If the Democrats have their way, anyone selling to the State will have to tell the government is they are heterosexual, homosexual, transvestite, cross dressers or just “different”. Otherwise NO contract.
“This bill would require the Department of General Services to include in the report on contracting activity information regarding the level of participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender owned businesses in specified contracts, as provided.
What specified contracts? Almost all contracts let out for bid by California including construction, purchases of materials, supplies, or equipment and professional services.
The bill was passed by the Assembly on an almost party line vote and sent to the State Senate.”
What if you lie and claim to be straight? How about those who lie to get a contract by claiming to be transgender?
This is why asking a persons sex, national origin or color should not be allowed. Quality and price, not your color or who you have sex with should be a determinant of government contracts.
Bigotry is alive and well in the Democrats Party.
Lee DeCovnick, American Thinker, 5/3/12
California Assembly Bill 1960 continues the radical gay political machine’s carefully planned assault on personal privacy. Here is the bill’s summary as written by the Legislative Counsel’s Digest.
Existing law requires the Department of General Services to make available a report on contracting activity containing specified information, including the level of participation of business enterprises, by race, ethnicity, and gender of owner, in specified contracts.
And not so surprisingly, the bill says it’s actually voluntary for contractors to report this information. The “volunteerism” aspect is a clever device to provide cover for the liberal lap dogs in the MSM who have to report this unsavory tidbit of unholy tyranny.
From the Sacramento Bee:
The measure, Assembly Bill 1960, would enable the owners of businesses that contract with the state to identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It would not require them to do so.
The Department of General Services currently is required to collect data on contractors by race, ethnicity and gender. AB 1960 would add LGBT-owned businesses to that list.
The bill by Sacramento Democratic Assemblyman Roger Dickinson seeks data involving state contracts for construction, professional services, and for the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment.
Dickinson said the measure would allow state officials and gay or lesbian groups to better pinpoint the extent to which LGBT-owned businesses are helping to drive the state economy.
Republicans, in floor debate, said the state should not be delving so deeply into people’s private lives and that the data collected is not likely to be accurate because of hesitancy in reporting sexuality.
So why is this bill allowing “voluntary” reporting an unsavory bit of unholy tyranny? Choices made in the bedroom are none of the state’s business, period. Neither are the mandated or subtly coerced public disclosure of our religious and political affiliations. Such information can be used to intimidate and obstruct political enemies and wreak havoc the free flow of business, or differentially reward whoever is in political favor this week, this month, this year, this decade. Moreover, remember that in the real world of California state contracting and hyper political correctness, where there are literally billions of dollars on the table, the failure to fill in these particular details almost guarantees a contract rejection. Both the state and its thousands of contractors have memorized the politically acceptable script for the bureaucratic Kabuki dance of awarding contracts.
Three weeks ago, the UC Academic Senate the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.
Now, three weeks after that, the state of California intends to included sexual orientation on bidding for state contracts. What’s next? Will sexual orientation become a factor in purchasing food and liquor, arbitration and property rights, adoptions, taxation, carbon credits, state park reservations, divorce settlements, free speech and religious and pastoral issues? We’ll see.
Since I live in California, don’t expect any predictions concerning plate tectonics, tsunamis, or the San Andreas Fault. But we all need to be aware of and vigilant with regard to the unanticipated consequences of identity politics and the public exposure of our deepest, most personal, most private behavior.