©
Discrimination is wrong. Whether that discrimination is based on gender, race, physical ability, religion, age or any other immutable characteristic, it is an insult to America's commitment to equal opportunity.
Most Americans have added sexual orientation to the list of things that shouldn't form a basis for discrimination by government or other organizations and businesses. Many states have joined them.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, in an order at the beginning of his term, barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the executive branch.
Many local governments, including Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, have adopted formal policies on the subject. Norfolk is considering something similar.
This is good news for people who respect equal rights and government restraint. Strangely, though, it has run into opposition from people ordinarily very much in favor of small government.
Many of them, for example, cheered Virginia's consideration of a constitutional amendment that would allow states to nullify any federal law, under the principle that government is better the closer it is to the people. Presumably that principle should also be good for local governments, which are even closer to the governed.
Except that many of those same lawmakers and activists are glad supporters of the Dillon Rule, which concentrates authority in Richmond rather than in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake or Norfolk. Perhaps it's no surprise that lawmakers would prefer to keep power where they are.
It helps explain, for example, why the Attorney General's Office has ruled that cities don't have the authority to ban discrimination against homosexuals unless state government gives it to them.
Thankfully, in Executive Directive 1, the governor provided cities with all the legal ammunition they need to argue in favor of formal policies: "Discrimination based on factors such as one's sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."
Ideally, it wouldn't be necessary for governments to provide legal protection from official prejudice. It wouldn't be necessary to rely on city government to protect people from violations of the federal Constitution.
Ideally, people would treat each other fairly and equitably, without needing rules to do so. But this is not an ideal world.
Virginia Beach and Chesapeake rightfully have already extended constitutional protections where they can: to gay employees of government.
In the absence of leadership from Richmond, Norfolk - and other cities in Virginia - should do the same.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Dillion Rule & Political Subdivisions
As Dr. Tabor correctly points out, the Dillion Rule prevents a myriad of local-yokle political subdisions from passing all manner of discrimination in their local policies.
In Virginia political subdivisions are created by the General Assembly and they can be abolished by the General Assembly. Local governments haven't have any authority infringed because of the Dillion Rule, they simply only have the authority granted to them by the General Assembly.
There are many reasons to be thankful for the Dillion Rule. "Smaller government" within a state doesn't result from the creation of zillions of small governments and redundant state government agencies and functions. "Smaller government: is a net size of government - in this case, within the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Where Libertarians can find some common ground for agreement is that the role of government intrusion in our lives needs to be less, not more. The Dillion Rule tends to slow down the proliferation of government intrusion at the hands of local governments. It doesn't create any new authority within a state - it simply requires a statewide vote rather than a local political subdision. It is often harder to bribe the entire state than it is to bribe a tiny local government.
“Discrimination is wrong”
Employment discrimination on the basis of any non-job-related factor is contrary to business interests.
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by the policies of about 40% of Fortune 500 companies (including those with local headquarters: Norfolk Southern, Dollar Tree, and Amerigroup).
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will soon be prohibited in the military.
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is already prohibited by a majority of states and by more than 100 city and counties (including the local City of Virginia Beach and City of Chesapeake). The City of Norfolk should implement a similar policy as soon as possible.
For there to be “equal protection in every city,” what is really needed is to replace the patchwork of isolated laws and policies with a national anti-discrimination law.
Its not just wrong
its stupid.
But being in business, I always hope for stupidity in my competitors.
Misunderstanding Dillon's rule
Where is the authorization, other than in regards to marriage, in State code for localities to discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation? If there is none, then thanks to Dillon's Rule, localities cannot pass such ordinances of discrimination.
Absent Dillon's Rule, a "home rule" locality could pass some prejudice based ordinance such as forbidding gay citizens from working in child care, or systematically excluding gay teachers from elementary schools and the only recourse the affected citizens would have would be through the Federal courts.
Dillon's Rule protects the rights of the individual from abuse by the locality. Where State law does not authorize localities to treat citizens differently based on sexual orientation, they may not do so.
Just as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens against abuses of their rights by States by extending the Bill of Right's Federal protections to the State level, Dillon's Rule extends the protection to our rights and privileges under Virginia law to localities.
Without Dillon's Rule, many of our rights and privileges would would be subject to change each time we crossed a city boundary.
Civil libertarians against civil rights
The editorial properly exposes the hypocrisy of those who are “ordinarily very much in favor of small government.” Dr. Tabor seems to want to assign government power wherever it best serves his preferences on individual issues. When the federal government passes national health reform, he wants government power at a lower level (ignoring the supremacy clause of the Constitution). When local government wants to expand protection against discrimination, he wants government power at a higher level (citing the Dillon Rule).
There is nothing in federal or state law that prohibits private or public entities from expanding their anti-discrimination policies beyond legal requirements.
Again, you fail to understand how it works
Dillon's rule does not give the States any powers they do not already have. States have wide powers within the limits of the US Constitution and their own State Constitutions.
The State could overrule any local ordinance with or without Dillon's rule.
Dillon's Rule only takes away localities ability to interfere in our rights and has no effect whatever on State powers.
There is nothing inconsistent in a Libertarian supporting Dillon's rule as all it does is LIMIT the powers of one level of government while not adding to powers of any other level.
"Our rights"
"Dillon's Rule only takes away localities ability to interfere in our rights" What "rights" are being interfered with? Our right to discriminate?
So-called "libertarians" like Ron Paul and Rand Paul claim to oppose abstract racism, but also believe the Civil Rights Act and other federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. They defend the "freedom" of private businesses to refuse to provide service to customers on the basis of race or any other factor. That's not my idea of American "freedom."
Dillon's Rule has nothing to do with your right to discriminate
Dillon's rule only limits the power of localities to act in areas not authorized by the State. I don't see what that has to do with individual discrimination.
That said, the marketplace deals effectively with private discrimination.
I would be happy to see laws that prohibit private discrimination be thrown out. I do not discriminate in my business. On the contrary, I make much of my living providing treatment to minorities who have not been offered quality, prevention oriented dentistry by other offices who abide by the law but go no further to invite them to seek quality care.
I would be delighted to allow those dentists who really don't like to treat minority patients bar them from their door. That would get them to my office faster. That would be good for me and good for them, as dentistry is better for patients who are welcome and valued as customers.
How would a minority patient benefit from having a dentist who really doesn't like them be forced to treat them when their are other offices where they are welcome and valued?
When you really look at it, liberty works better than force in resolving relationships between people.
Please enlighten us
about how "the marketplace dealt effectively with private discrimination" in the segregated South before the Civil Rights Act?
Voting with their feet
Millions of blacks left the South, taking their skills, purchasing power and labor with them, keeping the South poor for decades.
Perhaps politicians and others in the South failed to hear that message, but the market was sending it, and the consequences for the South were harsh.