Nanny-State Hypocrital Bigots Come in All Shapes and Sizes
by jhwygirl
In this episode we refer you to Rep. Kristin Hansen (R-Havre) who introduced her pro-discrimination bill HB516 to the House with a first reading on Saturday.
A woman. How refreshing.
Hansen’s bill is designed to prohibit local government ordinances geared at promoting equality. It applies retroactively.
How’s that for conservative small-government? Jobs Jobs Jobs?
Rep. Hansen’s bill would violate the Montana Constitution along with the federal government’s based on current multiple Supreme Court precedents.
Will the GOP speak out to this hateful legislation? Isn’t there anything in this legislation that some true small-government privacy loving conservative doesn’t find offensive?
I do honestly make an effort to try and not lump all GOP together. It is becoming increasingly hard for me to do that. This is one bill where I certainly have an expectation for someone anyone in the GOP to come forward and speak out against this kind of hateful horrible legislation.
Certainly there are a few of you Republicans that think this sort of thing is wrong?
Failing that, it makes it hard not to lump ’em all together. There are dangerous ideas here that need confronted. This is one of them.
As for Rep. Kristen Hansen? You can bet she’s no lawyer (but she’ll be able to play one here in the State of Montana if she wishes after this session, if the GOP get’s their wishes.)
Both Missoula and Bozeman have passed local ordinances geared at protecting and promoting equality in their respective communities. This bill is a direct slap at these communities…and it is also a slap at any other community that may want to embrace a message of acceptance for their citizens.
-
1
Pingback on Feb 18th, 2011 at 1:19 am
[…] this to hearing…and the committee moved up their start time to 7 a.m. to boot. This bill was introduced on the floor first reading just last Saturday. Special treatment, I’d […]
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
February 14, 2011 at 8:17 am
The Dems idea of JOBS/JOBS/JOBS includes the same tired bills that they put up versions of every legislative sessions, such as HB214, which would legislate “gender identity” “gender expression” and “sexual orientation”
So predictable.
February 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Yeah, they should focus on important things like militias, mandatory ultrasounds, and nullifying federal laws.
February 14, 2011 at 8:56 am
Wow. A lib/prog blogger actually typed the phrase “Nanny-State”.
Wow. Just wow.
February 14, 2011 at 8:58 am
From the bill:
I don’t see this bill going anywhere but it is hardly “pro discrimination” as there are both state and federal protected classes now and in the future. Perhaps the intent is to keep things uniform so as to avoid confusion and disproportionate impact on businesses that need a standard across their operations. Don’t know what’s driving it. You do have a valid point about local control…. like local control over established education funding sources.
February 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Yeah, we need uniformity, it’s 1962, so let’s get some jim crow laws for Michigan, Nebraska, and California, too.
Wrong answer.
Right answer? Look at the state’s own policies at the Universities, and explain to me why the university towns where those are located can’t have the same policies.
February 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Mr. B, jim crow? This stems from the action that Missoula took on its own. I am not aware of any other Montana city having done this. Now explain to me why the Missoula city council would not hold a referendum on the matter?
As to this bill, the retroactive provision alone probably dooms it.
February 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Bozeman passed an ordinance that mirrors the Montana State University policy for it’s own personnel and benefits policies, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity, and requires the same from companies and entities with which it contracts. So it’s not as sweeping as Missoula…but Bozeman adopted this before Missoula, and, as you now know, with far less controversy or publicity.
You really think jim crow would’ve been overturned with a popular vote in any of the southern states? I know you’re wrong.
February 14, 2011 at 11:14 pm
As far as I’m concerned if the representative from Havre doesn’t like this policy, we should close MSU Northern and bring it to a town whose policies more closely follow the MSU ethic:
Montana State University-Bozeman does not discriminate in admission, access to, or conduct of its educational programs and activities nor in its employment policies and practices on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual preference, marital status, age, religion, creed or political belief, mental or physical handicap or disability, or status as a Vietnam era or disabled veteran.
February 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Recalling from memory, I believe under the Montana constitution Art 2. Secs 2 and 3 seem to have expansive breadth especially the part about “social condition.” Now what law could be enacted discriminating against a segment of Montana’s people that wouldn’t already run afoul of those provisions? And how could jim crow exist under such constitutional guaranteed rights?
February 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm
correction: I meant Secs 3 and 4. of Art. 2.
February 15, 2011 at 12:09 am
dunno, Craig, but as you point out, the sponsor is a lawyer.
February 15, 2011 at 9:13 am
Mr. B, perhaps the sponsor is just trying to maintain a pattern of uniform laws across the state.
As to your point about state higher education institutions, I believe they are fully within their rights to set their own policies so long as those policies don’t conflict with federal and state law. I believe that is true for cities as well in their contractual requirements.
February 14, 2011 at 9:31 am
In case you care, actually Rep. Hansen is a lawyer.
February 14, 2011 at 9:52 am
Whoops.
February 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Apparently she doesn’t pay attention to state and federal supreme court cases.
Or she’s just plain ignorant.
Probably both.
February 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Wow!
Calling her ignorant when you didn’t take the time to find out she is a lawyer before you revealing your ignorance of her background with a snarky insult? http://www.lawyers.com/Montana/Havre/Kristin-N.-Hansen-2570934-a.html?site=787&CMP=LEC-VZNSP=clickTrackSwbdLstg%28LR:Business%20Tagline
February 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm
She is proposing a law that doesn’t conform to the State of Montana’s Constitution.
I call that ignorant.
February 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm
What is your analysis?
February 14, 2011 at 6:02 pm
State Supreme Court rulings, Craig.
February 14, 2011 at 10:55 am
Go ahead and lump’em! There nuthin’ but Bible thumpin lumpen ANYway! There are some very, very sick dudes in Helena right now. They snuck in under term limits. I long for the good old days when we just had nutty Hiliners!
February 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm
It’s certainly interesting that the astute bloggers at ECW haven’t had a word to say about this session–or very little.
Instead, Craig’s content to come over here and offer very little substance supporting the clowns running the show for the GOP.
February 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Pogie, you haven’t been paying attention. I have offered no support whatsoever.
February 14, 2011 at 6:00 pm
February 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Look up the term apolitical.
February 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Craig is the Great Defender of All Things GOP. He’s completely oblivious to how ridiculous he looks.
I know for a fact that people find him entertaining.
February 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm
You haven’t paid attention either. Remember my call to throw out all those that vote for HB198?
February 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm
You remember me saying that one departure from the meme does not a non-partisan make?
February 14, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Just like you not knowing Kristen Hansen is a lawyer, you continue to rejoice in and defend your ignorance. But that’s ok honey. It’s Valentines Day.
February 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Defend my ignorance? How?
February 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Here’s a better idea. How about we get back to the issues you raised like declaring this bill is unconstitutional. As I asked above, before you descended into inartful foreplay, what’s your analysis?
February 14, 2011 at 7:21 pm
It isn’t analysis – it’s the Montana Supreme Court rulings in the matter.
I’m not doing your homework for you.
Go to search and put in “platform”. There are two articles there on the MT GOP platform, and in one of those post are multiple links that will help you.
February 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Come on Jh. You made the claim. Support it with reasoned analysis, or is this just more ignorance on your part? Your claim is about the bill. Switching to party platform is a dodge.
February 14, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I can’t help you if you can’t help yourself.
February 14, 2011 at 7:43 pm
And I refuse to make your case for you. Your claim. Defend it. Show us how smart you are to call an attorney ignorant.
February 14, 2011 at 11:01 pm
if it isn’t unconstitutional craig it ought to be.
do you really think that limiting the right of local communities to govern themselves in this case is justifiable?
if hansen isn’t mentally challenged i think a case could be made that she lacks good judgment, along with the gop party leadership which wastes the legislatures time with crappy bible belt ignoramus bills like this.
February 14, 2011 at 11:07 pm
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/62nd/leg_info.asp?HouseID=0&SessionID=105&LAWSID=8077
Her other two bills seem normal. I don’t know what prompted her to do this.
Universities and university towns are open minded, welcoming places (well, Bob Jones et al excepted). Does Havre deserve to be a University town?
February 15, 2011 at 9:26 am
Dallas Erickson.
February 15, 2011 at 9:26 am
Rep. Hansen should expect an earful on Friday. I know I’ve been planning my speech for weeks… but what to wear???
February 15, 2011 at 9:30 am
http://missoularedtape.com/2011/01/19/missoula-anti-discrimination-ordinance-could-be-under-fire-in-helena/
This is the ir-rationale behind the bill from the man himself. Please enjoy all the colorful remarks!