State-required reporting on LGBT businesses

May 1, 2012

By Katy Grimes

Democrats in the Assembly passed a bill on Monday requiring the Department of General Services to collect and report information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender owned businesses in contracting with the state.

The bill, AB 1960, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, opens the door to allow preferential treatment in the bidding process on state government contracts, similar to the bidding preferences already received by minority, disabled military veterans, and women-owned businesses.

Dickinson vehemently denied this was the intent of the bill. But why else require the state’s largest agency to collect and report the data?

According to the author, “this bill represents a small, but vital step toward breaking down  discriminatory barriers marginalizing a key segment of our population.  LGBT owned businesses are a critical part of our economy, and AB 1960 would help provide recognition for this valuable role.”

Is Dickinson saying that the state discriminates against LGBT-owned businesses and needs a bill declaring that this is wrong?

This is pure nonsense and drivel, except AB 1960 is now on its way to becoming a law.

The State of California spends $8.9 billion annually on state contracts. As the state already provides preferential treatment in state contracting for some, the LGBT community obviously wants to get a piece of the action.

Dickinson’s bill is just the baby step in the process.

It still boggles my mind that the state gives preferential treatment to those it deems victims in need of special assistance in business: Women, disabled veterans, minorities, and now LGBT.

“The cost is small in comparison to the impact,” Dickinson said Monday.

Owners of businesses who qualify for the state’s special certification process must jump through numerous hoops, including mountains of paperwork proving they are a woman, a minority or a disabled veteran.

Multiple years of tax returns, financial statements, business projections, and other forms of documentation proving the validity of the protected class, are required by the state. How then will the state prove that a business contracting with state agencies is in fact lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender owned?

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, asked Dickinson that question. But Dickinson said that the bill does not provide any legal entitlement or special privileges, and said that it is voluntary disclosure. But he never did say what the purpose is for asking for “voluntary disclosure”  of sexual orientation when contracting with the state.

The state has a responsibility to use taxpayer money as prudently as possible. AB 1960 would begin the process of adding yet one more discriminatory bid preference to the mix, when instead, we should be removing all of them for the most open field for competition.

Preferential treatments in state bidding reduce competition and result in higher costs for taxpayers. The system is already gamed by phony business owners claiming to be minority or women owned. What’s to stop anyone from claiming to be LGBT?

AB 1960 is a stupid bill and just additional evidence that California needs a part-time Legislature.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 1 May, 2012, 17:34

    Man alive. Businesses are forced to hire convicted criminals and now the government must give preferential contract awards to gays? These are hard times. It’s enough to make a straight man claim that he’s gay just to keep his head above economic waters and stay in the game. Even if one is married in a heterosexual union it does not necessarily mean he’s not gay or bi. So what would stop him from demanding the preferential treatment too? Would the government regulators have to watch him perform a sex act on another man to get added to the list? I’m serious. How do they prove or disprove his gay claim??? That’s a legitimate argument here. I’m not being trite or sarcastic here. Heck, if I had a family to feed and couldn’t win bids on my own I would not hestitate to submit the gay claim for government contracts. Whatever works.

    Reply this comment
  2. Bob
    Bob 1 May, 2012, 18:13

    Guess it will really pay to be a gay criminal in Colliefornia (as Ahnode sez).

    Reply this comment
  3. Rogue Elephant
    Rogue Elephant 1 May, 2012, 19:38

    These people have a wierd Puritanical obsession with your junk.

    It’s almost McCarthy-esque: Are you now, or have you ever been a heterosexual?

    So, Three’s Company-style, people will fake being gay, so they can get business from the state. Will they make you prove you’re gay?

    Reply this comment
  4. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 1 May, 2012, 20:51

    “So, Three’s Company-style, people will fake being gay, so they can get business from the state”

    If I had little mouths to feed I would. In a heartbeat. I ain’t proud! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  5. larry 62
    larry 62 2 May, 2012, 07:05

    Depends on what your definition of “is” is. lol

    Reply this comment
  6. queeg
    queeg 2 May, 2012, 08:53

    Some have no personal convictions, moral compass, compassion for human kind….the good or their failings….they slash and burn most everything….the tiresome Autocrat At The Breakfast Table.

    Reply this comment
  7. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 2 May, 2012, 09:56

    Liberals who espouse conservative values need to exit the closet too.

    Reply this comment
  8. Rogue Elephant
    Rogue Elephant 2 May, 2012, 17:01

    How “gay” does one have to be, to be legally gay? Is there some minimum requirement?

    Reply this comment
  9. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 2 May, 2012, 21:29

    “How “gay” does one have to be, to be legally gay? Is there some minimum requirement?”

    You just have to lust in your mind. You know, like Jimmy Carter did. When you go to submit your application for the preferential contract bid ask the cutest guy behind the counter for a date. That should be enough.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Hiltzik mangles gun statistics

Feb. 18, 2013 By John Seiler In the Los Angeles Times’ continued attack on our gun rights, Michael Hiltzik writes:

CBS: Record cold ice storms = global warming

I’ve finally figured it out. CBS just ran a story blaming global warming for the record cold ice storms Back

Too "Stupid" To Purchase For The State?

Katy Grimes: Some of the state’s school districts haven’t exactly been the best purchasers of products or services, according to