Bill to redefine discrimination

Two years ago, N.C. Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, proposed legislation that would provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

While the bill got stalled in committee then, Luebke is determined that equal protections will be provided to all state employees by the end of this legislative session.

Luebke, along with Larry Womble, D-Forsyth, reintroduced the bill last week to what he hopes is a more favorable group of legislators.

Ian Palmquist, executive director for programs at Equality N.C., an organization that worked with the sponsors on the language of the bill, said North Carolina is one of 24 states that does not protect public employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

“There are a lot of problems with discrimination … not just in state government but in private as well,” he said.

Palmquist added that North Carolina is one of 34 states that does not protect private employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Rep. Marvin Lucas, D-Cumberland, signed on to the bill as a co-sponsor. He said he supports extending protections against unfair treatment.

“We usually have equal protection for most of our citizens,” he said.

Detractors of such bills often say they provide a slippery slope toward legalizing things such as same-sex marriage, but Lucas said his support for the bill starts and ends at stopping workplace discrimination.

Early support for the bill is primarily Democratic, and Republicans are likely to put up some resistance.

“I don’t imagine this is going to sail through (the House) 120 to 0,” Lucas said.

Rep. Jim Gulley, R-Mecklenburg, is one of the dissenters.

He said he probably won’t support the bill because employers could face problems if it costs more to insure a gay worker.

“If they have a risky lifestyle, that shouldn’t cause me or any other employees’ insurance premiums to go up,” he said.

Still, he said that while he tends to be conservative, he does not advocate discrimination.

“I don’t think they should discriminate against a gay person because they are gay,” he said.

Luebke said that there are bound to be detractors but that the security the bill will provide will be essential to its success.

“I’m sure the bill will generate controversy,” he said. “But I believe the bill is a matter of fairness and of not wasting talent.”

Luebke also said it is essential to protect the state from losing a valuable pool of employees.

“Many talented gay people may opt for the private sector instead of work for the state of North Carolina,” he said.

Luebke said many Fortune 500 companies already recognize this fact and have their own anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation.

While it is still early, Palmquist said, he is cautiously optimistic about the bill’s passage.

“There is overwhelming support for this type of legislation,” he said.

Palmquist also noted that the support of 22 representatives — not including the two primary sponsors — who signed on to the bill show that many members of the House are ready for change.

But Luebke said that it is too early to count his chickens and that the bill still needs to gain a majority of support from representatives.

“Twenty-two is not 61.”

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.