the city?
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:35pm
As a resident I'm ok with this and don't think this is a waste of time or money. Grow up.
Are you looking for Marty
By TommyJeff
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:35pm
To be a half-term mayor?
They don't want our tax dollars being spent on official business in a state run by troglodytes.
I know you think it's a waste of time and with that we get to see your true colors.
But where's Marty?
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:03pm
Thank you to Councilor Jackson for this. But why isn't the Mayor leading on this issue? Too busy trying to shove the Olympics down our throats?
Guess you missed the
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:12pm
St. Patricks day parade.
Hooray for empty gestures
By Lunchbox
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:16pm
.
Hurrumph
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:32pm
Hurrumph!
I have to say this
By Boston_res
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:02pm
Seeing people type out "Hurrumph" or its variations, to me, is hilarious. I'd like to see this on a Uhub t-shirt.
quoth Mel Brooks
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:32pm
Gov. Le Petomane: I didn't get a "harumph" outta that guy!
Hedley Lamarr: Give the governor a "harumph"!
Harumpher: Harumph!
Gov. Le Petomane: You watch your ass.
THANK YOU!!
By MassMouse
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:10pm
I needed a bit of Mel Brooks to make me smile this afternoon!
Or maybe equally appropriate...
By moxie
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:09pm
Gentlemen, we must protect our phony-baloney jobs!
The question I have is this
By roadman
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:37pm
What useful networking and knowledge will the City of Boston potentially be deprived of by passing these resolutions?
Say an important national conference in (name any government dicipline) is being held in Indiana or Arkansas. Should city workers in the applicable field be denied the right to attend these conferences just because we happen to disagree with another state's ideology?
April fool, right?
By lbb
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:59pm
Bwaaaahahahahaha.
Explain please
By Tim
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:27pm
Or is that just arrogance fueled by ignorance? Why don't you think public health is important?
Is it better to give money to a Massachusetts bigot or a quality business in Indiana?
False dichotomy
By lbb
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:30am
I've got more than two choices.
Its only empty if you don't
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:41pm
Its only empty if you don't care about equality. The Indiana governor is already stepping back from his original statements on the law after Conneticut passed a similar ban and several companies and the NCAA expressed their problems with the discrimination this law is intended to legalize. So, similar bans have had an effect, so its not empty.
Let them
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:51pm
wallow in their ignorant bliss. It seems to be working out really well by conservative/libertarian standards.
City records in format compatible w/ text2speech screenreaders?
By theszak
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:43pm
>"Please send the Stenographic Records of Public Meetings of Boston City Council including March 25, 2015 and April 1, 2015 and after...
Is there an ADA requirement that Boston City Council records be available in a format compatible with text to speech screenreaders for vision impaired folks?...
You want Adam to do that?
By Waquiot
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:35pm
I mean, I don't think he has that pull.
*face palm*
By cybah
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:47pm
*face palm*
Poor cybah...
By E
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:43pm
Second *face palm* from him in the past couple of days.
It's OK. ((pats cybah on back)).
April 6th!
By Felicity
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 1:20pm
Michelle Wu told me that they will start pulling captions April 6th, and format them into a transcript.
Also, the disability commission has installed/ mounted 2 large TVs on the walls of the Ianella Chamber. WGBH provides captions.
Went to a hearing the other day, and everything worked beautifully.
WGBH Captioning needs the Client to supply an address for email.
By theszak
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 2:41pm
WGBH Captioning indicated all they need from the Client at City Hall is an address for email to send, as they do ordinarily after every production, the FullText of the Captions from the Webcast of the Public Meeting of Boston City Council.
Then the Client at City Hall would in turn make available the FullText of Captions for hard of hearing folks, tinnitis ringing in the ears, deaf, ESL English as Second Language folks, concussion recovery, stroke recovery folks, folks with cognitive difficulty, dyslexic, ADD attention deficit, elderly, folks in city neighborhoods far afield of City Hall, Hyde Park folks, Mattapan folks, Orient Heights folks, folks with difficulty to tolerate hard aggravating public seats of the Council Chamber, et al sidelined for lack of access to the Plain Text full Stenographic Record of the Public Meetings of Boston City Council
http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/mag/services/capti...
A City Contract for Captioning or whatever Memo for Captioning has been hidden contrary to the transparency ideal of new administration practices.
Doesn't MA technically have
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:38pm
Doesn't MA technically have the same sort of law?
Sort of
By adamg
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 2:50pm
But it only applies to government action - a school that wants to ban yarmukes and hijabs, say. And it's against state law to discriminate on basis of sexual orientation by non religious entities.
The Indiana law gave all private individuals and companies the right to discriminate against gays. That's a major difference and why Pence is now back pedaling in the face of economic boycotts.
Funny how these carnival barkers for freedom change their tune
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:16pm
when $$ enters the equation.
Where can I read about the backpedal?
By TiminCharlestown
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:46pm
Last I read, he was still defending it.
Yeah, true, it's not like the guy can give a straight answer
By adamg
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:39pm
Still: Gov. Pence wants clarifying legislation by end of the week, lawmakers still working.
Plus, Mass. has laws
By R Hookup
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:32pm
Plus, Mass. has laws protecting sexual orientation as a class. Indiana doesn't.
Tilting at windmills?
By Markk02474
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:03pm
Are there any examples of Indiana gays who wanted to patronize the business of some homophobes and were refused?
This is an actual question. I imagine some business owners want to ban gays in order for them to get the law written and passed. So, who are they? Shouldn't we boycott those businesses nationally?
http://www.abc57.com/story
By Dot net
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:18pm
http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-bus...
They didn't have actual people inquiring to be denied yet, but they are stating up front now.
Also, this type of bill was defeated in Florida, a few years back. Once a legislator proposed that businesses choosing to discriminate based on their religious beliefs be required to post who they wouldn't serve on the door, that was the end of that bill.
The issue is gay marriage then
By Markk02474
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:35pm
This pizza parlor is so upset over letting gays marry that they will refuse to cater gay weddings. That is such a crushing blow to equal rights. They probably don't even have arugula for a topping.
Well, no, it isn't
By lbb
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:56pm
...but I'm not surprised that that's your interpretation; after all, every media outlet has tried to frame this as, "So, if a florist didn't want to provide flowers for a gay wedding..." So it's not surprising that members of the public haven't thought it through any more thoroughly. The law states that a person (or corporation, those are people too y'know) may claim a religious exemption to a generally applicable law. It is not specific to gays and certainly not to "gay marriage", at least not in its language...but it is transparently catering to the "ew, gays are icky" throwbacks in Indiana.
That example is gay rights,
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:57pm
That example is gay rights, but it could be for anything that people claim their religion is against. It wouldn't be the first time christians claimed interracial marriage was against their beliefs. And it doesn't have to be gay marriage, it could be refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers at a restaurant, prominent republican/libertarian Rand Paul said that private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks, even if he wouldn't.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu...
So its about more than gay marriage. But I don't know why that isn't enough of a reason to find the law disgusting.
So......
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:14pm
Whats about the other 19 state, ahhh the Faux outrage.
Why is this now a HUGE issue, because the alphabet soup news networks like MSNBC brought to your attention?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
Even MA has a similar law protecting religious freedom.
*Note: Im in now way endorsing this law.
Nice talking points you got there
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:19pm
Did you, by chance, bother to read what that MA law and the Indiana Law says?
MA law says that GOVERNMENT can't discriminate (e.g. a school can't deny the right of students to religious head coverings or wearing crucifixes, etc.)
IN law says that I can kick you out of my restaurant because my religion says that I can't serve or be in contact with black people, gay people, or even willfully stupid people.
Original post updated
By adamg
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:36pm
With comments from three city councilors. Sorry I didn't do that initially: For some reason, my laptop doesn't work with City Hall WiFi, and filing a story on my phone is really painful, so I had to wait until I got home.
Propbably because
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:44pm
They're still using a 56k modem!
Update drivers
By cybah
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 6:04am
update the drivers and/or if you have an Intel Wireless Card, uninstall the Intel Wireless Pro software (but leave the driver). I think City Hall uses Cisco Meraki hardware, and it doesn't like Intel Wireless Pro very much (or the software at least)
OR we need to show you how to use your phone as a hot spot!
Yep, that could be it
By adamg
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 1:59pm
And I'll try reinstalling the drivers. Wicked Free and the BPL system are the only WiFi system I have trouble with, too, grr.
Private Industry is Taking the Lead
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:45pm
I don't know how much business MA has in Indiana, but I do know that my .org and others are being clear about not holding conferences there - and some are even being moved.
This is for similar reasons to why my .org won't take its conferences to Arizona: we don't want our attendees being harassed. In Arizona, it was their illegal enforcement of their own home-made immigration laws that made us wonder if our visiting scientists from around the world would be harassed. In Indiana, it is people who are gay or might be accused of being gay.
These are good places to stay away from if you don't want your employees or people attending your events to be harassed.
Does anyone know of
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:47pm
The last time a Councilor traveled to IL or AK?
What does Alaska have to do with this?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:07pm
You mean AR?
Or Illinois
By roadman
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:01pm
for that matter. You also mean IN.
Religious freedom our first freedom
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:06pm
Pages
Add comment