A new bill in the North Dakota Legislature could have that state joining thirteen others in outlawing discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Minnesota was the first state in the nation to do so in 1993, and the North Dakota bill follows that lead.
On Wednesday, the bill passed the North Dakota Senate, which is made up of 21 Democrats and 26 Republicans, by a wide margin with a vote of 27-19.
The bill would add sexual orientation to state statutes outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance and public accommodations, and the term “sexual orientation” is broad enough to encompass gender identity. The bill says, “Sexual orientation means actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, or gender identity or expression.”
Like Minnesota’s law, the bill provides exemptions for religious institutions that refuse to hire LGBT people.
Minnesota, and in particular the Twin Cities, has seen an influx of LGBT “refugees” from North Dakota over the years. I asked a few transplants about the climate for LGBT people in both states and the pending bill.
“I thought the climate in Fargo was actually pretty good,” said Minneapolis resident Shane Phifer, who attended North Dakota State University. “I did spend most of my time at school so that might have influenced it and gave me a little bit of a limited perspective.”
Of the bill he said, “I think it’s always a good thing to have a law on the books that protects people from discrimination.”
Minneapolis resident Justin C. Grey Day grew up in Fort Yates, N.D., on the Standing Rock Reservation.
“I have always thought that North Dakota, in general, was like a foreign country, disconnected from the rest of America, because there has been a lot of ignorance surrounding not only LGBT issues, but women’s issues and racial issues as well,” he said. “But specifically, living on the reservation, there seems to be more tolerance when it comes to LGBT people, but that is in part due to the culture of the indigenous people who live there.”
On the proposed bill, Grey Day said, “I think it’s great that the North Dakota Legislature is considering passing a bill that would end discrimination of LGBT people, and it gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, the social climate and consciousness in North Dakota is starting to shift in a more humanitarian direction.”
He continues, “I’m also in shock that in 2009, this is just now being considered in North Dakota … It seems strange that there are places where this type of law doesn’t exist or maybe I’ve just lived in Minnesota so long that I’ve taken things like this for granted.”
On returning to North Dakota, he said: “As much as I love my ancestral homeland, I tend to stay away because of the social and political climate there.”














11 Comments »
Comment posted February 19, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Hello Andy,
I just want to correct your article a little. You state, and I quote, “A new bill in the North Dakota Legislature could have that state joining thirteen others in outlawing discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Minnesota was the first state in the nation to do so in 1993, and the North Dakota bill follows that lead.”
You are, in fact, wrong on this statement. Wisconsin was the first state in the country to outlaw discrimination in the workplace, housing and public accomodations in 1982.
I hope that you will edit your article and correct your mistake.
This information was found at http://www.fairwisconsin.com/laws/index.html. I would assume that their statements are correct.
Comment posted February 19, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Andy is correct that Minnesota was the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of BOTH sexual orientation and gender identity. Wisconsin was in fact the first to do so on the basis of sexual orientation as Chris noted. Minnesota was the tenth state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the first to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Today 13 states and the District of Columbia ban discrimination on both the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity including Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Vermont, Maine and of course– Minnesota.
20 states total ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with 7 banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but NOT gender identity. Th0se 7 are Wisconsin, Neveda, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Therefore, North Dakota would become the 21st state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the 14th to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Great news truly!
Over 50% of americans currently reside in states which protect them from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and approximately 40% of americans live in states which protect them from discrimination on the basis of gender identity but there are still 30 states with no protection for either! North Dakota would be a welcome addition.
Sadly, South Dakota just defeated a proposal to add sexual orientation to the state hate crimes statutes. Neither North Dakota nor South Dakota currently cover crimes based on animus towards a victims sexual orienation or gender identity under their hate crime laws. They are 2 of only 14 states which spell out characteristics that don’t include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws.
Comment posted February 19, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Chris, your addition is well taken and David’s clarification is correct. Minnesota was the first to include both sexual orientation and gender identity. Thanks for clearing this up, both of you.
Comment posted February 19, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
I heard on the news that North Dakota has also passed a law defining life at conception which will make it illegal for abortions in the state.
Comment posted February 20, 2009 @ 9:23 am
What is in the water in ND? While this is a great bill that will protect ND’s GLBT citizens, is it happening only to counteract the protections that are also being given to fertilized eggs?
Meaning that a lesbian is safe from job discrimination, but not from the horror of carrying her rapist’s baby?
I am very confused.
Pingback posted February 20, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
[...] North Dakota Senate passed a bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, [...]
Pingback posted February 20, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
[...] North Dakota bill would add sexual orientation to human rights laws Blogger and journalist Andy Birkey of Eleventh Ave South (and Mn Indy) put together an awesome [...]
Comment posted February 28, 2009 @ 2:14 am
North Dakota is a great place to hunt ducks and geese. They have some pretty good fishing too. I like that they won’t be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. I am not sure how they plan on granting full human rights to fetuses. That seems problematic. My kids didn’t really have full human rights until they were 16 or so. It would have made it somewhat difficult to discipline them if they had. I can’t imagine fetuses arguing over property rights and free assembly and that kind of stuff. Perhaps they just want them to have the right to life. Would they kill the mother to save the fetus though? Would they force a women to bear an incestuously conceived fetus or one that was conceived as a result of rape. Would they kill the mother to save the fetus in a complicated pregnancy? That seems extreme.
North Dakota is a great State. I am sure they will figure this all out.
Comment posted March 12, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
The first argument I hear against protecting unborn babies is that of “What happens if the woman is raped?” “Will she have to have this horrible child?” Remember the child isn’t what is horrible, the act of rape is what is horrible. Why punish an innocent child with death? To me that would be additional trauma for the mother, not only was she raped and will have to live with that horror, she would be guilty of killing her own child. After all the baby has half of her genetic makeup.
Also Ron, the idea in North Dakota is to protect the unborn. And I really can’t see even your 16 year old, or older arguing property rights etc. either, unless they are now lawyers. So not to worry. The first challange is to protect the unborn. All the other questions will be resolved in due time onece we turn this country around and it becomes a moral nation once more.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Hi. Just to correct David Strand’s previous statement that Minn. was the tenth state to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. (and the first to do so w/ regards to gender idenity) He, is in fact correct, that Minn. was the first state to pass a statewide law banning discrimination, based on gender idenity but he is wrong when he states that Minn. was the tenth state to pass a law based on sexual orientation; Minn. was in fact the eighth. (N.H. was the tenth)
Today, there are twenty states that ban discrimination, based on sexual orientation and/or gender idenity and they are; Calif., Colo., Conn., Hawaii, Ill., Iowa, Maine, Md., Mass., Minn., Nev., N.H., N.J., N.M., N.Y., Ore., R.I., Vt., Wash. and Wisc.
Comment posted March 29, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Aren’t we all created equal…this is 2009…Yes! We are A L L created equal.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment