House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, introduced a bill Friday to add “sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” to the list of traits upon which businesses, unions and landlords cannot discriminate against people under Alaska state law.
The added language is needed to cover people who currently are not protected by anti-discrimination ordinances, Kerttula indicated Friday, shortly after her House Bill 139 was introduced on the floor of the Alaska House of Representatives.
“I don’t think you should discriminate against anybody for your viewpoints, or your biology, or your sexual orientation or your gender,” said Kerttula.
Kerttula also said that questioning Tuesday at a House minority caucus press conference about the caucus’ position on same-sex unions reminded her of the issue.
“I said, ‘Yeah, we need to put that bill back in and keep on top of it,’” said Kerttula of the discrimination legislation.
Kerttula introduced similar legislation in 2011, a year before a high-profile ballot initiative in Anchorage to add legal protections for residents on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Voters rejected the proposition in Anchorage last April, and Kerttula’s bill never advanced to a committee hearing.
Asked about Proposition 5’s failure at the ballot box in the state’s largest city, Kerttula said it was “still the right thing to do.”
Kerttula's previous bill, House Bill 165, did not include the language in H.B. 139 extending legal protections on the basis of gender identity and expression.
H.B. 139 has been referred to the House State Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, chairman of the State Affairs Committee, said Friday that he had not yet read the bill and could not comment on it in detail.
“I’m going to examine that,” Lynn said. “If she requests a hearing, we will undoubtedly hear the bill and take it up then.”
Lynn added, “We have to protect people’s rights. … I’m interested to hear what testimony’s heard on that, what other members of the committee have to say. And like every other bill, we’re going to consider it carefully and see what happens.”
Kerttula said she has not spoken to Lynn or the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Wasilla Republican Rep. Wes Keller, about the bill, but she said she plans to take it up with them and push for hearings.
“Maybe they won’t agree on the broader issue, which I would hope someday they would, but on this, it’s hard to understand how anybody would want discrimination, out-and-out discrimination, based on these things,” Kerttula said. “On an individual basis, I don’t think anyone’s … for discrimination.”
Keller was not available for comment Friday, according to his staff.
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 586-1821 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (72)
Add commentWhat does“sexual orientation,
What does“sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” mean?
So if pedophilia is considered a “ “sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” then does that mean I would have to rent my condo to a known pedophile?
Really?
@noroadfugtive- Yeah, because members of the legislature are *all about* enforcing pedophilia under the guise of civil rights....
Paper…isn’t pedophilia a
Paper…isn’t pedophilia a “sexual orientation”?
@noroad
Unfortunately for whatever far-reaching point you're trying to make, the English language doesn't simply allow you to assign new meanings to phrases based on the individual parts within the whole.
And even if it did: common
And even if it did: common sense.
noroad,
it's become a growing debate among medical professionals. Many out there do consider pedophilia a sexual orientation, because it's defined as a person's sexual attraction toward pre-pubescent young people. It's an "orientation" or "disorder" that if acted upon results in a crime with a victim however. Obviously you wouldn't have to rent to anyone who is a convicted pedophile/felon. If it's determined that pedophilia qualifies as a sexual orientation then you probably wouldn't be able to discriminate against someone who was openly attracted to young people and was not convicted of any crime.
To be honest, if it were ever possible to lower the stigma of pedophilia and have people be open about it, then you would know beforehand who not to let babysit or be around your kids. However, the stigma of pedophilia will never lessen for obvious reasons and pedophiles will only be outed under criminal circumstances and after a victim is prayed upon.
sexual orientation
implies consent, and under law indicates the legal age of consent---Trying to identify homosexuality with pedophilia has about as much validity as identifying it with bestiality: It is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of sexual orientation, and has no place in reasoned debate.
Just what we need
Gotta love the Demos! More and more rules, regulations, laws, etc. to stifle our businesses. How much will it cost to set up the agency that's going to investigate all this? No wonder our deficit continues to skyrocket while our private industries continue to decline. Oh well, move your business to China.
The Agency already is in place
It's called the human rights commission.
Good for Rep. Kerttula for reintroducing the bill
It will probably have to be re-introduced several more times before it finally passes.
And Banditrider, I really, truly hope you're not saying that we can only revive the economy if businesses are free to discriminate against LGBT people-the thing is, they're free to do that here now, so, by your logic, we should be in the middle of a hate-based boom.
But that new definition descriminates against me!
I am a man of faith, I "must" follow what the word of God tells me, my salvation depends upon it. You can not simply tell me that because I own a business that I must forget certain portions of God's word because it "offends you." Homosexuality is a sin, more than that it is listed among the worst criminal behaviors within scripture (almost every time its mentioned). There is a portion of my Constitutional rights (The Establishment Clause) as a man of faith it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Now my freedom of expression is also "protected" under the Constitution within this very same part. If I wish to say or act upon my belief I have that right. Now every law that we have within this country is based upon the Christian faith. Thou shalt not steal, covet, rob or to include the various "evils" spoken of throughout the very same book these laws were derived from. It is therefore relevant to look toward this book as a reference as to whether homosexuality is in fact a sin (or against the law). Attempting to restrict or downright take away my right to run my business in accordance with my faith is doing exactly what our framers strictly forbid. There are those who would make the claim that the issue of homosexuality is not clearly defined or spoken to within scripture and would have the less informed believe it is a murky subject within scripture. it is not, homosexuality is an "abomination" of the worst sort!
Allow me give you some clarity on the subject. The scriptures are very consistent in both the old and new testament on this particular subject. Here are a few, equally balanced references, not all by any stretch of the imagination;
Genesis 9:11-17
Genesis 13:12-13
Genesis 18:20-21
Genesis 19:1-29
Leviticus 18:22-30
Leviticus 20:13-16
Deuteronomy 22:5 – note; it is the intent of the meaning
Deuteronomy 23:17-18
Deuteronomy 32:15-47 Special attention to verse 32
Judges 19:1-30
Judges 20: 1-13
1 Kings 14:22-24
Isaiah 3:8-9
Ezekiel 16:46-58
Ok, now for the New Testament. I would also ask that you note the company God associates with those mentioned here.
Luke 17:22-30
John 8:42-47
Romans 1:18-32 one specific to lesbians
Romans 2:1-3
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Colossians 3:1-7
1 Timothy 1:8-10
2 Peter 2-19 Mire means; watery mud, with an additional feature of filth and uncleanness. “Dogs eating their own vomit and sows wallowing in their own feces.”
Jude 1: 1-19 In verse 5 he says - I will therefore put you in remembrance, - he then goes on to speak of homosexuality.
Revelation 22:12-15
I fail to see how someone can try to get away with taking an obviously deviant behavior, suppress the good and decent people from speaking ill of it and make laws to punish those who do when it is clearly defined as a "right" within our Constitution to follow God's Word over men and (AND) having the freedom of speech to do so?
I would encourage you to read the above quotes from their place in context within the scriptures. Whether or not you follow a faith or are an atheist you can not contend that I do not have the right afforded me Constitutionally simply because you don't like someone showing your deviant activity for the sin it is. Being a sexual deviant is not a constitutional right...
Unalienable Rights...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
The US Declaration of Independence states that God Himself bestowed our rights and liberties upon us. The entire American political experiment is based on that unique premise. No other bulwark exists to safeguard the natural rights of human beings except Divine sanction. Remove God, and you also remove all claims to liberty, rights, meaning and purpose.
In other words, "if you let them" they will institute a new change in understanding about where your rights are derived. They did not give us our rights, we gave them power and we still hold it in check. If you surrender your rights, your freedoms, they will own you and from there they will rewrite themselves into power uncontrollable! THINK!!
Did God
tell you to punch that lady in the face?
@mpshake
Rights, as it always seems to need pointing out, have limits. You have the right to follow your religion, as long as following that religion does not cause harm to others. Following the law, Abraham would have had to go to jail for attempted murder or assault on his own son while following his religion.
Homosexuality poses no threat to you or your family, beyond the imaginings of your own fears. I know that's difficult for some to understand, but if you need it spelled out in biblical terms, I give you Matthew 22:35-40: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
There are no asterisks, footnotes or addendums to that passage, so take it as it reads. These are your neighbors, and God bids you love them.
Jamison,Your assertion that
Jamison,
Your assertion that sexual orientation is somehow tied to another persons consent is ridiculous.
Unless you believe there are only two real sexual orientations then Pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilla, etc,etc.
If the law is meant to protect "sexual orientation" then it must protect all orientations..unless the real object is to protect only homosexual orientation; If so...then say that.
Mpshake
You contradict yourself:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
and
"The US Declaration of Independence states that God Himself bestowed our rights and liberties upon us."
No, Mike, it does not - it states "their creator" as you so kindly pointed out. YOU believe that God is your creator. Not everyone does. You don't get to decide who is MY creator, I do.
Although I have to agree with
Although I have to agree with those that claim gays should have the right to marry, I do so because I do not believe the government should be in the business of dictating who we can associate with. Whether it is in a personal relationship, or a business relation ship.
And that is the same reason I am strongly against Rep. Beth (air head, control freak) Kerttula bill.
We have the right to associate with whom ever we please, with out our life, & property being threatened by a dictatorial government.
Ok Beth
Lets re-name your district Little San Fancisco. What next a silly bill to put people in jail for calling anyone a H.O.M.O? Unreal, a ban word.....
Shake
Your religious rights are being discriminated against in lots of ways.
For instance, the bible states that you are to stone an adulterer to death. Likewise for anyone caught practicing a religion other than Christianity. Or working on a Sunday. And even rebellious sons are to be stoned to death.
Perhaps you need to appeal to your representatives to submit a bill allowing Christians to commence with stoning people to death, as the bible commands.
Thank you Beth!
“I don’t think you should discriminate against anybody for your viewpoints, or your biology, or your sexual orientation or your gender,” said Kerttula.
Regardless of the comments, this is bill needs to be passed and help protect our citizens.
This is such a strong statement and a good HB to pass.
Great job Beth!
Danger to the process...
That homosexuals should not suffer active discrimination is obvious and should be addressed at the Federal level like other civil rights, but another aspect of this that's interesting is the process being used by our State legislators as of late:
- Voter ballot initiative on cruise ship wastewater passes, but is subsequently overturned by the legislature
- Voter ballot initiative on coastal zone management defeated, and Ms. Kerttula begins the session by expressing hope in the press that somone reintroduces an ACMP bill
-- Anchorage (and argualbly the largest voting block in the state) defeats a sexual orientation ballot measure, and now a very similar bill is being introduced at the state level.
Regardless of personal position on a particular issue, it's disconcerting that the will of the people as expressed in the ballot box is casually brushed aside by those we continue to keep in office.
Food for thought.
I find it hard understand
I find it hard understand people can quote scripture to justify their positions but pick and choose which ones.
Who is the only being that can judge? Does any scripture say its anyone's responsibility to punish or discriminate based on the morality set forth in the bible? I know the bible accepts any person regardless of 'sins' when of if they choose to repent. Who gave people the job to pass judgement? It sure wasn't your God.
consenting adults, no-road;
behavior within the law---that's what we're talking about, not civil rights for pedophiles, or taking advantage of animals: Those are false equivalencies.
As far as sexual orientation, I suppose there is homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transsexual transylvania, as Dr. Frankenfurter once put it, metrosexuality, whatever that is, to go with heterosexuality...I might be missing a few...All matters between consenting adults.
Flynx, you said something interesting, "that homosexuals should not suffer active discrimination is obvious and should be addressed at the Federal level like other civil rights"
I tend to think that if it's obvious, it can and should be exercised by the citizenry at large at the community level, and is addressed at the Federal level only because this doesn't always happen, bringing it within the purview of the equal protection clause, which comes into play especially when localities vote to limit the rights of certain groups, like homosexuals, which in the Anchorage case was a vote that homosexuals, or members of the LGBT community, did not comprise a protected group.
Adding anyone to a class that
Adding anyone to a class that is "protected" from discrimination actually gives them greater rights than others. This happens because people are afraid to take action for fear of being in violation.
This bill will reduce the rights of other people not in a protected class and should not be enacted.
I'm all for fairness and equality
but including gender "expresson" under the protection without a very clear definition is not smart. It opens the door for almost any behaviour to be protected.
You may want to express your gender or sexuality by having your boobs hang out, going topless altogether or exposing any private parts. Just because you like to do something doesn't mean everyone else wants or should be forced to see it.
vrlind is exactly right -
vrlind is exactly right -
LGBT's aren't looking for EQUAL rights, they want EXTRA rights.
What rights do they want that
What rights do they want that you dont have calypso? What extra rights are they searching for?
Maybe looking at this from another angle...
What are laws? Laws are instituted because common sense is not common in everyone. Laws are comprised of the intent to forbid acts for which people have been engaged in that are for the most part are typically self fulfilling and are known to harm others or place society as a whole in jeopardy.
Some people will commit these acts to the point that a person or group will destroy everything in their path to obtain their "self gratification." Now keep in mind that these are "actions" taken, not rights endowed by our creator. It seems the greater the self gratification the more an individual or group will try to do it.
Most criminals know when they are doing something wrong and try to hide it from those who would oppose them or try to stop them. They know that society regards their acts as unacceptable (pretty much disgusting). So, they do it in secret, growing a base of individuals who participate in the offensive acts, but what then? Do we just say "what the heck, there's just so many committing these crimes that we need to make room for them in society?" Anybody know where murder is not committed in America? How many millions do it every year? Should we just say "well, it appears normal, lots of people do it, we should just allow it?" Doesn't make sense does it?
This is no different, these people are committing unnatural sex acts that are against nature for self gratification. Ask your self, why not animals? I mean if the debate is that its just sex and nobody gets hurt...? Did you know there is a group in this country called MBA (the man, boy association)? Their standing next in line once you fall for the lie about homosexuality, bestiality, pedophiles. Once you open that door they will not stop, you know I'm right.
They have an argument for every single thing they wish to satisfy themselves with. But its not a right, you have to let them do it. The good and decent people who follow the societal norms have a right to stand against such behavior. But here we are, having a legislator trying to not only legislate away my right to run my business as I understand God to have me run my life, but also trying to shut me up so that I can no longer speak out against what is so plain that even a school age child can see is WRONG!
Bullying? Do you really believe this is about children "Bullying" anyone? This is about shutting up people of every age up and making it a crime to speak against what we all know is unacceptable "behavior," not a "right." They want to institute policies within the schools curriculum that indoctrinates our children into believing this is "normal" behavior. You see, our youth are speaking out in school and talking about this. They are not in agreement that what they see is "normal." Will you force them to shut up, hold their opinions and tell them & me that we have no right to speak up? That is the question before you...
Please post your business so
Please post your business so I can never shop they're. Your hate and judgemental attitude is sickening. Even if homosexual acts are unnatural or morally wrong who are you to coninue to pass judgment? Go read your book again, you obviously missed many many points being taught in it.
When did JC say cast out and discriminate against those that live their lives differently then you? Where did he say its your job to force your morals or his on anyone? Let me remind you, he didn't. Love your neighbor unless he's gay, then judge him and don't let him borrow your rake.
You give good healthy religious people a bad name by being bigoted and frankly stupid if these are the conclusions you come to from a very important and good book. I hope God forgives you because seriously, casting judgment is his job, not yours. You think he would accept you into heaven with a big 'did you hate [filtered word] as much as you could, good job!!' WWJD? Sure as hell would love any person and accept them regardless of their sins.
vrlind,
"Adding anyone to a class that is "protected" from discrimination actually gives them greater rights than others. This happens because people are afraid to take action for fear of being in violation."
OK, what kind of "action" are we talking about exactly, in relation to the LGBT community? Denying someone a job or a place to live? Turning someone down on a loan? How would we "act" towards people that would possibly be forbidden by law if they were a member of some protected class? If a person is qualified for a job, their sexual preference shouldn't matter. If they meet the qualifications for a loan or a place to live---Who really cares? It's THEIR bedroom!
And contrary to your beliefs, Mike, and others, the law doesn't grant you the right to discriminate against people---And really, the existing laws are in place because of people like you, who HAVE sought to dice people up into groups, in order to treat them differently: Now you're hollering for the supposed "right" to treat LGBT people differently based on your religious "convictions," claiming that any law preventing you from doing so in granting them unequal protection! This is a distorted view of constitutional protections, not at all different from those (with very similar religious "convictions") hollering to treat blacks and other minorities differently in the last century. Why should I be paying for your supposed "right" to discriminate against people based solely on your religious beliefs?
As usual, your own efforts are driving the controversy!
You want the government to leave you alone? OK, practice what you preach and leave others alone! Stay out of women's reproductive choices and stay out of bedrooms, regardless of how people want to self-identify! It's that simple---Show us you're mature enough to be part of a diverse society, full of people who are not necessarily christian conservatives