i
Just out ▼ O cto b er 3, 1007 ▼ 13
local news
We lik e it lik e this
,
Wording for Oregon’s proactive job discrimination measure could give voters the wrong impression critics say
by Inga Sorensen
ackers of a proposed initiative to pro
hibit employment discrimination
based on sexual orientation in Oregon
have sent state officials alternative
wording to the draft ballot title for
Initiative Petition No. 50.
That draft ballot title, issued Sept. 9, was
described as “mushy and vague” by American
Civil Liberties Union attorney Charles Hinkle,
who also argued the draft did not “make clear that
undercurrent law, it is perfectly legal for employ
ers to fire people based on their sexual orienta
tion.”
Critics had until Sept. 23 to submit their writ
ten comments highlighting concerns to the secre
tary of state’s office.
Hinkle did so on behalf of chief petitioners
Cheryl Perrin, senior vice president of public
affairs for Fred Meyer Inc., Ron Fortune, execu
tive secretary treasurer of the Northwest Labor
Council/AFL-CIO, and Basic Rights Oregon co
chair McKinley Williams.
The initial draft, issued via the attorney
general’s office, reads: “Prohibits employment
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
in employment decisions, opportunities, and mem
bership.
“Result o f ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote keeps current,
more general, prohibition on discrimination in
employment.”
The summary reads: “Adopts statute prohibit
ing employers, employment agencies, labor unions
from discriminating on the basis of sexual orienta
tion in connection with employment opportuni
ties, employment decisions, membership, or mem
bership privileges. Prohibits interfering in exer
cise of rights protected by measure. Prohibits re
taliation for opposition to practice prohibited by
measure or assisting in action brought under mea
sure. Does not require provision of partner ben
efits, preferential treatment on basis of sexual
orientation. Allows regulation of employee work
place conduct. Certain religious organizations may
discriminate. Enforceable under current proce
dures for challenging employment discrimination.”
B
Among his criticisms, Hinkle said the portion
reading “ ‘No’ vote keeps current, more general,
prohibition on discrimination in employment”
could lead one to believe that sexual orientation
employment protections are currently in place
statewide.
In his letter of proposed changes, Hinkle wrote,
in part: "The statement of ‘Result of “No” Vote’
should inform voters that a ‘no’ vote would retain
the current law, under which persons have protec
tion from discrimination on the job on the basis of
several characteristics, but not on the basis of
their sexual orientation.”
Hinkle then served up two alternative sugges
Meanwhile, in Washington,
a city council gives
support to ENDA
im Moeller knows right from wrong.
“Discrimination is wrong, there’s no two
ways about it,” says Moeller, an openly gay
member of the Vancouver City Council.
What’s right, he adds, is taking action to
promote equality, which is exactly what Moeller
did when he placed an item on the council’s Sept.
22 agenda that called upon members to endorse a
proposed initiative that would ban employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation in
Washington.
Though Moeller was hoping for a clean sweep
(read unanimous approval), he instead nabbed a
5-1 vote favoring the resolution, which endorses
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of
Washington, a k a Initiative 677, which will be on
the general election ballot in November.
Mayor Royce Pollard levied the dissenting
vote, and another member was absent.
Pollard says he voted against the proposal
because he believes the city should not take stands
Diversity Program, which prohibits discrimina
tion based on many factors, including sexual
orientation.
“The passage of Initiative 677 is consistent
with...Vancouver’s Workforce Diversity Pro
gram,” he wrote.
Though the council chambers were jammed,
just six people spoke—all in favor.
“I’m delighted,” Moeller tells Just Out. “I had
thought there would be some opposition present,
but they were a no-show. 1 don’t know whether
that’s a particular strategy, or whether they just
don’t have support for what they’re doing. I hope
it’s the latter.”
Moeller says he hopes the council’s action will
light a fire under initiative supporters.
“It’s definitely been more difficult motivating
people on this proactive initiative than it was
when we were facing a direct threat,” he says.
Moeller has also proposed extending benefits
to the domestic partners of city employees.
“I think that’s going to be a slightly tougher
battle [than gamering support for the resolution],
but I’m hopeful,” he says.
J
Jim Moeller
on statewide initiatives.
The City of Seattle and King County have
already endorsed 1-677.
tions for the “yes” statement, and one suggestion
for the “no” statement:
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: “Yes’ vote changes
current law and will prohibit discrimination in
employment based on sexual orientation.
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote will change
current law by prohibiting discrimination in em
ployment based on sexual orientation.
“Result o f ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote keeps current
law, which allows discrimination in employment
based on sexual orientation.”
Hinkle also argued that the draft title summary
was flawed, in part because it included no defini
tion of sexual orientation.
He wrote: ‘The summary should include the
definition, both because opponents...may try to
persuade voters to think (wrongly) that this mea
sure protects pedophiles (you may recall that the
OCA tried to link pedophilia with homosexuality
in its 1992 ballot measure), and because voters
should understand that this is not merely a ‘gay
rights’ bill, and that heterosexual persons as well
as homosexual and bisexual persons are protected
by the measure.”
Hinkle added, “Furthermore, it is important
that the definition include the notion of ‘per
ceived’ sexual orientation, for it often happens
that heterosexual persons suffer discrimination
on the job i f they are percei ved to be homosexual.”
He concluded with a proposed summary that
reads, in part: “Changes state law which currently
allows workplace discrimination based on sexual
orientation... ‘sexual orientation’ means actual or
perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, and
bisexuality.”
The attorney general will certify either the
draft ballot title or a revised ballot title.
Backers of the nondiscrimination initiative,
which is poised for the November 1998 general
election ballot, must submit 73,261 valid voter
signatures by July 2, 1998.
The prospective initiative petition was sub
mitted on behalf of Basic Rights Oregon, an
Oregon human rights group, on Aug. 29. For more
information, contact Basic Rights Oregon at
222-6151.
Vernon Stoner, Vancouver’s city manager,
meanwhile, sent a memo to the mayor highlight
ing the fact that the city has adopted a Workforce
Inga Sorensen
\