[UPDATED:]Open thread on HB 176 debate

Apparently is concerned that if this bill passes we'll all become gay. He just said that this bill will make homosexuality the "norm," not just accepted society. He then goes into a diatribe about how harmful the sexual revolution as been. He then ends by saying that Ohio doesn't have sodomy in its criminal statutes anymore, but it "shouldn't be the mechanics of government" to force that change. Apparently, overlooking that it was the U.S. Supreme Court that made such laws unconstitutional.

"One of the founding principles of our country is that anyone can succeed if they are willing to work hard and play by the rules." Garrison states this bill supports the ethics of hard work. 433 Fortune 500 companies have adopted such policies as most of colleges, and even the House itself has such a policy in its employment policies. Garrison again talks about this about a measurable and constructive step to ensure legal protections that all Ohioans who work hard and play by the rules do not have the rug pulled out from them. She joins Yates in equating this to suffrage.

Mentions that as a pro-life person, her opposition to abortion is grounded not only in her faith, but in those founding words "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator certain uninalienable rights" And therefore, she is going to support the bill. The Constitution does not confer liberty on those the General Assembly likes or agrees with. Disagrees that it creates "special protections" because the protections are the principles of liberty.

Says this bill smacks those who have deep religious beliefs who disagree with these issues. Says this bill punishes those who disagree with you. Uses the charged term of "sexual preference." This bill creates new tools to punish people whose moral and personal beliefs and shame on you for thinking you know better than what other Ohioans believe. Watchmann says the legislature shouldn't punish people the way you do. I believe his view on adult-oriented businesses must be an exception... and on abortion... and just about everything else. He keeps saying that over and over.

Businesses have concerns about how we handle civil rights complaints in Ohio. Bill doesn't apply to employees 15 or less. Talks about problems with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission process that needs to change that eliminates or reduces the people who file frivilous complaints. Apparently, this is about some Republican amendment that was ruled out of order and not considered. Waaa!

Offended at the idea of being similiar of granting voting rights. What this bill is about is taking away rights of owner or businesspeople to do what they wanted. Huffman is the employment lawyer who Watchmann referred to about this bill being great about his business. He equated that with people who think they weren't hired because they are heavy, middle children, or pregnant. (Except that pregnancy anti-discrimination DOES exist in the law). Just because people think its wrong doesn't mean we can force this on landlords and employers (then why have ANY anti-discrimination law?) Says this isn't about creating special rights, but taking away rights. Criticizing diversity as a social value. Says this bill is an example of the divisiveness of society. Equates this to an eventual bill to prohibit discrimination based on support for a college football team.

Discrimination is not a right. Points out that there was a time that several of the members of the opposition could have been lawfully discrmination against on the basis of being Jewish, female, or even, Irish.

56-38. Garrison (may have) added her name as a sponsor. I had a hard time reading the voting board, but I looked like Garrison added her name to the bill when given the opportunity. Will have to wait for the House Journal to confirm.)