Last Monday (1), the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice declared unconstitutional the law that punished establishments that discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation. The law had been in force in the state for 12 years.
The proposal was created in 2000 by then deputy Carlos Minc, now state secretary for the environment. The text of law 3.406/2000 says that the Executive Branch will punish "all commercial and industrial establishments, entities, representations, associations, civil societies or those providing services that, through acts of their owners or agents, discriminate against people based on their orientation sexually, or adopt acts of coercion or violence against them".
Embarrassment, prohibition of entering or staying in the place, extra charges for entry and even differentiated service are considered discrimination.
Twelve years later, the State Court of Justice claimed that the law violates the Constitution, as it was an initiative of the Legislature, when it should have come from the Executive.
"This law was in force for 12 years. Sometimes, we enforced it, as happened in a hotel in Niterói and in a pizzeria in Largo do Machado. The law does not end homophobia or prejudice, but it is an instrument for changing culture and behavior. This law is a pioneer in Brazil and has always been welcomed in acts of LGBT pride", declared Carlos Minc to the newspaper "O Globo".
In 2006, the Parmê pizzeria was punished with a fine for discriminating against the couple Pedro Caio and Alberto Carneiro, who exchanged a kiss there. The case also resulted in a kiss in front of the establishment.
Upon being notified of the TJ's decision, Minc asked Governor Sérgio Cabral for a similar project. The governor of Rio decided this Tuesday (2) that he will send a new bill to the state's Legislative Assembly with the same content as the one challenged.
The state Public Ministry, through a note, explained why the law was annulled. "The Public Ministry is the inspector of legality and observance of the Constitution and, in this case, state deputy Carlos Minc had no constitutional possibility, attribution, of initiating a Legislative process on a matter involving (…) public service. It would be up to the governor to propose this type of law and not to the state deputy. Therefore, it is not that the MP is against the law, but, as it has this defect in form, the MP could not omit it", says the note.
