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 commentI can't stand fake Christians
MPSHAKE- You are by far the most fake @s$ so called Christain on the net.
Matthew 5:11
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Matthew 16:23
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
MPSHAKE is therefore Satan.
See how easy it is to use the bible against people...
Ugr- I hate fake Christians! Why can't people just do like JC and love, spead the love, feed the poor and go back to the roots of their faith? BTW- I am an atheist.
MP
Interestingly enough I was raised in a Christian household and went to church more Sundays than I would like to admit. I am not arguing in ignorance. I'm arguing against your ignorance. "You (or our government) do not have the authority under the Constitution to force me (or people of faith) to subject our selves to a sinful lifestyle because you think nobody should be exempt from being forced into living as you do." MP, no one is trying to force you or people of faith to live a 'sinful lifestyle'. Working with someone who is a homosexual does not make you a 'sinner' if you believe that is a sin. If you believe that, then you believe having a homosexual client is subjecting yourself to a sinful lifestyle. I see you're a real estate agent and I would like to PROMISE you that you have worked with many homosexual people. That basically means if you have a homosexual clerk ring you out at the grocery store, you believe somehow they're "subjecting you to a sinful lifestyle". How I see it: if someone is a good worker, why not hire them? As long as they're not having gay sex all over your office, I don't see the problem. If you hired someone who was in fact gay, and you didn't know about it, and they ended up being the best worker you'd ever had, what would you do once you found out they "lived in sin"? Would you fire them? If so, THAT is ignorant. THAT is living in fear, THAT is pathetic. I'm gay and I am working directly across from a Christian woman right at this moment. And you know what? I'm not exploding. She's not exploding. We're working together and we're working well. The fact that I'm a lesbian really isn't affecting her. And if you're a decent human being it really shouldn't affect you, ever.
Michael P Shakespeare
You seem to be trying to be a good Christian, but I don't think Christ wanted you all to wear your religion on your sleeves like that, and I'm not sure that what Paul said trumps what Jesus said anyway.
The rest of us just want you to keep your religion out of the public square is all---By all means, go to church! Do good works! Practice your religion with your fellows, and for God's sake be good examples thereby!
Society, however, is composed of many different religions and many people with no religion at all. We politely overlook the more radical parts of Christianity, and do not allow you or anyone else to stone people to death for fornication, for instance; or to own slaves, or have more than one wife. Neither do we allow fundamentalists of any faith to kill "infidels", if we can help it.
Likewise, people with no religion should be free to live their lives in a civil society free from the edicts of religion---That and more is what the Establishment Clause is REALLY about: We'll leave religion alone, as long as those practicing it stay within the law, and religion, hopefully, will leave us alone.
Now, obviously this hasn't happened, and we've been subjected to generations of self-righteous people insinuating their religion into the public forum, to the point where "Under God" gets snuck into the Pledge of Allegiance, and we swear on a Bible in court (which is ironic, since Christ told us not to swear at all!); but at least many religion-inspired laws have been rolled back: Women can vote, slavery is illegal, and it's no longer legal in most states for husbands to rape their wives---To name a few.
I know it would shock you, Mike, but homosexuals are actively discriminated against! People (like you) deny them housing, employment, loans; and many are even beaten or killed because of their sexual preference, stuff that shouldn't really be anyone's business.
That's right, people like you are the VERY REASON why many conclude that homosexuals need and deserve laws to prevent such discrimination----Because people like you absolutely believe it's their right to do so!
Are you with me so far, Mike? No one's asking you to sleep with anyone, or to allow fornication under your roof, (as long as you're not running a hotel...) There's just this long-running and continuing effort to make sure everyone gets treated more or less the same way, regardless of faith, creed, race, gender, or sexual preference, as long as they stay within the laws of a civil society. Do your best to do so, my friend, and I'll try to match you.
Hmmm...
"Before trying to be an armchair doctrinal scholar, it would be advisable to at least make an effort to understand some basic principles of biblical understanding" = "It would help if everyone agreed with me".
"Like for instance the differences between the Old & New Testaments. The Old Testament scriptural understandings were superseded (or made understandable) by the New." Not if you are Jewish.
"I believe there are some quotes of scripture being bandied about by people ignorant of their meaning and intent of the scripture they are quoting" = "They don't agree with me".
If you are truly convinced that separation of church and state means that no law can legitimately control any behavior that has a religious root, then I expect you to fully support ultra-conservative Muslims who riot if a picture of Muhammad is published in a newspaper, or who kill the artist. I would also expect you to fully support ultra-conservative Jews who stone passersby on the Sabbath because it violates their religious laws. I also expect that you would support any religious views that exhort their followers to kill Christians for believing differently than they do.
Insisting on personal infallibility when interpreting biblical writings is not a very defensible position.
Jamison
Wow. Thank you. Many thumbs up. Well worded and objective. If only your views were held by the masses we could actually live in a civil socieity.
thanks, rain
I was never able to get back to you the other day, but your comment about anti-christian in relation to schools made me think of science academies as well as religious schools of other persuasions...Too big a can of worms to open here, and work got in the way then...
The employees of this state
The employees of this state need a worker protection bill. One that says You cannot fire someone for what they do legally on their own time, if they are not on the clock it’s not the bosses business. If they work at cars and shop at Fred Myers it’s not the bosses business. The law should be clear a employer cannot dictate what you do or who you do on your own time. If your work for a extreme Muslim or extreme Southern Baptist they are not your slave masters. Who you have in your home who lives with you who you share your bed with is not the bosses business. Unless you are paid 24 and 7 its crap. Some employers 1 in Juneau is having people sign a dress code for after work. It includes no sweats after you are off. (its not followed) but it is their.
mpshake - I'm curious....
Do you think it should be illegal for interracial couples to marry? And do you think as a business owner you should be able to deny work or an apartment to someone in an interracial marraige?
Or to a person with interracial parents?
Certainly the Bible and biblical references were used in the 60's to uphold the practice (in 14 states at the time) of making interracial marriage illegal, until the Supreme Court overturned such discrimination in 1967 I believe. If that was in the Bible then, certainly you still believe it now?
Also, I wonder if you recognize at all my right to NOT believe in your God, or follow any of his "rules" as interpreted by you? Do you believe I have this right?
Jamison and Fromdust
Well said, gents. Hats off to you both.
TY, SG!
Jamison is always much more complete and well-rounded in his posts than I am. :-p
but you're as precise as a razor
and I'm guessing far more familiar with the Bible than most who comment here, 'dust---I've always admired your intellect.
And thanks, SG---I would guess the answer is "no"...but I've noticed Dominionists, Reconstructionists, and their ilk tend to steer away from such subjects in public forums---The foot soldiers are still reluctant to tip their hands
I simply find it interesting.....
...that the bible was used as the basis for both of these forms of discrimination.
Clearly, MP is fringe beyond the pale. Unfortunately, we have too many people both statewide and nationally making legislation who are, like MP, unable to look outside of their own narrow beliefs and grasp the entirety of our melting pot society.
There is room for all of us.
There IS room for all of us
and though Mike may be "fringe" in the sense that he seems unwilling to reach outside the tenets of his chosen faith, he's no more beyond the pale than the rest of us, and may well regard the faith itself more than the wishes of those who are actively trying to manipulate it. After all, MLK also had the bible for his guide---The central message of christianity is largely a good one, and inclusive, which gives me hope that most christians will eventually realize their role as stewards of their world as well as of each other, leaving judgement to the Lord as it were, as I think most do---Just not the ones who are having political mileage wrung out of them.
There is of course that ancient truism, however; that the most dangerous animal on the planet is a human being who is absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause. But with great peril comes great opportunity...Or do I have that reversed? People have always hidden behind moral standards like the bible, not unlike the constitution. Mike's great redeeming quality is that he's not hiding, but seems to be genuinely speaking out about his beliefs, which, whether he realizes it or not, are based around a message of tolerance and acceptance of each other..
Which is the irony of forwarding a message of tolerance: That we must tolerate the intolerant, exercise patience, especially with ourselves, and continue to give voice to the concepts of justice we've learned in our evolving history, as best we may.