1994-07-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 ORDINANCE: AMENDING CITY POLICY TO BAN DISCRLM1NATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION (2nd reading) Ms. Rene Wright, an attorney with the Rutherford Institute, stated that the Rutherford Institute is the oldest non-sectarian civil liberties organization in the country, and has been contacted by several clients who have sincere religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin about the proposed ordinance. Ms. Wright stated that she is only addressing the public procurement amendment proposed. Ms. Wright opposed passage of this amendment for the following reasons: homosexuals are not constitutionally protected therefore the City is under no obligation to pass the amendment; no laws shall be made that restrict free exercise of religion; there is no compelling state interested demonstrated in the amendment; and people with sincere religious beliefs against homosexuality would be precluded from providing services to the City if adopted. Ms. Wright requested that Council either drop the proposed public procurement amendment, or add an exemption for those persons with sincere religious beliefs against homosexuality. Ms. Wright added that failure to do so will spawn litigation against the City by contractors. Ms. Wright stated that the Rutherford Institute would be pleased to help the City draft a revised amendment. Mr. Chris Lihou, 113 W. Main Street, stated that the Rutherford Institute's position as expressed by Ms. Wright is the very reason for the existence of the climate of fear by homosexuals and he felt that the issue is a question of religious versus other freedoms. Mr. Lihou stated that he did not believe it was the intent of freedom of religion to allow people to use their religions to discriminate. Mr. Lilou stated that he did not think tax dollars should be spent on ones who discriminate against homosexuals. Ms. Alexis Crowe, Legal Director for the Rutherford Institute, stated that the Institute's position is not about hate or discrimination but about religious beliefs, noting that the Institute did not raise concern about the employment provisions in the proposed ordinance, but only about the procurement amendment. Ms. Crowe stated that she felt the Religious Freedom Restoration Act precludes Council putting the procurement amendment into law without allowing persons with sincere religious beliefs against homosexuality to be exempted from the requirement. Rev. Wayne Amason, minister of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church, stated that Charlottesville is a community of diverse religious beliefs and he realizes that homosexuality offends some in the community. Rev. Amason stated that it is the responsibility of government to allow the practice of religion, but government must represent and be responsible for all the people it represents and he felt that the proposed ordinance affirms that principle. Revl Amason stated that he felt the proposed ordinance has to do with civil rights, not religious rights. Rev. Edwards questioned whether a phrase should be added to the ordinance that Council is not endorsing any particular lifestyle. Ms. Daugherty stated that she did not see any implication that any lifestyle is being endorsed by the ordinance, but only that Council is guaranteeing non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ms~ Daugherty noted that the proposed ordinance is not an affirmative action or quota law. Ms. Slaughter stated that she believes the issue is one of privacy. Rev-. Edwards stated that he is a firm believer that you cannot legislate morality. The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTIONS 19-7, 22-11 AND 22-12 OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE, 1990, AS AMENDED, PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION," which was offered at the July 5th meeting, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Ms. Daugherty, Rev. Edwards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mr. Vandever. Noes: None.