CHEYENNE – The Wyoming Senate on Monday approved second reading of a bill that would extend workplace and other anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Senate File 115 was approved after consideration of several new amendments to the bill.
The first, sponsored by Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, would have added creed, disability, political affiliation, economic status, ethnic background and ancestry to the protected classes afforded under SF 115. It also would have struck the “gender” in gender identity and replace it with “sex,” with Hicks arguing the two terms are interchangeable and the change would make the language consistent with the rest of Wyoming statutes.
But the bill’s key sponsor, Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, noted that the purpose of the bill is to exclusively address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
While he appreciated what Hicks was attempting to do, he suggested the amendment overreached, given the bill’s intent.
“In my reading, it’s outside the scope,” Rothfuss said. “It’s a little too broad for what the bill title indicates.”
Sen. Michael Von Flatern, R-Gillette, agreed, adding that Hicks’ amendment covered a lot of ground that already exists elsewhere in Wyoming statute.
Senate President Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, ruled that the amendment was not germane to the bill, and it was subsequently withdrawn.
The second amendment to the bill, offered by Senate Vice President Drew Perkins, R-Casper, sought to rework his previous amendment, which was approved on the bill’s first reading.
The amendment sought to expand the list of organizations that would be exempt from SF 115, going beyond religious organizations to include nonprofit “expressive associations” whose primary purpose or function “are grounded in religious teachings.”
“There are quite a number of those associations out there, so the purpose of this is to narrow that a little bit,” Perkins said, noting the amendment would only apply to groups whose right of expressive association under the U.S. Constitution would be “significantly burdened” by SF 115.
Rothfuss said he supported the thrust of Perkins’ amendment, though he still had some concerns about the possibility of a “nonprofit” expressive association forming within a larger for-profit company, which would then be able to use its religious convictions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Can I form an expressive association that’s not for profit within my for-profit corporation and then do things along those lines?” Rothfuss asked. “I’m just a little confused on when I can and can’t use this.”
Perkins argued that no expressive association could be “owned” by a private individual, nor could they create any financial benefit to a for-profit organization.
“A for-profit entity could create one of those, but they can’t own it, and it can’t be a subsidiary of that for-profit corporation,” he said.
Perkins’ amendment was approved on a voice vote, and the Senate turned its attention to the third and final amendment offered by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander. That amendment would have removed religious exemptions entirely from the bill, as well as any portion of the bill relating to what private individuals and companies are allowed to do.
Case said that while he agreed governmental functions and agencies funded by the government should have strict nondiscrimination policies in place, the same cannot and should not apply to private entities. When it came to private companies making hiring decisions, Case said that discrimination on any basis was wrong, but it was also constitutionally protected free speech.
“In private sector activity, people have the right to be stupid, if you ask me,” Case said. “It goes back to the individual to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Part of liberty is making choices, even if they’re the wrong choices.”
But both aspects of Case’s amendment drew fire, with Perkins leading the charge against the removal of religious exemptions. Perkins argued that going beyond the strictly worship aspects of religious organizations, he felt the bill wouldn’t provide enough protection to those organizations to perform some of their ancillary functions.
Von Flatern, meanwhile, took aim at removing private entities from the bill entirely. He argued that allowing employers to discriminate in their hiring practices may be preserving their rights, but it takes away the rights of prospective employees.
“I also believe people can be stupid and should be allowed to be stupid,” he said. “But when it affects other people … that’s when they’re making a mistake.”
Case’s amendment was divided into two sections, covering the removal of religious exemptions and private entities, respectively. Both failed their subsequent votes.
With that, SF 115 cleared second reading and is scheduled for third and final reading in the Senate later this week.
Please Wait…