Jack Markell Posts Online Petition: Urges Passage of Senate Bill 141
Jack ain’t messing around. This is the kind of issue this that mixes Jack’s social progressiveness with his no nonsense approach to economic development.
“Passage of anti-discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation would be a huge step forward for Delaware, and it is a change of which I have been a staunch supporter. Today I sent a letter to my friend State Senator Charles Copeland urging the passage of Senate Bill 141 into the full Senate for consideration. I explained to Senator Copeland that worries over harm to small businesses are misguided.”
Sign the petition by clicking here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pass141
Or, if you are a wingnut, please use the comment section below to tell us how SB141 will lead to man/dog marriage.
Walgreens values the diverse backgrounds, experiences, knowledge and skills of all employees, and is committed to equal employment opportunity and fair treatment of all individuals, both applicants and employees, based on job-related qualifications and without regard to race, color, gender, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
I love it when corporate giants make public statements that they “value” your {insert something}.
What the hell does that mean? “Hi, I value your posture.” Or, “Hi, I value your breast size.” (OK, I think I can figure out the last one.)
But this PR crap that a coporation ‘values’ something that doesn’t put more money into the executive compensation fund is ludicrous. I mean, I value compensation as much as the next greedy corporate executive, but I’m not going to try to throw a smoke screen around it by telling you I ‘value’ something that you know I truly don’t give a shit about.
Hmmmm, an online petition.
I wonder where he got that idea.
I’m certain I’ve seen it done before.
Signing petitions is so gay.
Latching on to a popular position for political gain. Go Jack!
A couple things about Markell’s “argument”
1. He sends it to Charlie Copeland, and not Nancy Cook, the swing vote on the committee. Is he afraid to call out a Democrat?
2. To forward his “argument” that the bill will not negatively affect businesses, he cites a number of businesses who all enacted similar policies without government intervention! Why can’t Delaware let our companies do the same?
Why can’t Delaware let our companies do the same?
Some have. In the meantime why should I get fired?
I would have signed this petition in a heartbeat until I saw it was a campaign ad for Jack Markell. I got nothing against Jack. He would make a good governor. But he should not use a petition on such an important issue for campaign fodder and pandering. He automatically turned me off from signing. I am sure I am not the only one. Had Jack left his ego aside he could have had a strong petition roll and done this issue some justice.
RE: man/dog marriages
“I was so drunk last night I passed out. When I woke up, I was blowing chunks.”
“Well, serves you right for drinking so much. You should have known you’d get sick from that much alcohol.”
“You don’t understand. ‘Chunks’ is my dog.”
anon, i don’t understand. Jack Markell, in his candidacy to be the next Governor, has a unique platform in the public eye to speak about necessary issues, and he is doing nothing else by sponsoring this petition under his website. If he wasn’t, you would be saying, “why isn’t he using his position to fight for SB 141!?”
Jack is doing exactly what he is supposed to do
“Some have.”
Imagine that. No one forced them to do it and they did it anyway.
“In the meantime why should I get fired?”
Have you been fired?
“If he wasn’t, you would be saying, “why isn’t he using his position to fight for SB 141!?””
Okay. Why isn’t he using his position to fight against our state being led into the toilet financially? Why are things like wind and SB 141 okay to speak out on, but the real travesties of this administration have gone on without comment for his first 8 years in office? He wants to be the big gun now, so he’s finally speaking up?
“If he wasn’t, you would be saying,why isn’t he using his position to fight for SB 141!?”
Then come out with a press release from the State Treasurer’s Office in support of it! Don’t do it as a candidate for Governor calling for public support of his position. Really what is his position? The only one that actually impacts govt business or the public is State Treasurer not gubernatorial candidate. If he wants to make a statement as candidate do it as candidate not as a petitioneer. If his ‘position’ is so exalted he should be in the faces of Thurman Adams, Cook, or who ever is in the way at his ‘level’. If he supports this bill with the full weight of his ‘position’ his face time for it should be a lot more than grandstand internet petitions.
I think it would be slightly inappropriate for him to use his taxpayer-salary as treasurer to do this politiking. Surely you must agree?
Jack’s exact words from your own blog : “There is nothing more important as a state, as a community and as neighbors and friends than to make sure we do everything we can to protect everyone’s civil rights. Always.”
If you believe in civil rights there is nothing you will not do for them. In a state where power is abused in so many twisted ways who would protest Jack’s using his own as State Treasurer for civil rights? Thurman Adams?
When a politician who has seen so much wrong suddenly breaks his silence on top of a grandstand he is not exactly inspiring.
Show me Jack Markell’s rousing petition and public plea for HB 99 of yesteryear and I will be sold.
Gee FSP, you can’t think that you invented the online petition big boy, now can you?
And since it is Copeland’s very public position (with Still) that this is going to be a costly step for the state and it has been sent to the committee that will vet it under that perspective, Copeland got the direct response.
Cook remains coy about her support.
Mike I guess you missed his wind power letters. Look jack can do what he wants but if anything its just going to be counter active. If he wants to be proactive then empower and mobilize his abundant campaign staff and use his resources. But to be honest posting an online petition (which alone will not do much) is not going to be productive on its own and if anything its just going to divide and piss off legislators who already do not neccesarily like him. Yes you all will say thats good because they are all cronies. But if the man wants to be governor he has to know how to manipulate and manuever the legislator to do what he feels best for the state, petitions and JackTV isn’t exactly it unless he wants nothing passed.
From a comment on the petition:
“29 of the largest employers in Delaware – already encourage all skilled and talented employees by inclduing such non-discrimination policies in their companies.”
Why do we need this bill again?
“don’t do it as a candidate for Governor calling for public support of his position”
– OH GOD, candidates actually addressing issues and trying to sway peoples opinions and make change!! WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO?
Anon, you are getting all hot and bothered over nothing, it seems that you are trying to find reasons to be mad at Jack. Mike Matthews is correct when he says, ”
I think it would be slightly inappropriate for him to use his taxpayer-salary as treasurer to do this politiking. Surely you must agree?” Anon, you responded that it would be him coming out for civil rights – you know you would be screaming bloody murder if Jack came out for it on State Treasurer letterhead, you would be saying that Jack is politicizing the office.
FSP – why do we need this bill? seriously, it is the 21st century. contrary to what the republicans want to make this state look like, we have more than 29 businesses in this state…and those others don’t have policies protecting gays and lesbians.
Oh Dave, and Jack was out there over the last 8 years fighting to keep this state financially strong, he expanded the financial literacy program in this state, he saved the taxpayers around $30 million from his innovative programs, and he has championed the EITC. I know you are upset that the Republicans don’t have a candidate for governor with any record, but don’t fake that jack doesn’t have one either.
We’ll see about Jack’s “record” if he can make it past Carney. I don’t think that day will come, though.
“Oh Dave, and Jack was out there over the last 8 years fighting to keep this state financially strong,”
He failed. We run a $350 million operating deficit and despite being one of the highest spending states per capita, we can’t afford to build roads or schools.
“contrary to what the republicans want to make this state look like, we have more than 29 businesses in this state…and those others don’t have policies protecting gays and lesbians.”
So, even though businesses are moving in that direction on their own, we need to force them to do it faster? Where’s the need? I never had a “policy protecting gays and lesbians” when I had a business, yet I hired and fired people without any thought to their sexual preference.
I live in an area where gays and lesbians contribute in immeasurable ways to the community, own wildly successful businesses, hold elective office in both parties and are looked at as an equal part of the community. All of that without the government telling people what is and is not acceptable.
Why is this bill necessary again?
Dave it goes beyond business you know slave owners said it would put them out of business too… This is not a business owner bill this is a bill to protect people from being told they can not be who they are. If it is so harmless and everyone is already doing it why are you worried? Because you aren’t worried about the business side. No person should be execluded from the equal and free goal that our framers set forward and to allow homosexuals and those who are PERCIEVED to be gay is not right and well its not american. I am a hetrosexual male however I have many homosexual friends and I have on numerous occasions been gay bashed for my appearance but I guess you think it is perfectly ok for the law not to address that. You know to ignore and act like a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it disappears.
Also why would it cost business money? I guess it costs too much money to hire minorities and woman as well our economy seems to be able to have figured out how to cope.
If a person is worth firing you aren’t going to have extra costs. Anyways many jobs are at will employers in the first place and no reason has to be stated just needs to be job based. Or you are too scared that good old boys can’t continue their prejudice practices?
The business excuse is well bull
Well, in answer to the question of why the bill is needed:
Even if companies say they support fair employment practices for people regardless of sexual orientation, all it takes is one or two people in a company that can discriminate against company policy, fire a homosexual, and claim it was because of poor job performance.
Without legislation to make discrimination illegal, a minority party has little to fight back with. This bill will give people who feel that have been wronged because of their orientation a much-needed path to be heard and get recompense, if the policy has been violated.
“Dave it goes beyond business you know slave owners said it would put them out of business too… ”
So we’re equating gays in Delaware in 2007 with slaves?
“I am a hetrosexual male however I have many homosexual friends and I have on numerous occasions been gay bashed for my appearance but I guess you think it is perfectly ok for the law not to address that.”
This law does not address ‘gay bashing.’
Anon — you clearly want to portray me as a gay-hater so you can attack the messenger and ignore the message. I do not hate gays or lesbians. One of my best friends is gay. My business partner is gay. My best friend in college? Yup, gay. Deal with it.
“You know to ignore and act like a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it disappears.”
And to act like a problem exists when it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it appears.
“This bill will give people who feel that have been wronged because of their orientation a much-needed path to be heard and get recompense, if the policy has been violated.”
And therein lies the problem. Any person who gets fired who is also homosexual can claim their employer violated this law. They file a claim with the Delaware Human Rights Commission. Their employer hires an attorney and attends a hearing to determine whether or not the law was violated.
When it’s determined that the law was not violated, the employer is still on the hook for the costs and legal fees, no matter how frivolous the claim.
Based on the experience of people I know in the business community, the tab is usually in the $4,000-$5,000 range.
That’s how it hurts businesses. And believe me, the overwhelming majority of the claims will be found to be without merit.
The main problem lies with the Human Relations Commission and the system for adjudicating discrimination claims.
Doesn’t exist? That is just laughable. Yes it does prevent gay bashing. To be discriminated against by the assumption of ones sexual orientation is gay bashing. This happens in business enviorments and thats where it has happened to me.
But let me get this straight. Providing a fair and equal working enviorment is expensive to buisnessman correct? So I guess you would be in support of having laws passed ridding employers of this mandate? Because employers will act in good faith and treat everyone just fine, right? OK I’ll meet you at the pleasentville diner.
“Providing a fair and equal working enviorment is expensive to buisnessman correct?”
Is this a sentence?
No, it is not expensive to maintain a working environment. It is expensive defending lawsuits without merit.
“To be discriminated against by the assumption of ones sexual orientation is gay bashing.”
I guess everyone has their own definitions.
“Because employers will act in good faith and treat everyone just fine, right?”
29 of the largest employers and countless small businesses in Delaware implemented anti-discrimination policies on their own.
Why do you think they did this?
It’s actually pretty difficult to hire an attorney to press a discrimination claim unless you have a credible case. Lawyers don’t like to bring a lot of frivolous complaints – it’s not good for business. There just isn’t a lot of money to be made off of unemployed people – not unless they have a good case.
So, FSP, what is the price to be paid by an employer that violates their own policy of non-discrimination? The fact that it might be more expensive to defend against these cases is sort of bogus. You could make the case that the same would apply to any minority group. Are the anti-discrimination laws w.r.t. African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, etc. unnecessary? How about we just add sexual orientation to the list of protected minorities? Does that do it for you?
“And therein lies the problem. Any person who gets fired who is also homosexual can claim their employer violated this law. They file a claim with the Delaware Human Rights Commission. Their employer hires an attorney and attends a hearing to determine whether or not the law was violated.”
Fair enough, but isn’t it more even for both the employer and the employee to have some way of battling an unfair work environment? As it is, the employee has no way to fight back, while the employer can fire at will.
“When it’s determined that the law was not violated, the employer is still on the hook for the costs and legal fees, no matter how frivolous the claim.”
On the other hand, if the law has been violated, then an employer that discriminates against another human being based on sexual preference gets their just dessert.
“Based on the experience of people I know in the business community, the tab is usually in the $4,000-$5,000 range.
That’s how it hurts businesses. And believe me, the overwhelming majority of the claims will be found to be without merit.”
Mere speculation, which wouldn’t be so bad if you had some other strong argument to back it up.
“The main problem lies with the Human Relations Commission and the system for adjudicating discrimination claims.”
I disagree. When you have one group of Americans being treated differently than another group, this is definitely under the realm of the law.
Anon — Attorneys in this case do not bring the claims. The affected party brings the claim on their own.
LG — “How about we just add sexual orientation to the list of protected minorities?”
That’s what this bill does. The question is – is it necessary? I would hope that question gets asked of all legislation.
“Mere speculation, which wouldn’t be so bad if you had some other strong argument to back it up.”
What is speculative? That is what employers I know have paid for claims brought against them on the basis of current protected classes.
A friend of mine caught an employee stealing from him. He fired the employee. The employee went to the Human Relations Commission and filed a claim against my friend stating that she believed he fired her because she was black.
The complaint did not pass the muster of the HRC, but after the hearing, my friend was still out the $4,000 in costs and legal fees.
“When you have one group of Americans being treated differently than another group, this is definitely under the realm of the law.”
Okay, then. Do you think the obese should be added to the protected class list? The short? Those are clearly groups of Americans beind treated differently than others, and Massachusetts is considering both right now.
What about it, Joe? Does your logic not apply to those groups?
The employee went to the Human Relations Commission and filed a claim against my friend stating that she believed he fired her because she was black.
Race discrimination claims are handled by DOL, not the Human Relations Commission:
http://www.delawareworks.com/discrimination/employer.should.know.shtml
The DOL website appears to offer many ways for both parties to avoid litgation. The employee doesn’t even have the right to sue until a DOL investigation is complete. Neither party is required to have an attorney, during the initial investigation.
“What is speculative? That is what employers I know have paid for claims brought against them on the basis of current protected classes.”
What was speculation was your statement that the “overwhelming amount of complaints will be found to be without merit.”
“A friend of mine caught an employee stealing from him. He fired the employee. The employee went to the Human Relations Commission and filed a claim against my friend stating that she believed he fired her because she was black.
The complaint did not pass the muster of the HRC, but after the hearing, my friend was still out the $4,000 in costs and legal fees.”
And I’m sure this will happen again. However, you can’t tell me that the protections for racial minorities do more bad than good because your one friend and some like him take a hit.
“Okay, then. Do you think the obese should be added to the protected class list? The short? Those are clearly groups of Americans beind treated differently than others, and Massachusetts is considering both right now.
What about it, Joe? Does your logic not apply to those groups?”
Don’t you think that if someone was fired based only on the fact that they were short or fat should also have some protection? Remember, we’re not talking about the general populace treating a minority in a certain way, we’re talking very specifically about the rights of minorities in the workplace. But, don’t worry, I’ll try to keep the conversation on track for you, Dave 😉
So refreshing to have a forum site where robust discussion is welcomed.
I’m still not convinced that the bill is necessary.
Maybe that’s a function of where I live and the fact that gays and lesbians are treated as equals here.
Gays and lesbians I know don’t feel like they need special laws to protect them. They feel like they do okay on their own, and they are much more interested in civil unions than in workplace protection bills.
And if it does become law, how long until we’re to this point?
“I’m still not convinced that the bill is necessary.
Maybe that’s a function of where I live and the fact that gays and lesbians are treated as equals here.
Gays and lesbians I know don’t feel like they need special laws to protect them. They feel like they do okay on their own, and they are much more interested in civil unions than in workplace protection bills.”
I can see where you’re coming from, but it would only take one instance of discrimination targeting one of your friends for that sense of security to come crumbling down.
As for that hate speech article, I have always had very conflicting thoughts and emotions about this subject, and that prevents me from thinking about it as rationally as I should. However, I will say that I’m not sure laws guaranteeing protection from discrimination in the workplace are the cause of the example you linked, much less that example assumes a positive correlation in all states that enact such laws.