Both sides of nondiscrimination ordinance clarify positions

November 12, 2019 | 3:30 am

Updated November 17, 2019 | 8:07 am

Photo by AP Imagery

Members of the Human Relations Commission are addressing claims about the nondiscrimination ordinance — namely, that it impedes religious freedom.

According to the HRC, the ordinance will be modeled after Georgetown’s, and religious organizations, businesses and people will be exempt from the ordinance altogether.

However, some members of the community on the opposing side of the ordinance say there’s still a lot to lose if this ordinance were to be passed.

“I don’t think any of the ordinance’s supporters have ill intentions of harming anyone in the community,” said Owensboro business owner Jordan Tong. “It would exempt religious organizations like churches or nonprofits and those with severely held religious beliefs. It becomes problematic because businesses and landlords wouldn’t fall under religious [jurisdiction].”

However, HRC board member Deanna Smith said this ordinance does protect faith-based small businesses.

“Rest assured, the Georgetown ordinance, which we have modeled the Daviess County nondiscrimination ordinance off of, has multiple clauses citing the exemption for any religious institutions, nonprofits, faith-based businesses and small property owners,” she said.

Smith said Georgetown’s ordinance contained a state law citing the religious freedom restoration act, proclaiming no burdens will be placed on those who hold firmly-held religious beliefs.

“As this is state law, it supersedes any and all local ordinances,” Smith said.

Daviess County Judge-Executive Al Mattingly said this ordinance is about general commerce — those wishing the LGBTQ community can be included as a protected class simply don’t want to be discriminated against in housing, employment and public accommodations.

“This doesn’t mean you support LGBTQ practices — it just means you can’t discriminate against them,” he said.

Mattingly added that two of the country’s biggest civil rights movements — Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement that aimed to give blacks equal rights — were often opposed by some of the country’s biggest church groups.

Things have changed now, Mattingly said, adding that certain sentences and passages out of the Bible shouldn’t be used to promote discrimination against another person.

“We don’t live in a world of single sentences. We live in a world where conversations are based on the context in its entirety,” he said. “I would invite anyone to point out to me how this ordinance [impedes your religious freedom].”

Tong said he worries that the ordinance could pressure people into religious coercion, that it could seemingly put pressure on religious people to do things against their beliefs. Even more, Tong believes, even with religious entities being exempt, the burden of proof still falls on the person having to prove they have a religious belief, were that person to be sued over discrimination by a member of the LGBTQ community.

Tong also said he’d like to see a well-documented case from a local person that describes the exact way they were discriminated against in terms of housing, employment or public accommodations. Though the HRC has turned over dozens of written examples of discrimination from the local LGBTQ community, Tong said he’d like to see a case where the alleged discrimination can be proven.

Smith said the proof of discrimination lies in the dozens of letters but also in four complaints the HRC has received this year. The LGBTQ community is not a protected class under the City of Owensboro’s ordinance (Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 2-200), which states that the HRC is unable to process or investigate any such claims of discrimination.

Tong said his argument against the ordinance stems from his strong beliefs in freedom of religion and liberty.

“The proponents of this think they have the moral ground because it’s the right thing to do, so it makes everyone else look negative,” he said. “At its core, we’re trying to protect freedom of conscience.”

Smith said the threat of “frivolous and burdensome lawsuits” that Tong described in his document read at Fiscal Court should not be a worry, though it’s a worry that many in the community have.

“Nobody wants to be accused of being hateful or discriminatory, or to be dragged into court, when they have an honest decision for why they refuse to hire or rent to an individual,” Smith said. “For right of religious liberty, you are protected and cannot be sued based on religious moral convictions. For those afraid of being accused when discrimination is not taking place, you will be protected from frivolous lawsuits and the accuser will be punished as seen fit by the law for making false claims of defamation.”

November 12, 2019 | 3:30 am

Share this Article

Other articles you may like