LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law Will Boost Ohio's Economy, Businesses Argue

A proposed law that would seek to stop discrimination for LGBTQ people in Ohio is seeing a new wave of support. Business groups say sexual orientation and gender identification should be considered protected classes under state law.

A coalition of hundreds of businesses, backed by Chambers of Commerce around the state, is calling on lawmakers to pass HB 160, also known as the “Ohio Fairness Act.”

Holly Gross with the Columbus Chamber says the bill would protect civil rights with an added bonus of bringing economic benefits, making Ohio more competitive at attracting businesses who see these laws as forward thinking.

“It’s also a tool for businesses large and small at attracting and retaining the best and brightest,” Gross says. “That’s what we heard over and over again, businesses have consistently told us that having a diverse and inclusive workforce has benefits to them, it helps their bottom line.”

Sandy Anderson with Equality Ohio says these laws are imperative for LGBTQ people. She uses the example of going to Washington in 2014 to marry her wife then returning to Ohio.

“What people find surprising in many states, including Ohio, that in Ohio we still don’t have legal protections for LGBTQ citizens in housing, employment and public accommodations,” Anderson says. “And what that means is that a person can be married, post their pictures on Facebook, as we did, come back to their home state and be fired from their job, be denied housing, be denied service in a restaurant or store, bakery what have you. And that’s just not right.”

The bill does face opposition. Citizens for Community Values, a conservative group, has come out against the bill, calling it a sweeping form of legislation that would create many unintended consequences. One of their main arguments, says Aaron Baer, is that Ohio doesn’t have a major problem with discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity.

“The question is, ‘Do we need a government policy, an overreaching government policy, that has strict penalties, that’s vague in its nature, to deal with this?’” Baer says. “And I would say the answer is no, and I think really what shows that we don’t have a problem with discrimination is the fact that we have so many businesses stepping up and saying they don’t discriminate in their hiring practices. We have the Columbus Chamber here, we have the Ohio Chamber that has endorsed this bill, these are the most powerful institutions in our state that are stepping forward and saying we don’t discriminate.”

But Equality Ohio disagrees about the scope of the problem.

“The bottom line is, of course there is a problem to be solved, so here’s some information that might help,” Anderson says. “First of all, everyday – certainly every week – Equality Ohio, our staff, receive phone calls from people all around the state who are suffering discrimination because they are LGBTQ.”

Gross says this affects businesses as well.

“From a talent, attraction and retention standpoint, a business does have trouble attracting LBGTQ individuals, retaining and recruiting them, if they can have a job but they may be in danger of losing their home or in danger of being discriminated in public accommodations,” Gross says. “Businesses want employees to be able to live their best lives but that’s just not possible without these protections in place.”

Baer fears that there are business owners who would be denied freedom of religion and speech if their decisions affected a customer or employee in a way that contradicted these proposed anti-discrimination laws.

“To tell those few people that you’re going to lose your job if you speak out on these issues, if you share your opinion, that’s the opposite of pluralism,” Baer says. “That’s the opposite of us living together, that’s saying if you disagree, you’re going to be punished, and we see those things happening.”

Gross offers another perspective.

“I would say laws that were intended to shield religious liberties are now being used as a sword against anti-discrimination policies,” Gross responded.

The bill has had two hearings in the House, which included testimony from several business groups. That’s more attention than the proposal has received in a decade.

While it does seem to be picking up more support, it’s unlikely the bill will see a committee vote before the House leaves for summer break.

My Response:

I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with LGBTQs working in any way either as a business owner or as an employee. Personally I don't see the why someone would rub against this idea of non-discrimination in businesses. In truth I feel like it could even be an economy boost, as the title of the article implies, because there will be a much larger a diverse people who jobs who may the qualifications that others lack.

Author Bias:

I think there may be a small author bias against the bill considering the constant quotes about the negativity of the bill and when looking at the final statement.

Audience:

Definitely anyone from Ohio, more specifically the working class or any employers and business owners. And possibly any government or businesses who are looking into similar matters as mentioned in the article.

Facebook says its free news feed is helping journalism

Company tells Australian regulator that news makes up just 5% of content shared, and downplays its collection and use of people’s data

Facebook has told the Australian competition regulator that news makes up just 5% of the content shared on the platform, and the social media giant is helping journalism by providing a free global distribution service for publishers.

In its submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry into the impact of digital platforms on media and advertising, Facebook also downplayed its collection and use of people’s data, saying many organisations, including newspapers, collected similar data.

“Facebook does not sell or provide data to advertisers,” the company said. “We provide them the ability to target their advertisements.”

In a 56-page document, the company said the Facebook news feed was less than 5% news, and was a “free platform for global content distribution and promotion” which allowed publishers to connect with readers and advertisers. Facebook offers tools and products to publishers which allows them to promote their content and reach new readers.

This week Google said in its submission it was not contributing to the death of journalism.

Facebook criticised some of the information in the ACCC’s issues paper as inaccurate in its portrayal of the digital ecosystem of Facebook, publishers, businesses and consumers. The inquiry is looking into the the impact of Facebook, Google and Apple on the level of choice in news content and its quality.

A graphic published by the ACCC “does not adequately convey the value that digital platforms provide to consumers”, Facebook said.

Facebook portrayed itself as just one platform among many in a rapidly changing environment which demanded constant innovation and was competing for advertising with Snapchat, Google, YouTube, Amazon and others.

The average person now used eight different services to connect with friends and businesses and Facebook was just one of them competing for the attention of consumers and advertisers, the company said. Facebook said it spent more than $6bn a year on research and development to keep up with its competitors in innovation.

“If we stop innovating someone else will innovate around us – making us obsolete,” the submission said. “We know if we cease to be useful people will leave.”

But it admitted its privacy settings and other tools had been too hard to find and information about data collection was not clear. It said it had recently improved those services, but users should understand that their information was key to providing a personalised service.

“Our core value to consumers comes from the highly personalised and relevant experience we provide,” the submission said. “Information that people provide about themselves allows us to provide this experience and is therefore integral to the Facebook experience.”

Earlier this month Australia’s privacy commissioner launched an investigation to determine whether Facebook had breached the Australian Privacy Act after it was revealed up to one in 50 local users may have had their personal information accessed by Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook said in its submission that combating the spread of fake news was a priority. It was now banning advertisers who spread false information and users would see less content from those who shared clickbait headlines – even though the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, admitted it would “considerably impact our profitability”.

The submission emphasised the benefits to local businesses from advertising on Facebook. More than 200 million people around the world were connected to an Australian business and most of them were small players, it said. More than 350,000 local businesses spent less than $US100 on advertising on Facebook in 2017.

In a separate submission to the inquiry, the ABC said it worked with Facebook, Google and other digital platforms to distribute its content, to increase engagement and to ensure more people discovered ABC content.

In 2017, 49.9% of Australians between the ages of 18 and 75 accessed ABC news and current affairs content, and the ABC reached 18.8% of Australian adults each week through third-party digital platforms, the submission said.

“The challenge of monetising digital content in this disrupted and increasingly global media landscape has coincided with a decline in the level of trust the public places in traditional sources of news media,” the ABC said.

“Overall, audience trust in the Australian media as an institution is at an all-time low, and the level of trust in the mainstream media’s ability to tell full, accurate and fair news has decreased.

“Simultaneously, digital platforms have contributed to an increase in public concern about fake news and there is a growing demand for news and journalistic content that is explained and verified.

“In this environment, the ABC – an independent and trusted Australian media organisation – has an increasingly important role to play; 81% of Australian adults trust the information provided by the ABC.”

My Response:

This idea of social media organization infringing on user privacy is not a new thing, it has been a debate long in the process of, however now that it may be apparent that the information is being used to establish targets of advertisements has seen to aroused a whole other debate. Sure there are international and national laws that are there to keep this infringement of privacy, I feel like it happens either way and that users should just accept the fact and be aware of this. There are countless users that actually programs placed there to be your "friend" and learn about you for the very sake of advertisement targeting. The problem that arose for the ABC is the fact that they were statistics that showed how they were gaining from their potential privacy infringement that Facebook was leaking to them.

Author Bias:

I think that based on what majority of the text of the article was saying I would say that the author against the idea of privacy infringement by social media and by Facebook in particular.

Audience:

I think that the audience could be any social media user just as awareness and specifically Facebook users, but I also think this could refer to anyone who uses ABC in particular those who learnt about it from an advertisement on their Facebook.