With another overflow crowd at City Hall as the backdrop, Springfield City Council voted last night to extend its nondiscrimination ordinance to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations.
After two public hearings that together packed City Hall, spawned a viral video and created a task force, a controversial modified city ordinance is a reality. Six council members voted in favor of the further reaching of two options, while three cast votes of opposition. A substitute ordinance, which would have extended protections only in the area of housing, automatically failed after the original bill was passed.
Council members Doug Burlison, Mike Carroll, Craig Hosmer, Jeff Seifried, Jan Fisk and Cindy Rushefsky voted for the original measure after defeating a motion by Councilman Craig Fishel to vote for the substitute first. Fishel, Councilman Jerry Compton and Mayor Bob Stephens voted against the original bill, though Stephens said before the vote he hoped to weigh in on the substitute proposal.
In late August 2012, council moved to table the SOGI ordinance in favor of creating a resident-led task force to take a closer look at the issue after a largely divided community turned out in force during the bill’s first public hearing. The 16-member task force ultimately favored the substitute proposal.
Two years ago, 37 of 62 public speakers voiced support for extending the city’s protections on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age (40 to 69 years) or disability to include sexual orientation and gender identity. At the Sept. 8 public hearing, 24 of 45 speakers stood in support of one of the two SOGI ordinances.
Councilman Burlison said prior to the vote he had family and friends on both sides of the issue, but the passionate nature of the public debate ultimately swayed his vote.
“The amount of opposition to this bill … is a clear indication of the need for this bill,” Burlison said.
Councilwoman Fisk said the bill was a chance to show employers and others beyond Springfield that the city is an inclusive community.
“In order to grow and maintain a healthy economy, Springfield needs to be a welcoming city,” Fisk said. “Large employers such as Apple, Microsoft and others have made it clear that they support equal treatment in a community, and Springfield cannot afford to be overlooked by such companies and the jobs they could bring because of discrimination.
“We cannot build Springfield’s future by holding onto discrimination of the past.”
Councilman Compton said he felt the ordinance overstepped the role of the city government.
“The First Amendment to the Constitution says Congress should make no laws about the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. People of faith live out their beliefs in their everyday lives just as surely as people with alternative lifestyles believe that is who they are,” Compton said, adding he felt there were inadequate safeguards to protect against wrongful use of the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Fishel said he voted against the ordinance because he felt it best represented the interest of residents in his southeast Springfield district.
“I have been approached by every major church in my district. I feel like I was elected to represent the people of my district, Zone 4, so I don’t feel like I can support this issue,” Fishel said, adding he felt there was insufficient evidence of discrimination at the task force level to support the need for the ordinance.
At the center of the debate has been whether religious business and property owners have the right not to rent to, employ or serve people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Rushefsky said voting for the SOGI bill amounted to supporting fairness in the public sphere. She described the ordinance change as unenforceable, but symbolically important. While those who would like to log instances of discrimination with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights can do so, the bill gives the city no power to punish businesses or property owners for claims of discrimination.
“This bill is not really about homosexuality, gender identity or religious freedom. It is about the right of every citizen of Springfield to be treated like every other citizen of Springfield,” Rushefsky said. “I do not believe my rights depend on how other people feel about me.
"There is nothing in this bill that compels anyone to change his religious beliefs or to approve or sanction homosexual behavior. The Constitution is a shield designed to protect us from overreaching government and from each other. It is not a sword to strike out at those who do not share our beliefs and customs.”
Last week, Rushefsky and Hosmer crafted an amendment known as the "bathroom exception," which would have prohibited the SOGI ordinance from applying to facilities that are private in nature, such as restrooms, shower rooms and dressing rooms. However, that amendment was not added to the ordinance or discussed at last night's meeting.[[In-content Ad]]
