Odd.
Chicago has a rule in place that says it MUST set aside some city contracts for businesses owned by women and minorities. Now there is an arguement that businesses owned by Gays should be added to that list.
Talk about insane and I dont mean adding the Gay owners, I mean the whole process to begin with. So technically the city COULD be forced to accept over priced or inferior quality contracts just because of who the owner is?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1689040,gay-contracts-chicago-tom-tunney-072809.article
Even more insane is that apparently the arguement AGAINST having Gay set asides is because it would only help WHITE MALES.
Chicago has a rule in place that says it MUST set aside some city contracts for businesses owned by women and minorities. Now there is an arguement that businesses owned by Gays should be added to that list.
Talk about insane and I dont mean adding the Gay owners, I mean the whole process to begin with. So technically the city COULD be forced to accept over priced or inferior quality contracts just because of who the owner is?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1689040,gay-contracts-chicago-tom-tunney-072809.article
Even more insane is that apparently the arguement AGAINST having Gay set asides is because it would only help WHITE MALES.