Gold Dome Live is moving!
Our new spot will allow us to get the news to you even faster and make commenting easier. Please bookmark the new site and sign up for our rss feed:
http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/
AJC.com > Legislature > Georgia Beat > Archives > 2005 > January > 12 > Entry
Bill aims to limit Atlanta’s anti-discrimination law
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Legislation was introduced in the Georgia House today that would bar the city of Atlanta from fining Druid Hills Golf Club for not treating partners of gay members the same as spouses of married members.
The bill, filed by state Rep. Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs), new chairman of the House Rules Committee, would have broader implications than just the city of Atlanta. It would prohibit similar actions by the state, any local government, agency or authority.
Ehrhart said Mayor Shirley Franklin’s threats of fines against the golf club were the driving factor behind his bill.
He called it a “non-discrimination bill” to assure private organizations the right of freedom of association.
“You can’t abrogate those, and you shouldn’t have to sue your political subdivision to get your rights,” Ehrhart said.
He said club members “knew going in what the rules were.”
Ehrhart said he introduced a similar bill last year, but did not push it because he thought the city had decided not to go after the club. “Then all of the sudden they decided to enforce [the 2000 human rights ordinance],” he said.
He said the bill does not indicate a rift between the new GOP-controlled Legislature and Franklin.
“I think there’s an excellent working relationship with Mayor Franklin. We had no relationship with her predecessor.”
He said he thinks this might put Franklin in a good position. “She can say to one constituency that’s very important to her: ‘I’m supporting this.’”
But Franklin also can say the Legislature took it out of her hands, Ehrhart said.
The legislation, House Bill 67, specifically states: “It is the policy of this state that any organization or person in this state may elect to, or elect not to, contractually provide to unmarried persons one or more benefits, rights or privileges in the same manner that such organization or person contractually provides benefits, rights or privileges to married persons.”
It further states: “State and local government shall not impose any penalty on or withhold any benefits, rights or privileges from any organization or person on the basis of such organization’s or person’s election to or election not to contractually or otherwise provide to unmarried persons one or more benefits, rights, or privileges in the same manner that such organization or person contractually or otherwise provides benefits, rights or privileges to married persons.”
Translation — the city would not be able to fine or otherwise punish private clubs that deny privileges to umarried members that are offered to married members.
The new law would apply to the state, any political subdivision of the state and to any department, agency, authority, commission, or other entity of the state.
Permalink | |
