Last night, this proposal and hearing were brought to my attention by an e-mail about my Councilman Sal DiCiccio's strong opposition to the proposed amendments and by an almost simultaneous e-mail about Equality Arizona's advocacy for the proposal.
I had problems with both of their missives, and asked them each questions by e-mail. Given all the hub-bub, I am not surprised that they did not respond. Here are the questions:
For DiCiccio: 1) Do you have any backup information for your statements that this would "criminalize business owners", and that "the floodgates of litigation will be opened"? Have you checked statistics and/or court cases from the other states and municipalities that have similar laws/ordinances? Can you provide some examples for this article?
2) Have you received any word from the Mayor or other Councilmembers regarding your call for a delay?
3) Any response to the criticism that you are receiving from the Equality Arizona organization and their supporters?
For Equality Arizona: 1) This WOULD prohibit gender identity discrimination in public restrooms, wouldn't it? If not, why do you think it does not? It appears to have effected it under similar ordinances in other states, doesn't it? (Transgender Law Center: http://bit.ly/Yxk2kW, Maine ct ruling: http://bit.ly/Xy5HVg)
2) If you believe it does not effect public restrooms, would you favor language making that explicit?
3) DiCiccio is calling for a delay. Is this a bad idea and, if so, why?
Some other research:
1) Here's a rept on 1 of the few cases I could find re: laws similar to 1 Phx considering. Found T-G's could use bathrm. http://bit.ly/Xy5HVg
2) Here is the proposed amended ordinance: http://1.usa.gov/XEK3eSWe welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment