City Council unanimously approved a resolution opposing any state legislature that discriminates against people based on the sexual orientation, gender identity or any other protected identity.
Councilmember Richie Floyd brought the resolution to the June 11 city council meeting, amid Pride Month, and while that makes the proclamation timely, Floyd said, “A big reason why I did it is because it’s our last opportunity.”
For context, legislation trickling down from the state capitol known as the “anti-DEI bill” prohibits “funding, promoting, supporting, or maintaining” diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and impose unusually severe penalties for violations.
The penalties for non-compliance are severe: public officials found acting contrary to the law could face accusations of “malfeasance,” exposing them to possible removal from office, civil liability or criminal consequences.
But the city’s resolution counter the anti-DEI bill with the belief that “the City cannot be welcoming to all while remaining silent as our neighbors and visitors are singled out and harmed by state policy.”
It’s the “last opportunity” before the bill is effectuated Jan. 1, 2027. The loose language of the Anti-DEI bill has perplexed officials who must instead lean on the expertise of the city’s attorneys to parse what does and doesn’t fall under the punitive language of the bill. Those determinations will dictate what programs St. Pete can continue funding and supporting, such as the Pride events.
Floyd said that the city attorney’s work parsing the bill is “ongoing” and that they have “months to sort out the language.”
What is known now is that the anti-DEI bill does not necessarily mean events like Pride will vanish, but the city may diminish its role to ensure the event’s legality. Floyd assured that the city can still provide infrastructure via permits and public safety.
“It’s clear that the anti-DEI bill was written to make us all hesitate. It does a good job of sewing fear, and that’s by design,” Floyd told the Catalyst, because the language forces local officials to second guess the legality of their decision, opening themselves up to lawsuits or removal from office.
When asked if the loose language of the bill could work in favor for a city being sued for breaking the anti-DEI bill (since it doesn’t clearly define all illegal programs), Floyd said that’s possible. “Litigation of the bills language may get specified through court cases, so in theory, yes.”
But, for now, the city is leaning on its beliefs, not court cases: “St. Petersburg’s strength comes from our working people coming from diverse communities and from a shared commitment to taking care of one another,” states the resolution.
This content provided in partnership with StPeteCatalyst.com
