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
Huh
By Michael
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:09pm
Never would have pegged you as a Clinton fan
Bill Clinton signed this law
By Dot net
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:34pm
Bill Clinton signed this law to prevent the government from interfering w/ American Indians who used small amounts of peyote, a controlled substance, in their religious ceremonies. It was originally crafted to only prevent the government from messing with people's free practice of religion, within reason.
It was never intended for corporations or people to use this law to claim that they have the right to deny service to people due to their religious beliefs. Once the law became used for this discriminatory purpose, other states that had passed this law explicitly outlawed discrimination by service providers, as did the federal government, by executive order. Except Indiana, which just passed their own right to religious freedom law.
So nice try. Context matters. Today is not the same environment as over 20 years ago, and neither is the intent of this law.
Drugs and Religion
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:45pm
They go together! Check out this new Cannabis Church in Indiana: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/w...
Poor Fishy
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:33pm
Pining for them good ol' days with the good ol' boys at the lunch counter, before those black agitators ruint everything!
If it truly was the same as
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:39pm
If it truly was the same as the Federal Law signed by Clinton, there would be no need for the Indiana state law. That alone shows they are not the same. Secondly, all men are created equal is in the first sentence of the declaration of independence, which precedes the constitution. This law seems to think otherwise, that some are not as equal.
I agree with your sentiment, but...
By lbb
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:34am
...the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. It's a historical document of principle (with some principles conspicuously absent), but in no way legally binding.
Wait, that (expletive) is a Republican?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:09pm
Funny, I thought Republicans understood markets.
???
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:21pm
The Clinton administration cleaned up the deficit that Reagan left behind, and then some.
Not sure what your head is up this time.
The dot.com bubble disagrees
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:11pm
The dot.com bubble disagrees with you.
Since FDR's New Deal the exponentially expanding federal government has had no interest in balanced budgets and repaying the national debt.
What on earth...
By lbb
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:37am
...does "the dot.com bubble" have to do with the federal deficit?
Moving goalposts in 3...2...
Myth
By Doug1001
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 11:40pm
I guess it depends what color glasses you have on....
So Stevie Murphy was too
By anon
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 4:49pm
So Stevie Murphy was too scared to vote, so he just booked it out of there? A real hero, like good ol' scotty brown who hid in the restroom to avoid taking a stance.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/scott-brown-hides-i...
I would cut him some slack
By adamg
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:23pm
As I mentioned in the post, the two resolutions were not on the official agenda and came up at the very end (which is common for agendaless items).
As long as the topic isn't pre-1974 racism, Murphy actually has a decent civil-rights record and I would guess he had somewhere else to be and didn't know about Jackson's resolutions.
I have to say I really
By Whit
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 5:31pm
I have to say I really appreciate the City Council's effort to do something whether it's a little bit of an empty gesture or not.
Original PlainText Steno Record. Today's Council Public Meeting.
By theszak
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:21pm
Request your own original copy of the PlainText Stenographic Record of today's April 1, 2015 Public Meeting of Boston City Council at
http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=12
Question for the legal types
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:24pm
Say the City sends a worker to Indiana to attend a conference.
Say that worker is harassed by some 'phobes who cite their religious freedom as an excuse.
Is the City of Boston liable for putting a worker into a situation where harassment is possible? Would that worker have recourse under MA law?
IANAL, but the worker is
By R Hookup
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:40pm
IANAL, but the worker is considered on city business just about the entire time on a trip for business purposes.
Could the worker sue... sure, but he/she is covered by other policies while "at work" like workers compensation. Might it be considered negligent of the city, maybe, but that seems to be a bit of a stretch... it's not Mogadishu.
I doubt it.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:12pm
Harrasment would be a crime in Indiana regardless, and I think everyone is looking at this law the wrong way and it should work itself out. Once a court rules (and it should rule), that marraige isn't a religious institution, then the businesses in Indiana won't be able to refuse gay couples from services. There are also going to be exceptions and special cases that courts are going to have to look at on an individual basis.
The Massachusetts Law also has many exceptions. Before my time, there was a Hasidic or Conservative Jewish man who became a police officer. He had requested not to work on Saturdays because of his religion, and wear his hair and beard in a style contrary to the rules and regulations of the department. I don't remember the particulars, but he was not allowed to do either. I'm not sure if he fought it and lost, or if there was already case law across the country that had established the governments right to restrict certian religious freedoms. I do know the beard issue has been ruled in favor of departments (the government) over religious freedoms though.
I'm going to guess that this Indiana law will go forward, but people should still have the right to sue for damages if they feel their civil rights are violated. This will at least put businesses at the whim of a judge to decide. Since there will be so many special circumstances, I don't see how any other way is possible.
I don't think you get what I asked
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:22pm
First of all, this isn't JUST about being gay - this would also apply to the sort of harassment where a gay person or black person or a jewish person would be forced to leave a restaurant.
That IS harassment - only it is LEGAL harassment in Indiana. If somebody's MA job put them in such an environment, then they may have a case in MA against their employer.
And if you say that somebody being forcibly removed from a business due to their "non pure" nature, be that being black, gay, jewish, whatever, isn't harassment, then what the hell is?
Harrasment is still different than refusing a service though..
By Pete Nice
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:31pm
It may be semantics, but you are probably thinking of violating someone's civil rights, not harrassment.
I'm not sure anyone in Indiana would be able to get away with refusing a black or Jewish person service either. If you did refuse service to one of those groups claiming some sort of religious exemption, it would probably not pass any sort of test that I assume even Indiana courts would rule unconstitutional.
For instance, if here in Massachusetts, you owned a store and refused service to a black man and said your religion says blacks are not equal, you wouldn't be sued under any sort of harrassment statute.
It's legal in MANY states
By lbb
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:45am
It's legal in most states in the US. In most US states, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is perfectly legal in areas of employment, housing, or public accommodation, It is discrimination (not harassment as you say), but it is legal, because in most states sexual orientation is not a protected category.
SURPRISE!!!
No surprise
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:54am
I was also talking about the fact that the Indiana law makes it possible to discriminate against a wide range of people, while hiding behind religion.
It isn't ONLY about sexual orientation.
SURPRISE.
Except current Indiana law
By R Hookup
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 11:32am
Except current Indiana law protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin. Sexual orientation is legal to discriminate against now, under Indiana law, no religious exemption needed.
Purpose of the law is to create....
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 12:22pm
... a conflict with federal law, which can be used to attack federal gay anti-descrimination laws and regulations -- and ultimately take the issue to the Supreme Court (andaalso to help raise campaign funds for far right wing candidates). It looks like this was prepared and disseminated by ALEC (given the fact that it has sprouted up in near identical form in several states) -- it really is part of a broader agenda -- not a bona fide attempt to "defend religious freedom" (unlike the original RFRA, which was intended to undo a Sup. Ct decision which held that it was okay to send American Indians to prison for using tiny amounts of peyote in their religious ceremonies).
Never gonna happen
By lbb
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:40am
Never gonna happen. No one will waste their time bringing such a case. Why? Because almost everyone in America believes, erroneously, that marriage IS a religious institution, and specifically that their religion owns the definition of marriage. Of course it's transparently nonsense -- human beings were getting married long before any religion you can name existed -- but they believe it.
Serious Curiosity
By Suldog
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 9:56am
Can you cite proof of this? I think it would make an interesting read.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
So, let's see if I have this right
By CraigInDaVille
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 9:48pm
When it comes to avoiding spending city money in another state, the council (and mayor, presumably) are ready to act within a week and unanimously.
When it comes to avoiding spending city money on John Fish's ego project by allowing non-binding ballot questions on this November's ballot to gauge public interest, there is silence and stalling.
Where are their priorities? In Boston, or in Indianapolis?
Well
By Waquiot
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 11:06pm
If they waited 6 months to act on this new law, the momentum for the boycott kind of will have passed. Therefore, immediate action is warranted (and this written by someone who doesn't agree with the action, but still.)
As for the Olympics, not a penny of public money has been spent (so far), so the government really has nothing to do with that until (1) Boston is selected or (2) they need money for someone. They can in fact wait until this fall or even the fall of 2016 to act on that.
Correction
By CraigInDaVille
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:03am
While the city hasn't made huge investments as of yet, to say the "not a penny of public money has been spent (so far)" is absolutely false. The city has hosted three meetings so far, all after hours, so they have, at the very least, spent money on staffing those.
Then there are costs associated with submitting the bid itself, which included, by the mayor's own admission, city attorney review of the bid (although he still won't answer whether he actually read the bid, which is surprisingly underreported: http://baystateexaminer.com/has-marty-walsh-ever-r...).
These are just two examples I've pulled out of my head that are public. If you don't think there is other city worker time being allocated on a daily basis to this issue, then you have a wonderful sense of naivete that I wish my cynical self could have wrt this issue.
So while we're not talking big money so far, I'd say it's on par with sending a city worker to Indy for a conference for a week.
And my argument is that they should act to move this onto the ballot for *this fall* as you note, because if we wait for the tablets from Mt. Sinai of Boston2024 in November 2016 the bid process will be that much further along. And by that point, city money will DEFINITELY have been spent.
Not to mention the $250K the state
By roadman
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 4:51pm
has committed to hire an outside consultant to do an "independent and unbiased" review of the City's bid to the USOC.
State money
By Waquiot
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 6:37pm
Start griping at the General Court when they start meddling in Indiana politics. My property taxes are not going to that particular review.
But MY state tax dollars
By roadman
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 9:37am
(and yours as well) ARE going to fund that review. And I raised the point in response to the previous comment about public funds being used for the Olympic bid, so it is relevant.
However
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 4:06pm
Craig was commenting on the swift action of the Boston City Council, so I am only looking at Boston
Sunk costs
By Waquiot
Thu, 04/02/2015 - 6:36pm
The facilities for the meetings already existed, and the staff working on meeting ( along with the law department) are salaried, so unless they hired staff for the Olympics, you are talking pennies from the budget.
Still A Cost, Though, Right?
By Suldog
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 10:06am
Even if it is "pennies", it is still an expenditure.
Sorry, but I hate "It's only such-and-such out of a huge budget" arguments as justification for spending. It's usually (although I'm not saying you necessarily meant it this way) an argument designed to make someone feel like a miser and a cheapskate, emotionally-fueled.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Barely a cost
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 4:18pm
Photocopying, electricity for the rooms along with heat, assuming the meetings were in otherwise closed buildings.
I welcome people to offer other costs born by the City with these meetings, but it's definitely been less than the cost of, say, a special election.
Agreed that it's not huge money now
By CraigInDaVille
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 11:16am
My point is it's probably as much as the city might spend to send a staff person to a conference in Indiana. Which is what they were making a stand against.
The issue is that the council was ready to take a quick and unanimous position with regards to city funding when it didn't really matter and wasn't really going to impact anything or anyone directly.
But when it comes to at least gauging their own voters' interest (non-binding, mind you) in a project that could be the single-greatest expenditure of discretionary city money over the next decade-- silence and stalling.
It just looks weak. Weak in that they don't seem to take their fiduciary responsibility to the residents of their city seriously, and weak for Boston2024 because I'm pretty sure they're being pressured to hold off because the vote (non-binding) would be a resounding defeat for the bid.
Meanwhile, my own city just across the river has to now think about setting aside decades of planning and community engagement on major developments to possibly deal with an ego-project that they had nothing to do with. Boston took a "bold stance" by forcing this on everyone, but now won't take the "bold stance" to see if their own citizens want it.
Weak.
What would the vote be on?
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/03/2015 - 4:13pm
Do we think the Olympics are cool? (good chance of winning)
Are we willing to write a blank check to the IOC? (good chance of losing)
I'm neither a Boston2024 hater nor booster. I'd like to know what the deal is, exactly. There should be hearty debate on this. My social conservativism aside, I see the idea of the quick vote on boycotting Indiana, and overwhelming support for the position. Remember the first poll on the Olympics? Not quite reflecting of the denezins of Universal Hub. Should that be the poll we accept, or the poll taken after the meltdown of the T? At that, a third of Bostonians still support bringing the games here.
Pages
Add comment