PA House Bill 970

PA House Bill 970
Protecting What You Wear, Not Who You Are
by Frank Pizzoli

Do clothes make the man? Or the woman?

Imagine arriving at work in motorcycle clothes — vest or jacket, chaps, boots, a hat with a brim that hides your eyes — and employers couldn’t do squat. Clothing preference, under House Bill 970 introduced by Representative David Argall, would be protected by the state’s Human Relations Act (HRA).

Imagine returning to work the next day in your usual business garb. On your way past the boss’ office he asks, “Are you gay?” If the answer is ‘yes,’ the trap door opens. Down the chute. Sexual preference or orientation is currently not protected under the state’s HRA.

Essentially, the HRA gives individuals the “right to freedom from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations” if your “individuality” is defined as a “protected class.” Being defined as a protected class means that a group’s “civil rights” are acknowledged.

Currently, the law recognizes “race, color, familial status, religious creed, ancestry, handicap or disability, age, sex, national origin, the use of a guide or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals.”

Argall’s bill would add as a protected class, “motorcycle ownership or operation or the wearing of clothing associated with motorcycle ownership or operation except when such clothing is obscene.” Like the US Supreme Court, we’ll know obscene when we see it, I guess. Presently, the state legislature has no bills under serious consideration that provide civil rights for gay and lesbian taxpayers.

Did something happen in Argall’s home district that moved him to action?

“A constituent came to me saying that a similar law was passed in Minnesota. He thought the law was good there, so I introduced it here,” he said. Charles Umbenhauer, a local resident, tells a different story. “I approached Rep. Argall and asked him to introduce the bill.” As spokesman for ABATE, Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education, Umbenhauer feared that discrimination against bikers which had been reported in other states by the American Motorcycle Association might occur in Pennsylvania.

Umbenhauer paused when asked about documented discrimination. He told MODE that he did not have any documented examples of people wearing biker leather being discriminated against. One source said that on the eve of a recent ABATE rally day in Harrisburg, a few members were reportedly thrown out of a local restaurant due to “the way they were dressed.”

Meanwhile, since there are numerous examples of gay and lesbian individuals being fired from jobs because they are gay, would Representative Argall amend his own bill to include “sexual orientation” as a protected class? “I’d need to speak with the bill’s supporters. It may have my name on it, but it’s their bill,” he explained. How would he know whose bill it is if he can’t remember who asked him to introduce it?

Asked if he would add “sexual orientation” to the HRA under a separate bill Rep. Argall replied, “I don’t know. I’d have to think about that.” Sounds like his preference is to protect what clothing people wear, not who they are, in the workplace.

Suprisingly, the “ready-to-wear” issue for ABATE is more important than their other, more recognizable battle to repeal the state’s mandatory helmet law.

Do local elected officials think discrimination against individuals for wearing motorcycle clothing or discrimination due to sexual orientation is important?

“I suppose if we can include motorcycle clothing we can include just about anything,” said Senator Jeff Piccola, pointing out that “we usually reserve the HRA for more narrow areas of distinction, I guess is the word.” “The list is unending. Before too long, we will have protected every human frailty,” Piccola replied, when asked if he would support inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class in the HRA.

One local gay leader, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired from her job, said “The senator thinks my being a lesbian is a ‘frailty’? How about when I pay taxes, vote, volunteer in the community like everyone else, and not just on gay issues, what does that make me? I think it makes me a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen deserving of civil rights, just like the senator. Maybe former senator.”

Exactly what is wrong with protecting everyone in the workplace from discrimination by insuring that employment decisions are based on “performance” and not on dress, or sexual orientation or perception of sexual orientation? Why is that a bad thing?

After repeated telephone calls over three days to both legislative and district offices, Rep. Patricia Vance was not available to respond. Larry Gross, Ph.D., co-chair of the Philadelphia Lesbian & Gay Task Force, opined that “this legislature has made it clear that they hold the gay and lesbian community in low regard when it comes to civil rights.”

At least one local elected official thinks the rights of gay and lesbian citizens are important. “The most egregious form of discrimination going on right now is against gay and lesbian citizens,” says Rep. Ron Buxton. If the “motorcycle bill” ever hit the House floor he would “absolutely” offer an amendment to include sexual orientation in the HRA.

Rep. Lita Cohen, long-time supporter of gay and lesbian civil rights, has tried unsuccessfully to move along the issue of gay and lesbian civil rights for the last six years. “I would amend Rep. Argall’s bill from the floor,” she said, rushing off to a press conference in her suburban Philadelphia district.

Another legislative leader seems open minded on the motorcycle and sexual orientation issues. “I’d have to hear from the ABATE about any research they have confirming discrimination against motorcycle people,” said Rep. Paul Clymer, chair of the State Government Committee which has oversight of this type of bill. He offered to check with Homer Floyd, HRA executive director, on both discrimination against motorcycle enthusiasts and gays and lesbians. “I know the 26 members of my oversight committee are going to ask for examples,” he stressed.

There’s no better example than local CPA Dan Miller. He calls the lack of civil rights protections for gays and lesbians “taxation without representation.” Miller was fired in 1990 by then-employer Don DeMuth for violating language he had included into Miller’s employment contract. Demuth could dismiss Miller, or anyone who signed on, for “moral turpitude, being charged with a felony, use of illicit drugs, intoxications while working, insulting Employer’s family and clients, not working, intentionally working slowly, intentionally losing clients, engaging in sexual activities in the office, and homosexuality.”

Miller was safe on all the “cause” elements of his contract except one — he’s gay. In a now celebrated case which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where Miller received his final defeat, the case illustrates that there is no language in any existing law which protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired simply because they are gay. Employers are free to disregard exemplary job histories and kudos of a lifetime. If you’re gay, you’re out. That’s it. Case closed. Miller knows first hand. Although this is completely out of character for Miller, he could, if Argall’s bill passes and is signed by Governor Ridge, go to work in biker leather and be protected.

Under a solemnly turgid photograph of DeMuth in The New Yorker magazine, where Pulitzer Prize winning writer James B. Stewart chronicled Miller’s trials and tribulations on the cover, DeMuth noted that, “his beliefs stem not from prejudice but from principle.”

Cover model Rob Shoeman is another good example of why gays and lesbians need the support of the HRA in their quest for safety and civil rights. Several years ago, his mother’s automobile was firebombed. Fearing for his life, she moved Shoeman and his sister away from a school and neighborhood that threatened serious physical violence. “I feared for his life,” she said.

Perhaps essayist Gore Vidal said it best with “In order for a ruling class to rule, there must be arbitrary prohibitions. Of all prohibitions, sexual taboo is the most useful because sex involves everyone. To be able to lock up someone or deprive him of employment because of his sex life is a very great power indeed, and one seldom used in civilized societies.”

At the end of the day, what anyone wears or does with a willing partner is of no social or cosmic significance. Let’s just get over it.