Remember when LGBT activists said they only wanted equality, not special treatment. They don’t, either.
In Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker issued an executive order to add LGBT-owned businesses to a diversity program under which a percentage of state contracts is set aside for minority-owned businesses. That is, of course, a way of ensuring preferential treatment in government contracting for businesses not owned (officially) by straight white men.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, blogs:
I wonder: How will anyone know whether a business owner is bisexual? Do you have to say that you’ve had sex with members of the same sex? What if you just say that you’re attracted to members of the same sex? Or is the state relying on the assumption that non-bisexuals would be reluctant to label themselves bisexual, even when that helps them get valuable contracts, for fear that the label will come out to their friends (or to other prospective business partners who discriminate against bisexuals rather than in favor of them)?
And one of his blog commenters asked,”Is there evidence that well-qualified LGBT-owned businesses have been historically disadvantaged in MA government contracting?”
It’s all politics and pandering, of course, and who has got the power now, baby.
24 Comments for “Massachusetts’ LGBT Contracting Set-Asides”
posted by Jorge on
”Is there evidence that well-qualified LGBT-owned businesses have been historically disadvantaged in MA government contracting?”
……
Why don’t we ask the governor? (I’m kinda suspecting a deficiency in the ability to line people’s pockets for political favors.)
“The Supplier Diversity Office, which certifies and maintains a current directory of all business enterprises referenced in this Executive Order, will ensure that such certification process is sufficiently rigorous and reliable to confirm the authenticity of claimed composition, yet appropriately streamlined and business-friendly to attract new and diverse business partners. To reduce or minimize redundancies and time-consuming paperwork on behalf of business owners, cross-certification with well-recognized and reputable organizations and other states or cities or towns will be promoted and phased-in starting no later than January 1, 2016.”
I smell the stench of corruption.
I wonder: How will anyone know whether a business owner is bisexual?
“We, the Massachusetts Association of Elgee Beatie Community Organizations, praise Governor Baker’s decision to promote LGBT-owned businesses. We have been telling him for years that Shitty Sissy’s Garbage Trucking Company just needs a bit of help to get off the ground.”
Now these organizations can pass money under the table to have their personal friends get big government largesse, just like the unions, the mob, and the racial hustlers. “Why can’t they get an education and rise up through the ranks just like everyone else?” They keep getting fired because they’re gay. Well, not because they’re gay, but because when SS was in the ninth grade, Kitty Kissy beat her up because she was gay causing her to drop out of school, and so she doesn’t have the patience and knowledge to learn how to get along with her boss.
I’m not a big supporter of affirmative action or reparations.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
1. I tend to think tha
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s all politics and pandering, of course, and who has got the power now, baby.
Before flying off into yet another storm of bitterness about jack-booted fascist gays and lesbians, Stephen, take a step back and consider what actually happened in Massachusetts.
The state established a Supplier Diversity Program in 2010, covering women-owned and minority-owned businesses. The Governor’s Executive Order 565, issued October 15, expanded the program to include veteran-owned, disability-owned and LGBT-owned businesses.
That’s what happened, and all that happened. It is hardly cause for panic.
Reasonable people differ about whether government supplier diversity programs are a good idea or a bad one, and there is a point at which such a program can include so many classes of business ownership that it becomes a case of “here comes everybody”, rendering it meaningless.
But Governor Baker’s expansion of the program in this instance does not merit the vituperation about gays and lesbians evident in this post. Odd, isn’t it, that there is a huge uproar in conservative circles about including LBGT-owned businesses in the program, but no uproar at all about the program’s expansion to include veteran-owned and disability-owned businesses.
As Stephen notes, “It’s all politics and pandering, of course, and who has got the power now, baby.”
Plenty of pandering going on from both sides, I suspect.
Just how different is the conservative uproar over including LGBT-owned businesses in state-level supplier diversity programs from the applause when Republican candidates promise to rescind all of President Obama’s executive orders, including those expanding federal protection of gays and lesbians, on “Day One”?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Wow, Stephen attack on “LGBT activist” could easily have been written by some blogger upset over say, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), to say nothing of marriage equality, or a bill promoting equal opportunity.
I am not entirely sure what the history — good or bad — of LGBT business owners in the State of Mass.
I can certainly see situations where historic discrimination in being awarded contracts could be a problem. I can also see this possible being a situation of good, old fashion, politics (“scratch my back and I will scratch yours”).
If it is in fact a case of corruption, its probably more a problem of the role that money plays in our American two-party, “gerry mandering” politics.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Adding LGBT-owned small businesses to the pool of minority businesses is something that the decidedly non-leftist National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce has been working on for years in both the public & private sectors.
In order to be certified, there’s a pretty rigorous verification process… and most small businesses don’t jump through the hoops to get it.
I work at Chevron — and we’ve included LGBT-owned businesses (as certified by the NGLCC) in our supplier diversity program for more the better part of the last decade.
I don’t see the issue… but I suppose anything that gets Stephen’s knickers in a knot has to be a good thing.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Here’s the NGLCC certification process: http://nglcc.org/steps-lgbtbe-certification
These programs are generally aimed at promoting entrepreneurship & small business development — what a radically “progressive” thing to do.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
If you are going to get outraged at the set asides for gays, then why not for the other groups covered in that executive order.
I can disagree or agree with a viewpoint, but consistency helps it pass the smell test. Im not seeing much pf that…..I am just saying.
One of the underlined problems that generates a demand for set asides, as some call them, is the uneven quality of education that kids and young people often receive.
Jorge presents a scenario where a student quits school because of harassment. That is just one problem.
The quality of education you are able to recieve and pursue is a big factor in the issue of affirmative action/set asides.
posted by JohnInCA on
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a federal employee. So when I go to the supply cabinet for the office, I get these “Skillcraft” notebooks. Every single one of them says “Created with pride by Americans who are Blind”.
I’m pretty sure that Skillcraft gets government contracts because of similar programs at the federal level.
Which begs the question… if such programs are a problem when they include LGBT people, why are they *not* a problem when they include other people? And if they *are* a problem when they include those other people, why only protest them when they cover LGBT people?
Or, to put it another way… it’s hard to believe such protests are based in principles when those principles only show up when gay people show up.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Which begs the question… if such programs are a problem when they include LGBT people, why are they *not* a problem when they include other people?”
Becuz…RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
All I need to do, to be inspired by the fruits of religious freedom in this country, is witness all the homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks, and read about the latest bombing-to-smithereens of innocent civilians in the Middle East. Not to mention every time a “pastor” who “counsels” a battered woman instructs her to “submit” to her husband’s “godly” authority.
What a load of crap.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t think that “religious freedom” explains why so-called “libertarians” allied with the Republican Party are blind to the hypocrisy of opposing any and all government efforts to level the playing field for gays and lesbians, while saying nothing about any and all government efforts to level the playing field for racial and ethnic minorities, women, disabled people, veterans and all and sundry. I think that it is politics, pure and simple.
Ir is not just the obvious departure from libertarian principles on public accommodations laws, government diversity programs and the like (which, if right-libertarian principles are put into play should all be objectionable), but also involves political financing.
The Republican-aligned “libertarians”, even those who are supposedly in favor of “equal means equal” (David Koch and Paul Singer both come to mind, along with the CATO crowd) continue to support anti-equality Republican candidates.
Most objectionable, though, is that many of these “libertarians” (Stephen is as good as example as any, with his recent outright adoption of the “Facism” smear) have adopted the ugly rhetoric of the hard-core conservative Christian propaganda machine, advancing ad hominem attacks on gays and lesbians.
The Republican-aligned “libertarians” are determined to keep conservative Christians and the citizens of Teabagistan in the Republican coalition, and gays and lesbians are a popular and easy target.
None of it passes the smell test. As John in CA put it, “Or, to put it another way… it’s hard to believe such protests are based in principles when those principles only show up when gay people show up.”
While I understand what John is saying, I think that a principle is involved. It is the principle that Republican-aligned “libertarians” will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of the Republican Party.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Volokh’s sideswipe at bisexuals is disgusting as well… but plays right into the how the homocons sing from the same hymnal as the rest of the anti-LGBT crowd: reducing everyone into what’s between their legs and what they do with it.
Instead of IGF Culture Watch, it should read Indignant Gays for Culture Wars.
posted by Jorge on
Instead of IGF Culture Watch, it should read Indignant Gays for Culture Wars.
Progressives are very smart people. But sometimes their ideas don’t pass the “Who ****in’ cares?” test.
You all are asking “so what’s the harm here?” That is putting the cart before the horse. The correct question is, “what’s the benefit?” If you can’t stand by an idea, it should not be considered. It’s an empty waste of time, money and space. Why should a state be even bothering to lift a finger to promote LGBT businesses in the first place? That demands an answer.
“Because everyone has it too” is not a justification. Pointing out the apparent irrationality of the expansion to LGBT-owned businesses is not code for saying the other categories of people should not have gotten the benefit in the first place. It is not code for saying veterans and people with disabilities should not get the benefit. It is not a “homo-con” position. It is simply a dissent from or ignorance of the homo-lib position.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The correct question is, “what’s the benefit?” If you can’t stand by an idea, it should not be considered. It’s an empty waste of time, money and space. Why should a state be even bothering to lift a finger to promote LGBT businesses in the first place? That demands an answer.
The justifications typically given by private businesses (most of the Fortune 500 seem to have programs, for example) and state governments for supplier diversity programs are twofold: (1) supplier diversity programs bring the supply chain into line with the demographics of the community/region/country in which the business/government operate, and (2) supplier diverity programs assist in broadening economic/capital markets, strengthening economic opportunity and, ultimately, the economy.
The justifications are similar to the justifications supporting worker diverity programs, both in private business and government.
I’m not an economist and I can’t assess whether the diversity supplier and diversity employment programs make sense, although my gut tells me that if the large private businesses support them so routinely, they must at some level. As a general rule, private industry doesn’t do much that doesn’t affect the bottom line positively.
I quietly note, Jorge, that the question of justification for such programs in general is not in play in this thread for a reason — Stephen did not (as his “libertarian” sources do not) raise the question of whether or not such programs make economic sense. The only question that they raise is whether the programs should extend to LGBT-owned businesses, and even in that instance, the “outrage” seems to be mostly confined to inclusion of bisexual-owned businesses, with the potential for fraud as the primary objection (see Volokh snippet quoted by Stephen).
Note, if you will, how closely the objections raised by the “libertarian” objectors mirror the argument about straight men invading women’s bathrooms for a peek fraud objections to including transgender folk in non-discrimination laws and ordinances. If Stephen, Volokh and their allies can’t come up with something better than the potential for occasional fraud as an objection, that speaks volumes to me.
As I see it, objections to including LGBT-owned businesses in supplier diversity programs is just another case of singling out gays and lesbians for differential treatment, differential treatment without cause other than political pandering. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I’m going to be hard to convince unless and until the so-called “libertarians” politically aligned with conservative Christians start objecting to supplier diversity programs (and employment non-discrimination programs, public accommodations laws and ordinances, and the like) on broader grounds than “not the gays”.
I don’t doubt that political considerations are at work in government adoption of diversity supplier programs. Political considerations are involved in government policies, almost always.
But I find it odd, indeed, that the so-called “libertarians” who are so outraged about including LGBT-owned businesses in supplier diversity programs are a bad idea in general, either because they cannot or because they will not.
You have the honesty to demand justification for supplier diversity programs in general, raising the question of whether supplier diversity programs covering women, racial minorities, veterans and the like make sense. Why don’t they?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This sentence should read: “But I find it odd, indeed, that the so-called “libertarians” who are so outraged about including LGBT-owned businesses in supplier diversity programs do not argue that such programs are a bad idea in general, either because they cannot or because they will not. “
posted by JohnInCA on
“Pointing out the apparent irrationality of the expansion to LGBT-owned businesses is not code for saying the other categories of people should not have gotten the benefit in the first place.”
You’re right, it *isn’t* code for that. No one suggested it was. What people are pointing out is that if you have a program that benefits a wide variety of people, and you attack only a small slice of that program, then it’s not enough for you to attack that slice, you have to explain why you’re attacking *only* that slice.
Which is what is consistently missing in discussions like this. People rave and rant about how evil it is to include LGBT people in program X, but never explain why program X is otherwise dandy as candy.
posted by Houndentenor on
Wrong. Either it’s a good program or it’s not. If you want to argue that it’s not, go right ahead. But this is just another go round of the “special rights” argument from the 90s. I thought we were done with that. Obviously not. People want protection from discrimination but are happy to inflict discrimination on others. That’s hypocrisy.
posted by Mike in Houston on
There’s the rub: Stephen never talks to the underlying principle of a program or law – only ad to if it includes LGBT people as included… which brings me to the conclusion that he – and his honocon commentariat cohorts – simply don’t like being included as LGBT. They’re obviously ok with availing themselves of the protections and rights that the rest of us have worked so hard to obtain but reserve their right to disparage & disdain that which benefits them. Can you say, ‘quisling’?
posted by Doug on
And the reason they don’t want to be included as LGBT is because they are likely filled with some degree of internalized homophobia,
posted by Houndentenor on
If the argument is against all Set-Asides, then make that argument. But if they exist there’s no reason that lbgt-owned businesses should not be among the groups that benefit.
Meanwhile not a peep from Stephen after three GOP presidential candidates speak at an event sponsored by a group that advocates for the death penalty for gay people. Not a word. It’s clear what Stephen’s priorities are and it’s not lbgt rights.
posted by Tom Jefferson on
what? and meddle in the religious freedom of folks that want to execute people for being gay….surely you jest. (;
posted by Mike in Houston on
So here we are – the top GOP candidate has called for closing churches (mosques are the same thing) and registering people based on their religious belief. Other top tier GOP candidates joined the halaluja chorus at a ‘kill the gays’ summit. A nondiscrimination ordinance is torpedoed by GOP lies about bathrooms… others on the right are literally calling for Mecca to be razed all the while pushing for internment or banning refugees. But Stephen & the Homocons are focused on s small business incentive program.
Did I miss something?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, you did. You forget about the “war” on Christmas argument that will likely rear its head this season (if it has not already).
posted by Mark F. on
“And the reason they don’t want to be included as LGBT is because they are likely filled with some degree of internalized homophobia”
Yes, the “progressive” clichés just keep coming and coming… or perhaps you are the World’s most brilliant mind reader, sir. Perhaps you need to take your act to Vegas.
posted by Doug on
I’ve worked in the mental health field for years and know internalized homophobia when I encounter it. The only act here is homocon’s passing off discrimination of LGBT folk as religious freedom.