Hollin Has a Good Idea, But It Doesn’t Fix the Whole Problem

Jamie Hollin has what he’s touting as a solution to HB 600, which bars cities from deciding not to do business with people who discriminate against GLBT folks.

Instead of an outright prohibition against doing business with them, he’s now advocating awarding points to people who have a non-discrimination policy, so that, when they bid on city contracts, that counts in their favor.

I think this is a great idea.

It is not the whole solution.

The state legislature has still, with this bill, codified into law that a person is the sex it says on his or her birth certificate and Tennessee does not allow people to change their birth sex. That will be a nightmare for transgender and intersex people.

We shouldn’t lose sight of that.

4 thoughts on “Hollin Has a Good Idea, But It Doesn’t Fix the Whole Problem

  1. IANAL, but I wonder whether the language of HB 600 (it refers to “any provision” concerning antidiscrimination, not just regulations and laws) couldn’t be taken as making Hollin’s idea void. I’m glad that he is trying to find a workaround, but I wonder whether this is it.

  2. I am almost to the point where I think Dean should go ahead and implement anti-discrimination under the table. Don’t make it an official policy. Make it unofficial. Fine, don’t apply it to religious groups.

    And then force the hands of the people who want to discriminate and want to bid. Do they really want to go to court and outline how they discriminate against GLBT people and how they think the city would come to know this?

    I mean, shoot, the city promises that most of the people working on the Convention Center are going to be local and then they aren’t, that there are going to be X number of women-owned and minority-owned business working on the Center and there aren’t.

    If we can so casually “accidentally” fail to meet these basic promises, why can’t we casually “accidentally” fail to hire people who discriminate against GLBT people?

  3. Yep: “(1) No local government shall by ordinance, resolution, or any other means impose on or make applicable to any person an antidiscrimination
    practice, standard, definition, or provision that shall deviate from, modify, supplement, add to, change, or vary in any manner from: (A) The definition of “discriminatory practices” in § 4-21-102 or deviate
    from, modify, supplement, add to, change, or vary any term used in such definition and also as defined in such section; or (B) Other types of discrimination recognized by state law but only to the extent recognized by the state.”

Comments are closed.