The Wyoming Republican Party and a wealthy conservative donor are opposing a bill that would protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity — adding those qualities to existing protected classes like race, sex and creed.
The bill passed the House Revenue Committee 5-4 this morning, squeaking under a deadline for committees to release legislation to the chamber floor.
House Bill 230 – Enhancing quality employment law is limited in nature, proponents said. It applies merely to hiring and firing practices and is not a statewide anti-discrimination statute that would affect interactions between private businesses and their customers.
The bill makes it illegal to hire, fire or discriminate against an employee in “matters of employment” like compensation based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
It allows the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services to investigate complaints of such discrimination. Today, the Department of Workforce Services can investigate discrimination claims based on political affiliation, race, color, sex, or creed,
Two Democrats and two Republicans, including sponsor Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) voted in favor of HB230 on Friday morning. The Legislature’s lone Independent lawmaker, Rep. Jim Roscoe (I-Wilson) also voted in favor.
Influential opponents
In social media posts and in emails, the Wyoming Republican Party asked its members to tell lawmakers to oppose the bill. A wealthy political donor from western Wyoming who supports far-right candidates, particularly in Republican primaries, is also opposing it.
The party’s opposition was expressed directly to the committee Friday.
“The ambiguity in the law will in fact allow abuses by activists,” the party’s Executive Director Kathy Russell said.
Tensions between lawmakers, even among those opposed to the measure, again showed as the party pushed one of its major initiatives — blocking protections for LGBTQ people. The party lists limiting the ability of voters to switch political affiliation before primary elections as its highest priority for the session.
Last year, party leadership tied campaign funding to votes against a bill it had condemned that created an air-service subsidy. Rep. Cyrus Western (R-Sheridan) asked Russell if the party would punish lawmakers based on this issue.
“If Republicans do end up supporting this will the party take punitive measures toward those members come next elections?” Western asked.
Russell couldn’t answer Western’s question because the party’s State Central Committee would be in different hands by the next election, she said.
“So you’re saying that there is a possibility that the party will take punitive measures?” Western pressed.
“That is not what I’m saying,” Russell said. “I can’t say anything. I have no knowledge.”
Western ultimately voted against HB230.
Support in-depth, independent legislative coverage with a tax deductible donation
In an email sent to all 90 Wyoming legislators, Daniel Brophy, a Wilson resident and wealthy donor to conservative causes, also urged them to vote against the bill.
“The fact is that any anti-discrimination law discriminates against somebody or some group in favor of someone else or another group,” Brophy wrote. “Special protections for any group diminish the rights of everyone else not in that group.”
Over the last two election cycles, Brophy has spent broadly on right-wing challengers to moderate Republicans in the Legislature. In communications to lawmakers, he has shown particular interest in LGBTQ issues.
In 2014, lawyers from the Wyoming Liberty Group represented Brophy in a case against the Wyoming Secretary of State. Brophy’s case stopped the state from enforcing a $25,000 aggregate limit on how much individuals could spread among campaigns for state office.
This election cycle, Brophy and his wife spread $44,500 among primary candidates. There is a $1,500 cap on individual donations in state campaigns. By combining the couple’s donations they could give a candidate $3,000, a significant sum for many Wyoming statehouse races. He also donated a significant sum to a political action committee that supported gubernatorial candidate Harriet Hageman.
Brophy worried that providing a legal remedy for gay Wyoming residents discriminated against in hiring or firing could open the door to more groups claiming a protected class.
“Once these special rights are Wyoming law, which new groups will demand special rights tomorrow?” Brophy wrote. “Polygamists? Relatives attracted to relatives? Adults attracted to children? Fathers wanting to marry daughters? These are all ‘sexual orientations.’”
Exemption for religious nonprofits
The bill includes an exemption for discrimination in hiring practices by religious organizations. Defined as “expressive associations,” the exemption means organizations that are not for profit and primarily focused on religious teachings can discriminate on the basis of sexuality or gender identity.
In explaining the exemption, the bill’s proponents said it was an attempt to alleviate fears that the legislation could be used to persecute people based on their religious convictions.
“The biggest concern has been the religious conviction aspect, and I think there’s merit there,” Rep. Tyler Lindholm (R-Sundance) testified.
“At the same time … as government is supposed to do, we’re protecting the rights of those that can’t protect themselves,” Lindholm said.
Chief sponsor Zwonitzer called the bill a small step towards protections for Wyoming’s LGBTQ workers and said it was far narrower than previous attempts to extend protections into discrimination laws for commerce, housing and other areas.
“This really just deals with the fact that you shouldn’t be discriminated against in your job or fired … for anything other than your work ethic,” Zwonitzer said.
Zwonitzer and Reps. Connolly (D-Laramie), JoAnn Dayton-Selman (D-Rock Springs), Pat Sweeey (R-Casper) and Roscoe voted to send the bill to the House floor.
Reps. Jim Blackburn (R- Cheyenne), Tim Hallinan (R-Gillette), Dan Laursen (R-Powell) and Western voted no on the measure.
Whadda shock: the GOP opposes equality. Who’da thunk?
The Equality State , you say. ? It seems to have lost its equality . Has anybody seen the equality ? If found, please contact your nearest social conservative Republican legislator. There is no reward, but you’ll feel better for it.
Anyone who asks ( such as the other Commentors here ) why any class of people deserves ” special protection ” , I would ask them if they intend to grout the giant crack in the cement slab of their foundation, or would just leave it gaping because the tree roots and freeze-thaw are not mentioned in the state Constitution.
When conservatives continually vote against their own self interests to uphold an abject ideology , we all suffer for it. Wyoming’s political duplicty is getting old and tired. It’s made worse by the cynicism we shout out loud about being the first state to give women the right to vote , so we muct be universally ” The Equality State ” when in fact that was a ploy to get enough voters on the rolls to qualify for statehood. Let’s be honest about all that.
If we were being honest, those opposed to the HB230 equal employment protections language would just say with a straight face they are bigots. Special protections ? No. Filling in cracks voids and other errors of omission ? Yup. Well past the time to do just that…
Well said!
Facts Mr. Graham leaves out of the article:
At the Republican State Convention resolutions against bills like HB-230 that offer special protections and establish a protected class of individual passed unanimously at the convention with over 500 delegates from across the state of Wyoming including at least one of the bill’s sponsors.
SOGI laws are fundamentally anti-science. A recent metastudy (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016), found both sexual orientation as “an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings” and “gender identity as an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ “ is not supported by scientific evidence.
This is America, people have the freedom to act in any way they see fit as long as they don’t harm other people. However just because you think something you don’t have to the ability to coerce me through the law to agree with you. This is the precise aim of SOGI laws.
In defense of Dan Brophy, he is an upstanding Republican and folds beliefs that are 100% in line with the platform of the Wyoming Republican Party and for that matter a majority of people in Wyoming.
If’s interesting that we never see an expose on the donors to WyoFile. Who are WyoFile biggest donors? What is their agenda?
All citizens are already protected against discrimination. Laws or proposed laws that offer special protections for a certain group of citizens are not only unconstitutional……..they are plain wrong.
I agree. Why should one group have “special” protection?
Sally,
It doesn’t protect a special group, it protects citizens from discrimination against their sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace.
If this were to pass, and one day in the future our leaders and lawmakers and employers were predominantly LGBTQ and encouraged hate-mongering, discrimination, and prejudices in workplaces, business, or the legislature towards straight citizens – those gender normative targets would be protected as well.
It’s equal protection for all citizens of Wyoming, even people like you and Doug.
Chris
Well firstly, no it would not be unconstitutional. Redundancy between statutes and the constitution is fine, and often important.
Secondly, establishing definition, specificity, and procedure are how laws and government works. Specifying out certain types, reasons, and manners of recourse of/for discrimination is how you functionally ensure that citizens are actually protected against discrimination as required by the constitution.
There’s a reason we don’t have just one law that says “People aren’t allowed to do crimes” and call it good, but instead parse out specific crimes like murder, assault, theft, etc., and often further subdivide them with even more specificity like 1st and 2nd degree murder.
As you have mentioned, all citizens of the state are *supposed* to be protected from discrimination, but functionally, existing law has proven insufficient in preventing certain types of discrimination and insufficient in protecting some certain groups of people from discrimination, thus the proposed law defining and specifying protections for that group of people from that type of discrimination (workplace).
It’s not about giving them *special* protection, it’s about ensuring that this specific group enjoys the same protections everybody else has; that they are supposed to have that they don’t currently have in practice in Wyoming.