Friday, December 16, 2005

Tully On The HRO And GOP Councilors

The Star’s Matt Tully tells Republican GOP councilors they have two choices in pondering what to do on the Human Rights Ordinance (HRO). “They can listen to the opponents, those shouting "homosexuality!" over and over, obsessing over the word and trying to make council members feel icky, sinful, for even considering voting against discrimination. Or they can listen to a more rational group -- a group of prominent Republicans who are speaking up for the business community.”

Tully cites the message of local developer Bob Gallant, the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders who believe passage of the HRO will be beneficial economically to Indianapolis. But so far their message isn’t getting through to the mostly pro-business GOP councilors.

“So Gallant has another message [Tully says]: The modest gay rights ordinance -- and, folks, this is just about keeping people from losing their homes or jobs unfairly -- could nudge forward Indy's desired image as a cultural and life sciences hub.”

It sounds like a no-brainer, but as Tully points out “not everyone wants that.”  Tully comments: “Just ask GOP Councilman Scott Keller, who backs the ordinance. After he set up the meeting with business leaders, and after he endorsed the mayor's police merger, one council colleague demanded Keller be tossed from the party. Stupid, stupid move.”

Bill Oesterle, Gov. Daniels’ 2004 campaign manager and head of Angie’s List felt this about Councilor Bradford’s demand that he leave the GOP: “Keller has the support of the business community on both issues," he said. "I would like to think (his critics) aren't telling the business community they can't be Republicans."

Tully concludes, After all, it's hard to call yourself the party of business, or to win much support from the business community, if its leaders see you as a roadblock.”  Here here!


Anonymous said...

Am I correct that Indiana is an At-Will Employment state? If so, would mind sharing your opinion—from a gay Republican employment law attorney perspective—on the merits / disadvantages of AWE laws?

Gary R. Welsh said...

From an economic standpoint, an at-will employment law is critical for business development. If an employer had to show cause every time he decided to terminate someone, it would potentially make every termination subject to litigation. It is best that we limit actionable cases to those that have violated some fundamental right of the employee (i.e. to be free of discrimination), or that violates public policy or a specific right granted by statute to the employee (such as family and medical leave). Employers and their employees are always free to contract their rights, in which case the employment relationship falls outside the at-will status. I believe all states are currently at-will states.