Nearly 40 people spoke during the first public forum regarding Daviess County’s proposed nondiscrimination ordinance Thursday at Owensboro Community and Technical College’s Blandford Hall.
With more than 300 people in attendance, several people were seated in nearby classrooms to watch via a live stream of the event. Judge-Executive Al Mattingly mediated the forum and all three commissioners were in attendance.
Speakers were given two minutes each to voice their opinion. With more than 50 people in line but only two and a half hours available during the forum, some did not get a chance to speak. Mattingly said they will be first on the list at the next forum, which is at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 24 at Brescia University.
“If you take anything away from this evening, it’s that we are one people, and we are people of Daviess County,” Mattingly said. “We at Daviess County Fiscal Court work for you.”
At the end of his two minutes, Chad Benefield — a supporter of the proposed ordinance — asked everyone who believed the LGBTQ community was deserving of discrimination to raise their hands.
After seeing a few raised hands, Benefield said that was all he’d needed to see to show that discrimination existed in Daviess County.
A mother named Bonita Lowry told the crowd her openly transgender daughter has already decided not to live in Owensboro and plans to move away because she felt she’d never be accepted.
“I always figured she would settle here and raise a family, but that’s not what she wants to do,” Lowry said. “She doesn’t feel like she belongs here … She’s a hard worker (but) she struggles to find a job here in town. Often she’s not even granted an interview … Owensboro will be losing a wonderful asset.”
Jo Barron told the crowd that as a Christian, she loved each and every member of the LGTBQ community, even though she was opposed to the ordinance.
“You are entitled to be treated with love and respect by all,” she said. “I disdain anyone who treats you unkindly. I feel like I have to say that at the beginning because there is this false and unfair narrative that, if you do not support this ordinance — which I do not — that you must dislike and hate people that are LGBTQ.”
Barron said those in the audience with extremely religious convictions penning them against the LGBTQ community should reconsider.
“If you have a business you can, and you should, be willing to hire people who are gay. You can do so without violating scripture,” she said. “If you have a gay neighbor, you should get to know them and befriend them, and show them the love of Jesus.”
Some of those opposed described the ordinance as giving “special rights” to the LGBTQ community, but supporters argued it gives the opportunity for equal housing, employment and public accommodation rights.
“Everyone in here has been treated unfairly — life happens,” said T.A. Scott. “You can’t legislate fairness. I don’t believe this is needed. The pursuit of happiness is guaranteed [in the Constitution]. Happiness is not.”
Though some opponents thought the ordinance should be decided by the voters instead of County Commissioners, Mattingly said it was impossible due to state law.
A self-described “conservative Christian,” Rod Kuegel said he surprised himself by supporting the proposed ordinance.
“I knew I’d have to be against it,” Rod Kuegel said. “I read it, and I tried to figure out what I was afraid of, and I couldn’t find it. What I found appealed to my faith. How can you, as a human being, love somebody and justify discrimination? I see this as a humanity issue.”
Kuegel also encouraged Fiscal Court to amend the ordinance to include employment, housing and public accommodation rights for everyone — not just the LGBTQ community — adding that, “Otherwise we’ll all be back here with another thing we’re scared of.”
