English
Korean
Spanish
SAN ANTONIO—The vote on a proposed San Antonio nondiscrimination ordinance could be delayed after an Aug. 28 City Council meeting where city officials appeared confused about the measure’s legal consequences and former supporters turned against its author for offering an amendment to preclude men from using women’s restrooms, said Jonathan Saenz, an attorney and president of the conservative group Texas Values, an arm of Plano-based Liberty Institute.
Despite several amendments aimed at calming a public outcry that generated 27,000 opposition emails, the ordinance would still bar anyone who openly opposes homosexuality from serving in public office or getting a city contract. A vote was scheduled for Sept. 5.
“The council meeting could not have gone any worse for” ordinance supporters, Saenz told the TEXAN. “There are now legitimate legal problems. There are public policy problems. … There are questions about whether or not it’s gone through the process in the right way. And now you don’t even have the people that originally wanted it and supported it completely on board with it.”
Hundreds of concerned residents voiced their opinions at the meeting, which lasted six hours and featured the city attorney struggling to answer questions about the ordinance and expressing concern at one point that he was embarrassing himself, Saenz said.
The group testifying against the ordinance “clearly outnumber[ed] its supporters,” Saenz said from the meeting via Twitter. The crowd was so large that many listened to the discussion in overflow rooms throughout the municipal complex.
The apparent confusion of council members prompted Councilman Carlton Soules to say the body was not ready to vote. Councilwoman Elisa Chan, who opposes the ordinance, suggested that it be put on a city ballot for voters to decide—a suggestion that drew a standing ovation from meeting attendees.
During the session, gay rights activists lambasted Councilman Diego Bernal, the ordinance’s author, for inserting a section that reads, “Nothing herein shall be construed as directing any policy or practice regarding the use of restrooms, shower rooms, or similar facilities which have been designated for use by persons of the opposite sex.” Saenz said the language is poorly written and could leave the door open for men to claim a right use women’s restrooms and vice versa, but “one after one” transgendered people said they no longer supported the ordinance.
Many media outlets, including the San Antonio Express-News, did not report the outcry over restroom use, Saenz said, even though it “was the big story of the day” and could contribute to the measure’s eventual defeat.
“It’s very troubling that some of the media reports, especially the one in the Express-News, don’t reference that issue,” he said, “especially when that issue was very much central during the council meeting.”
The most recent draft of the proposed ordinance prohibits any “appointed official or member of a board or commission” from engaging “in discrimination or demonstrat[ing] a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group of persons, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, while acting in their official capacity while in such public position.”
“Sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are the categories that have sparked opposition. The ordinance draft labels “bias” against homosexuals as “malfeasance” and authorizes the City Council to “remove the offending person from office.”
Businesses that have contracts with the city must include in their contracts a statement that they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the draft.
A section was removed from the ordinance that excluded from city office anyone who had demonstrated bias against homosexuals in the past.
Language was added allowing a “religious corporation, association, society or educational institution” to limit employment to members of the same religion. Additional added language says, “Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring any person or organization to support or advocate any particular lifestyle or religious view, or advance any particular message or idea.”
Still, Saenz said the ordinance is unconstitutional and goes further than other cities’ nondiscrimination laws.
“These last minute and continued desperate attempts to revise this ordinance have really solved no problems,” he said. “It just continues to be one of the most far-reaching, unconstitutional policies that attacks the religious and free-speech rights of individuals and essentially bars them from being involved in the government without having to give up their values.”
Before the Aug. 28 City Council meeting, Saenz said he feared the ordinance would become law. But “everything changed on Wednesday night,” he said, adding he was hopeful that the vote would be delayed and the measure defeated. If it does pass the City Council, lawsuits will be filed, he said.
–30–
