For four months, an anti-discrimination ordinance with provisions including LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Allies) rights that is being proposed to the City of Butler has been hotly debated.

Religious leaders and business owners fear the ordinance will infringe upon their freedom of religion, while those in favor of the ordinance insist that there are clauses in place that protect religious expression.

The ordinance will be voted on by Butler City Council at its next meeting.

Here are some of the provisions, verbatim, in the anti-discrimination ordinance that have been topics of discussion, as well as input from both sides.

Declaration of Policy No. 1

“In order to ensure that all persons regardless of actual or perceived race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, genetic information, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, age, mental or physical disability, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and are afforded equal opportunities for employment, housing and the use of public accommodations, and to have equal access to post-secondary educational institutions, it is necessary that appropriate legislation be enacted.”

Josh Crawford, president of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), said Thursday that this ordinance is all-inclusive.

“(That’s what) I keep stressing, and I’m so tired of hearing it’s the LGBT,” Crawford said. “It’s everyone.”

Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Pennsylvania Family Council, spoke Wednesday at a meeting to discuss the ordinance at North Main Street Church of God.

Wenger is against the proposed ordinance, but stressed that he is not for discrimination.

“Often times, our point of view is grossly misunderstood,” he said. “We just want space for everyone.”

Both sides acknowledge that a state law called the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in its language.

PFLAG member Sabrina Schnur noted that because sexual orientation and gender identity are left out, someone could be refused service at a restaurant, hotel or in housing because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Wenger said that including such language into an ordinance could have implications that conflict with religious freedom.

“We want to protect the space for everyone, and unfortunately laws like this have way too many victims because we end up creating a whole group of people that get targeted for ridicule and punishment simply because of what they view about sexuality and marriage,” he said.

Employment

The ordinance “does not include any individuals who, as a part of their employment, reside in the personal residence of the employer.” It includes: “any person who employs one or more employees, including the City of Butler, its departments, boards and authorities, and any other government agency within its jurisdiction.”

Crawford noted the exception provision, which states, “Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a religious corporation or association, not supported in whole or in part by governmental appropriations, to refuse to hire or employ an individual on the basis of religion.”

Jeremy Samek, counsel of the Pennsylvania Family Council, said at Wednesday’s meeting that even with the exception provision, employment freedoms of religious organizations could be harmed.

He used the example of Fontbonne Academy, an all-girls Catholic school in Boston, Mass. In 2013, a superior court judge ruled the academy in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination law for rescinding a job offer to Matthew Barrett upon learning he was in a same-sex marriage because that didn’t align with Catholic values.

“(The ordinance) looks good at first glance,” Samek said. “It looks like religious organizations are going to continue to be able to hire on the basis of religion. The problem, which the Fontbonne Academy case shows us, is when a court looks at that and applies it consistent with other protected classes, you are carving out a whole section of religious beliefs that you can no longer (only) hire people who agree with your beliefs.”

Public Accommodation

The ordinance states “any accommodation, resort or amusement which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and offers goods or services, including loans, to the general public or is listed in Section 4(1) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 954(1), but shall not include any accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private.”

Wenger said that because a church and other religious organizations are open to the public, they would fall under the public accommodation provision.

“Public accommodation covers pretty much any area that is open to the public, and that can cover a lot of grounds,” he said.

Barronnelle Stutzman, who owns a public floral business, Arlene’s Flowers, in Richmond, Wash., spoke at Wednesday’s meeting. Stutzman is being sued by long-time customer Robert Ingersoll for refusing to provide flowers in 2012 for his same-sex wedding to Curt Reed based on her religious beliefs.

She lost her case at the state level. She said the presiding judge told her she had the right to religious beliefs but not necessarily the right to act on them.

Her case is now in the Washington Supreme Court. If she loses, she faces more than $1 million in legal fees and costs from the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Ingersoll and Reed. The costs could put her into bankruptcy.

“Barronnelle risks losing everything all because of what her conscience told her to do,” said Matt Sharp, counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Stutzman.

Further concerns were raised at the meeting about the public accommodation provision. Some fear it would lead to allowing transgender people, and men and women who identify as the opposite sex, into religious organizations’ bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex.

“If you think about it, a shelter where you’re going to have men in certain areas, women in certain areas, often you’re going to have situations that you share bathrooms, share showers, share certain areas,” Wenger said. “And you create these situations where you’re putting people’s personal privacy and comfort level at deep risk.”

Sabrina Schnur, a PFLAG member, spoke Thursday about the public accommodation provision.

She noted that the examples brought up in Wednesday’s meeting, including the incidents at Fontbonne Academy and with Stutzman, were based on ordinances that are not the one being proposed in Butler.

She also said that men who identify as women, and vice versa, but haven’t had a transgender operation, would not be allowed into bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex because those are private accommodations. Those who have had the transgender operation would be allowed.

“I understand the concerns of the opposition but there is specific language, quote, ‘shall not include any accommodations which in their nature are distinctly private,’” Schnur said. “That’s under the public accommodation section.”

She also said that the exception provision keeps private religious organizations from being included in the public accommodation provision.

Schnur spoke on public businesses such as Arlene’s Flowers having to provide full service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“They’re a for-profit business that is making money that is not affiliated with a religion,” she said. “Everybody pays taxes and helps keep that business there, then they have to serve everyone.”

She said that allowing public businesses to turn away customers on the basis of religion is a “slippery slope.”

“Let’s say this is a business (owned by a Muslim person), and they say they’re not going to (provide service), because a woman is not covering her face?” Schnur said. “Where can this slippery slope go to, because you can have a Muslim saying that they’re not going to do something that’s against their religion. Jewish people could (do the same). Every religion has their own thing.”

Human Relations Commission

If the ordinance was enacted, a Human Relations Commission consisting of volunteers would investigate complaints of those who say they have been discriminated against. If the commission finds no discrimination occurred, the complaint will be dismissed.

If the commission, dubbed “the Authority” by the ordinance, finds that discrimination has occurred, it “shall state its findings of fact, and shall issue and cause to be served on such respondent an order requiring such respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful discriminatory practice and to take such additional action as the Authority deems appropriate. The Authority shall have the authority to order any remedies available to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”

Schnur said that the commission’s duty is to act as a mediator. If someone has been found to have been discriminated against, Schnur said, that person or people has the option to take the matter to court. She said the commission’s rule gives the complaint “legitimacy.”

The ordinance says the commission would be between seven and 15 people, but Crawford said those proposing the ordinance are willing to limit the commission to five to seven people.

Pastor Jeff Harris of Crossroad Community has spoken out against the ordinance and addressed his concerns with the Human Relations Commission.

“My concern (is) that the Human Relations Commission as an entity would establish a governmental body that is not elected or directly accountable to the public,” he said.

The full ordinance can be found at

http://butlerpflag.weebly.com/non-discrimination-ordinance.html.The Butler City Council will vote on the ordinance Thursday at 7 p.m. at the city building.