Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Alderman Tom Tunney, Photo from the 44th ward website
Later Tunney acknowledged that there isn’t a consensus in the LGBT community whether to pursue a special category as a qualified minority. He told the Sun-Times:
“We know we’ve been disadvantaged. But, there are programs for women already. And the perception is this would only enhance gay white males. That’s why there’s not consensus within our community.”But, Tunney said, “All I’m asking is just to explore this as we move forward making it an even better ordinance…We’re looking to do more research in the community about quantifiable discrimination in terms of access to credit and financial issues…to see whether or not, at a future date, categories within the LGBT community might be eligible.”
Back in July 2003 when Tunney first raised the issue, Mayor Daley said he was open to the idea if there were LGBT business owners who could provide proof they were denied city contracts because of discrimination.
How someone proves they are gay in order to qualify as an LGBT owned business is something Tunney had a hard time explaining. He told the Sun-Times, “Qualified domestic partners. That could be one factor”. He said work is still needed on the definition. [Sun-Times, Tribune]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The thought of various ways to "prove you are gay" and thus qualify for said set-aside program will make for some interesting floor debates in the City Council, no?
Isn't this a little much? Statistically, gay people are affluent group, with incomes that are much higher than the average person. I'm not sure how much this is needed.
Plus, this leaves loopholes wide enough to drive a hired truck through. Friends of the Daley Machine can hire a gay man to sit on the board of their company and - voila! - we have a gay-owned business!
When will under-employeed, white, lower-middle class male transplants from Michigan finally get their time in the sun? I beseech you, city hall.
I think the city should set aside some contracts for the "Unconnected"
I'm calling my alderman right now to find out what special ordinances he can pass to assist diabetic ambidextrous vegetarians like myself. I've fucking had it with being persecuted! We've been held enough long enough already!
Were I a white male business owner, I would turn gay in an instant if it meant I got a city contract. They'd just have to tell me what to suck and where to sign.
What if you are half black and bisexual? Do you qualify for a city contract based on that, or do you need to find another half minority and/or bisexual? Seems to me there are some loopholes in this potential new law.
That's cheating; you have to be FULLY gay.
NO CONTRACT FOR YOU!
too funny- how gay do you have to be to get a contract?
Like what if the owner was a little gay when cocaine is involved? Or what if the owner lived in Andersonville and kissed a lesbian?
This is really headed for stupid-ville and late-night TV jokes... don't we have a homeless problem and a crumbling budget?
Funny. I've been described as "a little swishy." Do I get a check?
I know someone who "experimented" in college. Is gay retroactive?
Yeah, this doesn't seem like a great idea (and this is coming from a gay man). How do you define a 'gay business' anyway? Considering the small percentage of gay people, what quota do you set aside?
There are bigger issues regarding discrimination against gays.
is tunney up for relection or something?
Considering the shenanigans that already go into turning white contractors legally black to get a city contract, this promises high comedy...
...apart from the part about it being one more example of government-sanctioned institutionalized prejudice, of course.
Wow. What a pack of homophobic jackasses on here. I mean, it's the internet, so that's not a surprise.
HA! Gay is funny! "Swishy?" What is this, a 60's bedroom comedy?
GLBT people face very real discrimination, even in business. Hell, especially in business. You think the meathead "guyz" who run city contracts are an enlightened group open to embracing anyone regardless of their orientation? Perhaps I can interest you in these magic beans or this lovely bridge?
I think it's a nice move by Tunney, it opens up some debate and obviously shakes the tree pretty hard to have all you monkeys falling out.
Okay, then, how would you go about proving that business owners actually are gay? As some of us monkeys have pointed out, there's plenty of shenanigans already going on with the identification of business owners as minorities or women, characteristics that should be readily apparent. How do you solve this problem with a characteristic that isn't visibly obvious? How do you prevent abuse?
You gonna pretend to be gay? Are you going to list your business as a GLBT owned and operated firm on a city bid form under penalty of perjury or other civil/criminal penalties? How do you verify race? My cousins mother is from Mexico, they speak Spanish fluently and they have green eyes and the last name O'Connell. Race can be just as much an abstraction as sexual orientation. It comes down to having deterrence to fraud built into the system.
Oh, I'm sure some will try to scam it. Same as the racial minority-run businesses are sometimes little more than white companies in blackface.
It's all the homophobic tittering and giggling, which if it was directed at racial minorities wouldn't be tolerated, that gets me.
And this city has done so well in deterring fraud in the past.
Yes, there will be people pretending to be gay. Rich Daley and Dick Mel will suddenly have gay nephews. Dozens of connected individuals will suddenly find themselves much more in touch with their sexuality, as another loophole will have opened up for them. Any deterrent will be no different from the laughable deterrents against corruption currently not working.
And reporters and watchdog groups and ultimately prosecutors will be standing by. If you opposition to progress is the threat of possible abuse you're not going to go anywhere.
jess you are awesome! you are the police of gay then.
With race you actually can determine someone's ethnicity to a reasonable degree but with LBGT there is a whole spectrum of activities that could apply. If I am a cross-dresser do I qualify- well why not? What if I was gay when I got the contract but then I got married to a woman (or someone who used to be a man and is now legally a woman). Do I lose the contract because I'm not gay anymore? I just confused myself there.
It is just going to be too hard to enforce. Plus what about the other village people besides the construction worker?
I see where his head is at- trying to combat bigotry but this is not a very well thought out idea.
I could name five business owners right now who were turned black by their lawyers and have reaped millions as a result from the city of Chicago. (You probably live near the sandwich shop chain owned by one of them.) If you think this is about helping you and your fellow gays, Jess Nevins, you're a damned fool. It's about helping the usual connected guys who will pretend to be you. And no reporter or watchdog or prosecutor will touch it.
And sorry, but this is HILARIOUS.
No one ever said LGBT aren't discriminated against. But this is a foolish idea, because it is impossible to verify. What part of that don't you understand?
There is nothing homophobic about me or my posts here. Nobody said that gays do not face discrimination or bias, but this suggested solution (set asides) is borderline absurd, especially the way such set aside programs have been administered by the City government. As posters pointed out, how do you verify? What is necessary to establish a legal identification of gay? It is not homophobic to point out that something is ridiculous. Jeez, we make fun of everything here.