Anchorage AK Mayor Dan Sullivan Endorses Anti-Gay Discrimination

Timothy Kincaid

August 17th, 2009

Of course the mayor of Anchorage, Alaska, has not formally announced that he supports and encourages anti-gay discrimination. But he might as well have.

Non-discrimination policies are hardly new, controversial, or unexpected. Currently 21 states, 85% of Fortune 500 companies, and dozens more cities and municipalities protect their gay and lesbian residents from discrimination in employment and housing. It is expected that Congress will pass with bi-partisan support, and the president will sign, a Employment Non-Discrimination Act into law.

So why then would Mayor Dan Sullivan veto a provision passed by the Anchorage assembly on a 7 to 4 vote?

“My review shows that there is clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance,” the mayor said. “My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated their position on the ordinance are in opposition.”

In other words, the citizens want to discriminate against gay people… but gay people don’t need protection from this discrimination. Maybe it’s just the Monday blues, but I’m finding it difficult to fathom an interpretation of this statement that isn’t an unstated endorsement of anti-gay discrimination.

Burr

August 17th, 2009

Umm.. what does “quantifiable evidence” of discrimination have to do with securing people’s rights? You either endorse or oppose it, and clearly he’s staked his position.

Burr

August 17th, 2009

There’s still a chance to override the veto with one more vote.. Don’t know how likely that is.

Also a link to the full article was included at your original link with more details.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/901286.html

Gnarly Erik

August 17th, 2009

Clearly Sullivan is a gutless wonder – in spite of his ‘support’ for this measure, he sniffed the political winds and took a coward’s way out.

Let’s hope he has aspirations for higher office. This will be good fodder to be used against his sorry butt.

Lucrece

August 17th, 2009

Um, what, Erik? Get off the pot.

Opposition to gay-pertinent legislation is certainly not politically toxic in today’s climate. Most straights don’t even pay attention to these bills, or care much for what gets done.

Heck, even 1/3 of the Democratic party opposes same-sex marriage, and the leadership tip-toes around it, with several leaders passive-aggresively cokblocking gay measures (hello, Donna Brazile raising hell over establishing gay quotas ala black quotas in DNC procedures).

Vicki O

August 17th, 2009

as an anchorage resident, I watched in dismay during the months of public hearings. People opposed to equal rights were bussed in from a nearby ultra-conservative town to speak. And even though many many clergymen & women spoke in support of equal rights, one prominent minister & his minions were right up front in opposition. Outright lies were spread by this minister. I got into an argument with some of the demonstrators when hearing a group of kids say they “hate gays” even though they were holding up signs reading “hate the sin, love the sinner”. One protestor held a sign which a sign which was “religiously correct” when cameras were around, but the backside read “Fags will burn in hell” when the cameras weren’t around. I’m straight, a Christian & absolutely engulfed in sorrow that our mayor & 4 of our assemblypersons have decided that it’s okay to discriminate. (Sullivan based his veto on 2500 calls/emails in a town of 300,000+). Most of my gay friends can not come out at work; the veto reinforces their decisions. Unfortunately, this is a red city in a red state & this kind of veto will not harm Sullivan in future elections. The only good that came out of this, I think, was meeting the equal rights demonstrators & seeing first-hand how many clergy support equal rights for all. I hope that my gay friends have seen that demonstration of support & can ignore the hideous heart-breaking BS from the “red-shirters”.

Penguinsaur

August 17th, 2009

These people hate gays, theirs no way you could argue gay people not being fired for being gay will ever have an impact on you. Then again that applies to every single gay rights issue.

TonyJazz

August 18th, 2009

Good for you, Vicki O! I wish there were a lot more people just like you!!!!

Mark F.

August 18th, 2009

He might have said that he opposes anti-gay discrmination but he also supports freedom of association and does not think private discrimination should be illegal–that would be a good libertarian position. But that does not appear to be his position.

I continue to oppose any “right” to force someone to associate or employ you.

Chris McCoy

August 18th, 2009

Mark F. said:

I continue to oppose any “right” to force someone to associate or employ you.

– “I refuse to employ you because you are not qualified”
– “I refuse to employ you because your references say you are untrustworthy”
– “I refuse to employ you because you have a history of stealing”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are not legally authorized to work in this jurisdiction”

Are different from:

– “I refuse to employ you because you are left handed”
– “I refuse to employ you because you have brown eyes”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are Catholic”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are from a foreign country”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are a Jew”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are black”
– “I refuse to employ you because you are gay”
– “I refuse to employ you because you will not have sex with me”
– “I refuse to employ you because you will not give me money”

The 1st set of reasons are legitimate.
The 2nd set are discrimination.

Chris McCoy

August 18th, 2009

One of the social/thought experiments I would love to create would be to start a common business that didn’t have a noticeable gay theme; hire a bunch of people, and then fire them for being heterosexual. “I’m sorry, but I can’t have you setting a bad example for Bob over there. What if he left his husband and started dating *gasp* women.”

I wonder if any of them would sue, or complain to the media, for being discriminated against.

Then I could say “but firing someone for their sexual orientation is not against the law.”

Richard W. Fitch

August 18th, 2009

Anchorage Daily News: Mayor vetoes gay rights ordinance.
The story is not over. Readers’ comments at ADN are quite interesting!

Therese

August 18th, 2009

Had I known that he was going to base a veto on the “majority of people” who contacted him, I would have called his office every single day to leave a message with my support of protecting our gay/lesbian citizens. I am heartsick by this veto and tired of fighting a city and state that clearly discriminate against those that are different from the majority of rifle-toting Bible-thumping bullies. I am sorry to the gay and lesbian people that I let down by not pursuing the mayor’s email and phone messages. It is apparently open discrimination here in Anchorage, but please know that there are many people who do not feel this way. Please don’t give up the fight. I won’t. I will try harder.

Duncan

August 19th, 2009

Isn’t this sort of protection from being fired a moot point? Who would ever work for such an employer?

Timothy Kincaid

August 19th, 2009

Duncan,

True… but only in some cases.

If you work for Joe of Joe’s Garage, then life is going to be miserable either way.

But if you work for MegaCompany, Inc., and your regional manager fires you because he ain’t werkin’ with no faaaags, it’s nice to have recourse to go in and demand your job back or compensation.

And, besides, much of the benefit is intangible and not related to actual employment, per se. If you can be fired for being gay then it is fair game to mistreat, mock, and humiliate you for being gay. But if employment discrimination is illegal, it does two things: 1) it sets a tone that anti-gay attitudes are not appropriate, and 2) creating a hostile workplace is often seen as the equivalent of job discrimination.

That being said… my caviat: I share some of Mark F’s libertarian objection to jobs protections in general. I tend to prefer that people have the right to be idiots, even hateful idiots, and to have their businesses suffer from the repercussions of discrimination. And I think the right to free assembly includes the right to exclude such assembly – even in employees – to knuckleheads that agree with every little bigoted notion that flits through your head. But if non-discrimination laws are to exist, if is bizarre to provide protections based on race or religion but not on orientation.

Priya Lynn

August 19th, 2009

Duncan, also, what happens when the majority of employers don’t want to hire your kind? You may not always have the option to find employment with someone who likes you and an anti-discrimination law may be your only hope.

Burr

August 19th, 2009

My understanding is there’s no non-discrimination policy in employment even within the local government itself there in Alaska. At the very least the government should adopt an ordinance not to discriminate with people’s tax dollars, but apparently even that tame measure met opposition and was repealed.

I agree with Tim’s caveat. Ideally we wouldn’t need this and people should be free to associate as they prefer, but if there’s laws they should apply across the board.

Also this isn’t just about employment, but finding a place to live, too.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Former Fox News Head Roger Ailes Loved Calling People "Faggot"

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1895: Oscar Wilde Enters Bankruptcy

This Month In History, 1919: A Plea From An Invert

Born On This Day, 1966: Sean Patrick Maloney

Orlando-Area Republicans Back LGBT Protections

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.