An anti-discrimination ordinance will be voted on at Thursday night's Butler City Council meeting.

The motion will be to pass the first reading of the ordinance. If it passes, another motion for the second reading and adoption of the ordinance will be on council's agenda in August.

The ordinance was initially proposed to council by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in 2011, and was brought up again in the summer of 2016.

The ordinance, in part, states: “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, marital 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.”

An ongoing controversy

The ordinance was debated for months by city leaders and residents during council meetings last year. Many people favored the ordinance, while some were concerned it would limit business and religious freedoms.

Since October, council members Kathy Kline and Corey Roche met with people on both sides of the issue to go through the ordinance's wording.

After months of meetings, Kline said that the wording had not changed.

Sabrina Schnur, a member of PFLAG, attended the meetings and said that the ordinance is an adoption of similar ordinances around the state.

She said the wording was not changed because PFLAG was advised by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Committee that if the wording was changed, it would become a new law instead of an adoption.

Josh Crawford, president of PFLAG, said the ordinance would be good for Butler and would bring people into the city.

He cited other Pennsylvania municipalities that have adopted the ordinance, including Pittsburgh and Erie, and mentioned the Pittsburgh Pride parade as an example of an anti-discrimination ordinance welcoming people to a city.

“It does bring people into the city, and it does move people out of the city that feel they're going to be discriminated against,” Crawford said.

Bill Halle, founder of Grace Youth and Family Foundation, also attended the meetings and was concerned that the wording wasn't changed.

He spoke of the ordinance including public accommodations as places that would have to follow the ordinance's guidelines.

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

'Immediately discriminate'

Halle noted that this would allow someone to use the bathroom of their choosing based on gender identity in public accommodations.

“They're calling it a non-discrimination ordinance, but they're actually going to immediately discriminate against people of faith and anyone that wants privacy rights based on biological sex,” he said.

The ordinance has an exemption for religion. It states, “notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a religious corporation or association, not supported in whole or in part by government appropriations, to refuse to hire or employ an individual on the basis of religion.”

Halle said he has an issue with the wording that keeps religious organization who receive government funding from being exempt from the ordinance.

Lines being drawn

Mayor Tom Donaldson said that he is against the ordinance.

“To pass this, you're going to take away someone's rights and give them to someone else,” he said. “I'm going to vote 'no,' and I'm not going to change my mind. This is going to stifle business.”

Kline is in favor of the ordinance. “We're all community,” she said. “We should be a community that's inclusive, shouldn't we? And we should be that way moving forward.”

Roche and councilman Michael Walter said they understand both sides of the argument.

Roche said he will continue to think about the issue, while Walter said that the ordinance has been sufficiently prepared throughout the past year.

Councilman Kenny Bonus also commented on the ordinance.

“When it comes to things like this, I look to the city solicitor a lot to interpret the (wording), because ultimately we're passing a law that somebody else constructed,” Bonus said. “(City solicitor Jim Coulter) pointed out a lot of inconsistencies to the point where it didn't seem like it was even properly drafted, so it would be hard to pass something like that in its current state.”

The ordinance would require the implementation of a city human relations commission, which would review complaints from those who said they faced business or housing discrimination.

The commission would hold a fact-finding conference in which they reviewed the incident in question, and then make a ruling on the matter and inform the person who made the complaint that they could file a lawsuit.

If the matter is not able to be initially resolved, expanded procedures would be possible, subject to a vote by council and if city funds are available.

A hearing would be held following further investigation. If the commission found that discrimination happened, it would file a cease-and-desist order against the accused.

If the commission found that no discrimination happened, the case would be dismissed.