U.S. News

2746 readers

37 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
Advocating violence is not allowed on Beehaw in general.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

Seattle passes measure to protect non-monogamous people as protected class (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seattle passed a measure on Tuesday to extend civil rights protections to non-monogamous people and multigenerational households, and recognize additional sexual orientations and gender identities as protected classes under local law. The city council voted unanimously in favor of the bill.

As the largest city yet to pass such a law, Seattle joins a growing group of local governments acknowledging non-monogamous and polyamorous people as frequent subjects of housing and workplace discrimination, and in need of commensurate protection. Boston suburbs Cambridge and Somerville, and Berkeley and Oakland in California’s Bay Area, have previously passed similar policies; Seattle is the 10th city to do so. Advocates say the efforts help local governments serve the many family structures that actually exist, not just the ones that are easy to define.

Research cited by the city council suggests that 10-20% of North Americans have engaged in consensual non-monogamy during their lives, while 5% are currently non-monogamous. More than 50% of respondents to a 2018 academic survey reported experiencing discrimination due to their consensual non-monogamous practices, including in medical settings, workplaces and family court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 3 points 4 weeks ago

this is definitely going to be fodder for Fox News headlines and Bill Maher jokes and similar bullshit

but, here's a link to the actual full text of what they passed: https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8175165&GUID=01C70EAD-3964-4E26-8DDF-E42FD2C8AB8F&FullText=1

there's a preamble and various other shit, but the bulk of what they passed is just updating this single paragraph. additions in bold:

"Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived ~~male or female~~ heterosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, or homosexuality and includes a person's attitudes, preferences, beliefs, and practices pertaining thereto. For the purposes of this definition, “attitudes, preferences, beliefs, and practices pertaining thereto” includes actual or perceived consensual relationships involving multiple partners such as non-monogamous relationships.

that's it. that's basically all they changed. removed "male or female" (I'm guessing it was added decades ago to make explicit that it applied to both gay men and lesbian women), added pan and ace, and added one sentence about non-monogamous relationships.

if there's a bigoted boss who overhears two of his employees talking, and one of them said "I'm gay", firing that person for being gay is clearly illegal.

if that same boss overheard an employee say "I'm pansexual" and then fired them for it, that's also illegal, under any reasonable interpretation of the existing anti-discrimination law.

but we're not dealing with reasonable people, we're dealing with bigots. so inevitably, one of them would have tried to drag out a court case trying to argue that firing someone for being pansexual was actually legal because it wasn't spelled out in the law.

likewise if you have 3 people renting a house from a bigoted landlord. he assumes they're roommates, finds out they're a throuple, and tries to evict them because of it. now it's 100% explicit (the legal term here is "black-letter" law) that non-monogamy is protected, instead of having to rely on interpretation.

the intent of the law is completely unchanged - if you have a bigoted boss, or landlord, they can't fire you or evict you or otherwise punish you, just because they "object to your lifestyle" or whatever other fucking euphemism they want to use.