Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights were the topic of a public forum Tuesday morning at Shepherd University. Speakers at the event said West Virginia has come far in accepting LGBT people but not far enough.
Dozens of community members, Shepherd faculty, students, and alumni attended the discussion Tuesday on LGBT rights.
The forum explored the struggle for equal rights and protection from discrimination in West Virginia and across the country. It specifically looked at challenges the LGBT community has faced since the June 2015 federal legalization of same-sex marriage.
Delegate Stephen Skinner, a Democrat from Jefferson County, is the only openly gay member of the state Legislature.
At the event, Skinner said in order for West Virginia to be a leader in LGBT rights the state needs to first acknowledge that there is an issue.
“People in West Virginia have to recognize that there is homophobia that leads to action that people are actually hurt because of the hate that gets promoted,” he said.
Skinner says passing a statewide non-discrimination law is one answer, but he says West Virginia has progressed significantly in the past ten years.
House Judiciary took up a bill Tuesday that addresses mine safety. Senate Bill 357, also known as House Bill 2566, is the Coal Jobs and Safety Act of 2015. This is a big bill with many provisions, and House Judiciary considered a handful of amendments to it.
There were two amendments to the bill that stirred up some debate within the House Judiciary Committee. Amendment number 2, as the delegates called it, was an amendment proposed by Delegate Woody Ireland of Ritchie County.
Ireland’s amendment addresses when and how and who moves equipment within a coal mine. This amendment adjusts some language related to energized trolley wire, which is a way for miners to move large loads of equipment in shuttle cars.
Delegate Tim Manchin of Marion County proposed a rival amendment to Ireland’s. In Manchin’s amendment, which was referred to as amendment number 4, it suggests putting the language back in the bill that is currently law saying there would be restrictions on how the equipment would be moved.
Manchin called Ireland’s amendment a roll back in mine safety.
“This is a huge roll back in miner safety to take seventy some mines out of the control of this statute to say that seventy some mines will now be allowed to move oversized equipment with motors and other apparatuses that are being strained to their limits in carrying that equipment, to remove those from the provisions and to subject coal miners to being in by of those where they’re going to be exposed to those fumes and fire and all the noxious smoke that comes off of that is an outrage,” Manchin said, “It is a roll back in coal miner safety, it should not be permitted, that we have not been given any adequate excuse to do that, and therefore we should reject this. Men have died, men died to get this statute passed, men died after this statute was passed. Nine men, in Marion and Monongalia County died, I think it was in the 60s or early 70s if I’m not mistaken, because, for this statute, and now we’re going to remove that.”
Delegate Stephen Skinner of Jefferson County, a fellow sponsor of Manchin’s amendment, also spoke against Ireland’s amendment, number 2.
“The amendment offered by the gentleman across applies to a very narrow number of mines,” Skinner said, “The statute as it is right now applies to all mines and is safety focused. We should make the choice for making decisions based on evidence, and we don’t have that evidence here today.”
Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County supported Ireland’s amendment, explaining that amendment number 2 was a good middle-ground and still addressed all the safety concerns.
“The gentleman from Ritchie has offered, what I would consider to be a balanced approach to making sure that miners in most of the mines where there’s a real safety issue with the movement of equipment are protected, but at the same time allowing that equipment to be moved in an efficient manner,” Lane noted, “and I would just remind people to look at the language that it says that a qualified person has to be in charge of transporting it, and specifically, as we heard yesterday, the primary issue is the energized wire that can create the problem, the real safety issue, and I think the gentleman has addressed that specifically, and would ask the committee to adopt amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from Ritchie and reject amendment number 4.”
After the debate however, Ireland’s amendment passed, and Manchin’s amendment was rejected.
Two more amendments were proposed by Delegates Manchin and Skinner; one having to do with the diesel commission and inspections, while the other had to do with rail track variants from the face of a mine. Both amendments were rejected.
Senate Bill 357 now reports to the floor for its consideration.
In the House Small Business Committee this week, House Bill 2385 was discussed. The bill has to do with brewer, resident brewer, and brewpub licensing and operations in the state. The bill was introduced at the request of Governor Tomblin who noted the issue in his state of the state address last month. The bill is finally receiving some legislative attention.
The bill was introduced to address the concerns of the eleven resident brewers in the state. Four of those brewers do not have brewpubs on their premises; this limits the amount of product sold to strictly on-site consumption or in kegs to bars and restaurants. This legislation would allow those four brewers that don’t have brewpubs a limited function to sell their product in a growler, or large jug, from the premises increasing the amount brewers can sell and increasing their revenue.
“The problem, as I understand it relates to canning, if you’re a small brewer, you may not have the capacity to afford a canning operation,” said Dave Gilbert, counsel to the House Small Business Committee, “so if you want to market your wares, you’ve got to pretty much sell it like in kegs to establishments that can sell it, I guess by the drink, this would open it up for them to sell for off premises consumption from their premises.”
After more discussion and a few amendments to clear up some technicalities, the bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
In connection to breweries and other small businesses, earlier this week a popular distillery in the Eastern Panhandle that has attracted over 50,000 tourists to the state, closed its doors because of legislative issues.
Credit Liz McCormick / West Virginia Public Broadcasting
/
West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Bloomery Sweetshine Distillery in Jefferson County makes all of its products on-site, provides tastings, and sells its products directly from the premises. The organization, however, says it’s been misclassified since it opened in 2011 as a retail liquor store. The distillery owners say due to this misclassification, its cost them too much money and has been killing their business. They say they won’t reopen again until this issue is addressed by legislators and the West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Administration.
Delegate Paul Espinosa, vice-chair of the House Small Business Committee, as well as Delegate Stephen Skinner, the minority chair of the same committee, both from Jefferson County, were concerned when they heard of the distillery’s closure.
“You know, obviously in a week when we heard some very good news from the panhandle with the announcement from Proctor & Gamble, while we’re very excited about that, you know we certainly are concerned anytime a small business indicates that perhaps they’re not going to continue operating in West Virginia,” said Espinosa, “I do know that Delegate Skinner and I, and our colleagues; we have introduced legislation in the past to try to address some of the concerns that the Bloomery Plantation Distillery has, and we are working together along with Delegate Upson and others to introduce legislation this year that will address some of the issues they have, such as the ability to operate on Sundays. I think one of the bigger challenges we have is dealing with some of the tax concerns that the distillery has, and working with Delegate Skinner others to look at some legislation and talk with other groups that are involved.”
Credit Liz McCormick / West Virginia Public Broadcasting
/
West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Espinosa says the reason the tax issue is so complicated is because it would require a lot of reevaluating of the current tax structure not just for the Bloomery Sweetshine Distillery but for other retailers as well.
Delegate Skinner says he currently has two bills he’s eager to introduce. Delegate Espinosa is a supporter of both.
“The two bills specifically that we’re on together, one would deal with the Sunday issue. I mean, in various ways, they deal with being open on Sundays and able to operate a business on Sundays that deals with alcohol,” Skinner said, “The other bill that we’re still discussing is dealing with the punitive nature of Bloomery selling from their premises, and the interaction between that and retail liquor stores. Right now, Bloomery Distillery has to pay a fee to a liquor store for the privilege of selling its own product, and the liquor store that receives that fee doesn’t even necessarily have to market the Bloomery’s product. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nowhere else in the country do we see this, and if we want to have a flourishing distillery business, wineries in West Virginia, we have to eliminate that.”
Delegate Espinosa says he’s hopeful the bill allowing distilleries and wineries to be open on Sundays will have a lot of support from both sides of the aisle, but he’s not sure there’s time this session to address the tax issue.
“I’m concerned that because of the short amount of time we have trying to address the tax issue is going to be more challenging than perhaps addressing the ability for those establishments to operate on Sundays. But we’re committed to doing everything we can, if possible, to address it this year,” Espinosa said.
Delegate Skinner says the issue, however, is not a partisan one.
“Oh I think that these issues are not partisan at all,” Skinner said, “and especially because when we’re dealing with distilleries and wineries and breweries all across the state. And there’s nothing partisan about how we’ve been dealing with this, and working together we can find a solution.”
