Discrimination; City of Richmond may enact an ordinance prohibiting on basis of sexual orientation. (HB2252)

Introduced By

Del. Katherine Waddell (I-Richmond) with support from co-patrons Del. Bob Brink (D-Arlington), Del. Frank Hall (D-Richmond), and Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Provides that the City of Richmond may enact an ordinance prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, credit, and education on the basis of sexual orientation, provided that the scope of the protections provided by such ordinance are not inconsistent with nor more stringent than those of any state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, national origin, age, marital status, or disability. "Sexual orientation" means having or being perceived as having an orientation toward heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. "Sexual orientation" does not include sexual deviant disorders ("paraphilias") as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/09/2007Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07 071640533
01/09/2007Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
01/22/2007Assigned CC & T sub: #1 (Marshall. R.G.)
02/02/2007Tabled in Counties, Cities and Towns (13-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)


hrconservative writes:

This just got tabled! Congrats to the Family Foundation!

Gerbera writes:

I didn't realize we had so many people in favor of discrimination.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

That the General Assembly has anything to do with this is ridiculous.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Here's the video of the bill's tabling in committee.

uberdave writes:

I just read the Family Foundation's email alert regarding this bill. They claim it's an attack on the religious liberty of organizations whose moral imperative it is to discriminate against homosexuals. How ironic, if their motive is protecting religious freedom, considering that they couldn't give a rip about the religious liberty of churches who would perform gay marriages.

This fascist organization must be stopped!

hrconservative writes:

Actually, there are many in favor of religion liberty and freedom. What a terrible bill.

Anyway, once again, congrats to the Family Foundation.

uberdave writes:

I, too, am in favor of religious freedom. But the Family Foundation insists upon imposing its biblical morality on everyone, regardless of what one's own conscience dictates.

That's called fascism.

hrconservative writes:

On this bill, The Family Foundation was advocating that those who would object because of religious liberty ought to have that right.

The other side was trying to force individuals and businesses to follow this ordinance, no matter what their objections. Who is trying to impose something on who here? Do you realize how ironic your writing is?

uberdave writes:

Suppose someone had a religious objection to hiring African-Americans? Or another minority group?

The problem is that the Family Foundation is hiding behind "religious liberty" to justify discrimination against those it deems morally inferior. I have no objection to churches or religious groups discriminating against whomever they please, but this is a secular bill for a secular government and has nothing to do with whom churches hire or fire.

uberdave writes:

Suppose it were the other way around? What if the bill proposed to allow the city of Richmond to disallow discrimination based on religious affiliation? Would the Family Foundation object to that? What if the target of non-discrimination were Christians instead of homosexuals?

Slightly modified Family Foundation email alert: If enacted, the policy could force businesses and religious institutions in the City of Richmond to hire Christians regardless of their religious objection. As currently drafted the legislation is one of the most serious attacks on religious liberty seen in the General Assembly in recent memory.