HB 184-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.    3:08:40 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act adding to the powers and duties of the State Commission for Human Rights; and relating to and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." 3:08:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 184, stated that there have been various attempts at advancing the proposed legislation - both during the Twenty-Seventh Alaska State Legislature, 2011-2012, and the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature, 2013-2014. He mentioned key events in the civil rights movement in America: the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Women's Suffrage Movement, Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. He maintained that the "last frontier" of civil rights is anti-discrimination legislation nationwide. He referred to U.S. Supreme Court civil rights decisions - Lawrence v. Texas [2003], Romer v. Evans [1996], Bowers v. Hardwick [1986], and Obergefell v. Hodges [2015] - and asserted that no one believes that civil rights are fully implemented relative to race and gender or that the issue has been resolved. He maintained that the issue mostly has been resolved as a matter of law; what is "tricky" is the enforcement of civil rights. 3:11:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the proposed legislation would give the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR) jurisdiction over discrimination in housing, lending, employment, and public accommodations - specifically as the discrimination relates to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. It would give the ASCHR power to investigate the discrimination and offer remedies. He said that ASCHR has requested that it be given these powers. Currently because of the lack of jurisdiction in these issues, ASCHR must turn away these matters and absolve itself of these kinds of discriminatory practices. He asserted that fundamentally there are important personal, liberty, spiritual, and economic interests at stake. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that a religion exemption has been added to HB 184, which was not in the previous bills introduced. He maintained that such an exemption is compelled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and would offer comfort to those concerned that they would be compelled to not discriminate when their faith dictated otherwise. He relayed that Alaska's largest city, the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), has implemented a similar law, but only after a long fight, as has the capital city, Juneau. He maintained that "this is ... the place where the world is headed, and so we might as well nudge it along and help it get there." 3:15:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that she is curious about the "religion" defense. She referred to a case in Washington or Oregon: a woman who owned a cake shop refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple; she was sued by the couple; she alleged that her religious freedom was impacted; and she lost the case. She asked if under HB 184, this could happen in Alaska with the same results. 3:16:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the baker did not have such a right. He stated that even though HB 184 has a religious exemption, there may not be such a right under the proposed legislation either. He mentioned that he needs to spend more time contemplating the proposed legislation and its nuances, which includes the level of scrutiny that would be applied and the question of fundamental right. He expressed his belief that similar [religious belief] claims were made relative to race and gender. He stated that it is his hope, notwithstanding the religious exemption, that the Alaska Supreme Court may be concerned about that sort of claim. He said, "To be clear, the cake may not be baked in the church kitchen, but it would be baked." He reiterated further research is needed on the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for a situation in which the issue of "religious freedom" would apply, if not in a situation like the one in Washington. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to page 4, Section 5, of HB 184 and said that the proposed legislation would apply in a church hierarchy in which a person was applying to be a member of the clergy and wanted to assert a right to a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) lifestyle. He said in that circumstance, the exemption would apply, and the church could decline the person based on the person's sexual preference, gender, or other orientation. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that if Section 5 presents the only exemption, then the exemption only refers to hiring a minister or a priest. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded, "I think that is correct." He added that he believes that the reason the MOA ordinance was able to pass was because of its sensitivities to the need for a religious exemption. 3:20:18 PM MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 184, paraphrased from the sectional analysis included in the committee packet, which read as follows [original punctuation included]: Section 1: Amends AS 18.80.060 the powers and duties of the Human Rights Commission. The section adds "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the list of protected categories that include race, religion, color, national ancestry, physical or mental disability, age, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood.   Section 2: Amends AS 18.80.200 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the list of discriminations which are cause for public concern, and asserts the need for the state to prevent such discrimination in employment, credit and financing practices, public accommodations and sale, lease or rental of real property.   Section 3: Amends AS 18.80.210 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the categories of protected civil rights.   Section 4: Amends AS 18.80.220 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful employment practices.   Section 5: Creates a new section under AS 18.80.220 which provides a religious exemption for the prohibitions against discrimination under the area of employment, stating that section 4 does not apply to an employment relationship between a religious organization and a minister employed by the religious organization. 3:22:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the exemption in Section 5 could apply to the protected categories in Section 1 [on page 1 of HB 184] - race, religion, color, national ancestry, physical or mental disability, age, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood. MS. HOLLAND answered, "Yes, that exemption does apply to those other categories." She stated that a church would be exempt from discriminating based on the protected categories when hiring someone for a "minister" type position REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that there are certain human rights protections and asked if it would be totally within the law to state that someone was not being hired due to age or race, for example. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON relayed that his wife is a practicing Lutheran. There are three main Lutheran Church synods - the Wisconsin Synod, the Missouri Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Missouri Synod does not allow for a woman to be a pastor; the Evangelical Lutheran Church synod does allow a woman to be a pastor. He said he is confident that an exemption due to gender is allowed in that situation. He opined that an exemption due to race in a religious setting is concerning and offensive. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about a religious school using the exemption to not hire staff, such as teachers or janitors, because they are "x, y, or z." 3:26:34 PM MS. HOLLAND replied that she believes that the U.S. Supreme Court case [Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC], which created the exemption, addressed a specific type of employment that could compromise the internal governance of the institution. She maintained that the employment of a janitor may not compromise that governance, but the employment of a teacher might. She stated that it is a very specific exemption; she offered to research that question and provide a more definite answer. 3:27:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that Section 5 of the proposed legislation only appears to exempt a minister, and a minister is clearly prescribed. She asked if under HB 184, a Jewish school would have to hire maybe a practicing Muslim who on his/her free time advocates for the end of Israel. MS. HOLLAND replied that it would depend on the position for which that person was hired. She expressed her belief that if it were a ministerial type position, the exemption would apply, and if not, it would not apply. She agreed that it is a very narrow, specific exemption, and its purpose is to protect the internal governance of religious institutions. 3:29:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned that his wife attended a Lutheran college; for tax purposes, she is considered a "Minister of the Gospel." He maintained that the term "minister" may be broadly interpreted. He relayed that the language in the proposed legislation copies the language in the MOA ordinance; it may not be perfect, and it may not be language that the committee wants to adopt. 3:30:21 PM MS. HOLLAND continued to paraphrase from the sectional analysis included in the committee packet, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 6: Amends AS 18.80.230 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful practices in public accommodations.   Section 7: Amends AS 18.80.240 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful practices in the sale or rental of real property.   Section 8: Amends AS 18.80.250 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful practices in financing and extending credit.   Section 9: Amends AS 18.80.255 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful practices by the state or its political subdivisions. Section 10: Defines blockbusting, and amends AS 18.80.300 to add "sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression" to the prohibitions against unlawful practices in blockbusting, or practices by a real estate agents [sic] to close a transaction.   Section 11: Amends AS 18.80.300 to add definitions of "gender identity or expression," and "sexual orientation" to Alaska statute. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a definition of "blockbusting." REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that blockbusting is an unlawful practice whereby a real estate agent, for example, tries to undermine the right of someone to live in a certain neighborhood by suggesting to the neighbors that there is reason to leave. MS. HOLLAND stated that blockbusting is a practice of trying to keep certain people out of certain [residential] areas - a real estate version of segregation. She gave an example: raising the price for someone based on their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. She added that there are various methods to do that, which include convincing people in the neighborhood that there will be certain consequences of that person moving into the neighborhood. 3:33:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK summarized by saying, "It's basically segregating neighborhoods." 3:34:45 PM ALIZA KAZMI, Policy Specialist, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), began her testimony by saying that she and the membership of ANDSVA will need to further examine Section 5 regarding religious exemption. She said that of particular concern to the providers under ANDVSA's 19 member programs, which consist of the domestic violence shelters and victim services throughout the state, is the vulnerability of transgender ("trans") people to sexual and other types of violence. MS. KAZMI paraphrased from her written testimony, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual  Assault strongly supports HB 184 ('Discrimination:  Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation'). We urge you  to also support it and ensure that it passes. This  important legislation needs to be a priority - it  cannot wait.    Even with important policy gains, and gradual socio- cultural shifts towards understanding and tolerance,  the LGBTQ community continuously faces very real  discrimination and inequality. This discrimination and  inequality perpetuates high levels of violence against  people who are LGBTQ. Responding to and preventing  such discrimination and violence is a civil rights and  human rights issue.    The transgender community in particular, and  specifically trans youth and trans women of color,  face the threat of violence on a daily basis and need  laws in place to protect them from discrimination. This vulnerability can be related to a lack of resources due to deeply imbedded disenfranchisement and discrimination--in school, housing, employment, and access to health care.   To highlight just a few statistics  · Statistics documenting transgender people's experience  of sexual violence indicate horrific levels of sexual  abuse and assault. One in two transgender individuals  are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in  their lives.  More than half experienced some form of  intimate partner violence. (2010 report by National  Center for Victims of Crime and the National Coalition  of Anti-Violence Programs, 2015 US Transgender Survey)  · Some reports estimate that transgender survivors may  experience rates of sexual assault up to 66 percent,  often coupled with physical assaults or abuse. This  indicates that the majority of transgender individuals  are living with the aftermath of trauma and the fear  of possible repeat victimization (2010 report by  National Center for Victims of Crime and the National  Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs) · 12 percent of transgender youth report being sexually  assaulted in K-12 settings by peers or educational  staff; 13 percent of African-American transgender  people surveyed were sexually assaulted in the  workplace; and 22 percent of homeless transgender  individuals were assaulted while staying in shelters. (2011 Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey)  · There was an 11% increase in anti-LGBTQ homicides in  2014. Looking at broad category of homicide victims,  50% were trans women of color (2014 National Report on  Hate Violence Against LGBTQ and HIV-Affected  Communities, National Coalition of Anti-Violence  Programs)   As service providers, we encourage any legislative frameworks to support us as we continuously expand our LGBTQ cultural competence.    Discrimination compounds economic, health, and other  disparities and is a root cause of violence that  perpetuates the culture of violence against people who  are LGBTQ; and the social acceptance of this violence.  We join our colleagues who are victim advocates all  around the country in saying: to create a social,  political, and economic environment in which violence against women no longer exists, we must support  equality and safety for all.    Let's make sure that Alaska is on the right side of  this issue. Please take a stand and show that Alaskans  do not support discrimination and violence, and do  support tolerance and peace. Support HB 184. Thank  you.  3:39:38 PM MELISSA GREEN, Principle Investigator, Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey, made reference to two previous studies she has been involved with that are relevant to the proposed legislation: "One in Ten: A Profile of Alaska's Lesbian and Gay Community," 1986, is a statewide survey of 734 gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents on a wide variety of questions including experiencing discrimination, violence, and harassment; and "Identity Reports: Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska," 1989, a report looking at housing discrimination in Anchorage and actual case studies of violence, harassment, and discrimination statewide. She stated that in 2009, when Anchorage began to consider its ordinance, the research she just mentioned was two decades old. After the 2009 attempt to pass the ordinance failed, it was decided that the research should be made current and that gender identity and expression should be included along with sexual orientation in the examination of discrimination. The result of that effort was the "Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey," which was conducted from January through March 2011. MS. GREEN relayed that the key findings of the survey were disseminated in a preliminary report in November 2011, entitled "Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey: Preliminary Report," included in the committee packet. The final report, completed March 2012, presents the key findings in the executive summary along with detailed methodology and data, extended discussion of the findings of the two prior reports, comparisons with other types of discrimination in Alaska such as racial discrimination, examination of several years of case filings of both ASCHR and the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (AERC) to date, and a comparison of the anti-LGBT discrimination findings in the 2011 survey with national LGBT data on anti-LGBT discrimination. 3:43:53 PM MS. GREEN stated that the sample size for the survey was 268 LGBT men and women out of an estimated 11,000 LGBT residents in MOA - an estimate based on the Williams Institute national estimates of 3.5 percent of Americans identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and about [.3] percent identifying as transgender. She added that the Williams Institute estimates that statewide there are about 19,200 LGBT adults, of whom 13,100 are in the Alaska workforce. She relayed that she will focus on employment discrimination data in her testimony because it is the most common type of discrimination brought before ASCHR and AERC. The 2011 survey found that 44 percent of the 268 respondents were harassed by their employers or reported that they were harassed by their employers or coworkers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; 16 percent reported they were forced to leave their jobs due to harassment; 21 percent reported that they were turned down for a job because of gender identity or sexual orientation; 18 percent were denied promotions; and 15 percent said they were fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. MS. GREEN relayed that when comparing the four groups of people, transgender people reported higher levels of discrimination and violent harassment than was reported by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, but the figures were high among all groups. She said that the findings on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination were comparable to rates of racial discrimination reported in the 2009 Anchorage Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Justice Center. She maintained that the rates for anti-LGBT discrimination in the 2011 Anchorage survey were like those reported in national studies. MS. GREEN referred to the 1989 report and stated that one component of this "prima facie" report is the 84 documented actual instances of anti-gay bias, discrimination, harassment, or violence, including three murders. She claimed that most importantly, the narrative stories compiled in the report were evaluated by a former intake investigator of ASCHR, who found that 42 percent of the instances would have been jurisdictional under AS 18.80, if AS 18.80 had included sexual orientation as a protected class at that time. She added that the 1989 report did not look at gender identity. She maintained that she was not aware of any current efforts to compile similar narratives of discrimination. She questioned why studies on the issue must be done by the population that is trying to get protection from discrimination, while at the same time, ASCHR has had to refrain from investigating the cases, because it is not jurisdictional. She said, "The whole point is - let's make it jurisdictional." MS. GREEN concluded by saying that in 2015, the Williams Institute report, entitled "Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Alaska," estimated that about six cases per year would likely be reported to ASCHR if sexual orientation and gender identity and expression were made jurisdictional. 3:49:48 PM MATTHEW SCHULTZ, Minister, Christians for Equality; Alaska Christian Conference, testified that he believes that sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the anti- discrimination statute so that all Alaska citizens may have equal protection. He lamented that much of the discrimination that occurs is done under the guise of spiritual leadership and under the false impression that the Christian faith requires it. He stated that he wishes to correct that error and encourage Alaska to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination and persecution. He maintained that the ministerial exemption is complete and sufficient; and freedom of religion would not be in jeopardy under the proposed legislation. He said that he has studied and taught extensively on the topic of morality and ethics; and he can say without hesitation that any system that allows for discrimination against even one person is immoral. He said that protected categories exist because people within those categories are in physical and emotional jeopardy; their jobs are in jeopardy; they are discriminated against; and it is Alaska's ethical responsibility to stand up for them, to stand with them, and to address and prevent discrimination of the LGBTQ community. He stated that it is not illegal to be gay, yet a person can be fired simply for placing a photo of his/her legal spouse on his/her desk. He maintained that people can lose their homes because they are gay. He emphasized that Alaska can and must be better. He asked that HB 184 be moved out of committee. 3:52:22 PM BILLY FARRELL, Executive Director, Identity Inc., relayed that the mission of Identity Inc. is to advance Alaska's LGBTQ community; its members envision a world in which all Alaskans can be their authentic selves in their communities and still feel safe, supported, and welcomed. He stated that the LGBTQ community has experienced much progress in recent years, but the fear of discrimination is still very real for many Alaskans today. He maintained that due to the hard work of passionate residents and lawmakers, LGBTQ people living in Anchorage and Juneau and city employees in Bethel have basic nondiscrimination protection. He asserted that most Alaska residents still live in communities without equal protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression; therefore, every day many must decide between being "out" or "open" and keeping their jobs, staying in their homes, or (indisc.) in public. MR. FARRELL reported that it is not acceptable that members of the LGBTQ community must face this injustice with little to no recourse. He stated that because Alaska's nondiscrimination protections currently do not include sexual orientation and gender identity, ASCHR is barred from investigating these claims of discrimination. He asserted that HB 184 is needed so someone facing discrimination can report it; it can be investigated; and the person can seek justice for the wrongdoing. MR. FARRELL relayed that the state's lack of inclusive nondiscrimination protection hampers its economic growth; equality is good for business; 89 percent of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and nearly six in ten prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. He maintained that changing Alaska's laws to reflect public values will help Alaska attract and retain the best and the brightest to the workforce. All of Alaska's workers, including those who are gay and transgender, should be treated fairly and equally by the laws of the state. All Alaskans should have the opportunity to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families. He said that updating the statutes will ensure that all Alaskans will be judged on their job performances and qualifications - nothing more and nothing less. No one should have to live in fear of being legally fired for reasons that have nothing to do with his/her job performance. MR. FARRELL stated that there has been a great deal of discussion in the current legislative session about the future of Alaska; he has had the privilege of working with many young LGBTQ Alaskans from across the state. He relayed that these young people are not considering staying in Alaska for college or employment, because they do not feel welcomed or safe. He conceded that HB 184 alone cannot change that culture and climate of hate, but it could be a foundation for all Alaskans feeling safe, welcome, and (indisc.) in their communities. He concluded by saying, "Discrimination is not an Alaskan value, and it's time to make those values law." 3:56:30 PM MARTY BUSCAGLIA, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR), testified that the religious exemption protection currently exists under current Alaska law. She cited the Alaska Administrative Code (ACC), 6 AAC 30.985, which read as follows: Any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes and supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization is not prohibited from limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or otherwise making a hiring decision that will promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained. MS. BUSCAGLIA relayed that in November 2016, ASCHR passed a resolution which called on the legislature to expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. She stated that ASCHR authorized staff to draft proposed regulations addressing the inclusion of prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression under the existing law prohibiting sex discrimination. She maintained that the language for the regulation has been drafted and is now in the Department of Law (DOL) for a legal opinion. She said that there are many steps to follow, including public comment, review by the governor and the legislature, and review by Legislative Legal and Research Services. She maintained that the resolution could be halted at any point. MS. BUSCAGLIA stated the position of ASCHR on the proposed statute change: it would constitute a much stronger statement of the state's position on anti-discrimination; it would have greater force; and it would be a more robust interpretation of the law. She maintained that ASCHR's mission is to seek out and eradicate discrimination throughout the State of Alaska. The ASCHR has a long history of supporting equal rights for all Alaskans; since 1990, it has supported greater protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation. She relayed that Alaska's laws against discrimination are based on the principle that people should not be denied employment, a place to live, public accommodations, and government services for arbitrary reasons that are not connected to their abilities or qualifications. She maintained that making sure people are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression is consistent with this principle. She offered that Alaska has been a leader in adopting strong, simple civil rights protections: the Alaska Human Rights Act [1963] was adopted a year before the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964; Alaska added protections to its law for persons with disabilities three years before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990; strengthening its statute now to protect people in the LGBT community would be consistent with the strong advocacy of civil rights in the state. 3:59:53 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 184 would be held over. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the testimony suggesting that someone could be terminated from his/her job because of displaying a picture of his/her lawful spouse, and he offered that committee members should find this very disturbing.