English
Korean
Spanish
(CORRECTION: An early version of this story quoted an opponent of the ordinance who inferred by his comments that “bias in word or deed” was retained in the version of the ordinance that passed. Thanks to a diligent reader, this has been corrected in this version of the story. We regret the error. Where “bias in word or deed” existed in earlier drafts, the law as passed only refers to “discrimination.”)
SAN ANTONIO—The San Antonio City Council passed by an 8-3 vote on Sept. 5 a controversial ordinance that allows city officials to be removed from office and makes businesses liable if they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The ordinance makes such discrimination a Class C misdemeanor for businesses that offer services to the general public. Last-minute amendments clarified that the measure does not require businesses to allow transgendered persons to use restrooms or locker rooms intended for people of the opposite sex—a change that angered some of the ordinance’s supporters.
Several previous amendments attempted to calm a swell of opposition. Thanks to one amendment, a “religious corporation, association, society or educational institution” may limit employment to members of the same religion. Another amendment added the qualifier, “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, the ordinance is “one of the most dangerous constitutional violations Liberty Institute has ever seen” regarding free speech and religious liberty, according to a news release from the Plano, Texas-based group.
“The Ordinance is a cloudy and confusing collection of poorly thought out and conflicting statements that could have been more clearly and cleanly handled by simply including a broad religious liberty exemption to protect the free speech and religious liberty rights of both individuals and organizations that have religious objections to the requirements mandated by the Ordinance,” said Liberty Institute President & CEO Kelly Shackelford.
Shackelford added that the ordinance “should alarm every American who values their religious freedom” and has ramifications that “could go far beyond San Antonio.”
Multiple legal groups have vowed to challenge the ordinance in court as unconstitutional, and elected officials, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, have raised concerns as well.
City officials received 11,000 opposition emails in the weeks leading up to the vote, and five City Council meetings on the ordinance drew a hundreds of residents who expressed their opposition. In an Aug. 28 meeting city officials appeared confused about the measure’s legal consequences, with the city’s attorney struggling to answer questions and expressing concerns that he was embarrassing himself.
Jonathan Saenz, president of the conservative group Texas Values, called the ordinance “radical” and said “a majority of the people of San Antonio oppose” it.
“This ordinance will be used as a weapon against people of faith and family values just as other laws have been used in other states,” Saenz said in a statement. “The ordinance lacks transparency, lacks evidence of a real need and is plagued with major constitutional concerns. The question now is when will the first legal challenge begin and what will the cost be to taxpayers at the end of the litigation that will certainly come.”
The 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.”
The ordinance labels discrimination against homosexuals as “malfeasance” and authorizes the City Council to “remove the offending person from office.” The council voted separately on adding “veteran status,” with that language gaining approval 9-2.
Businesses in the city are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and outside businesses that deal with the city must include in their city contracts a statement that they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
A section was removed from the ordinance that excluded from city office anyone who had demonstrated bias against homosexuals in the past.
Councilwoman Elisa Chan, who voted against the ordinance, said its advocates attempted to enforce “a dictate to agree,” according to San Antonio’s Express-News.
“I have not heard a single person who said he or she agrees to any form of discrimination,” Chan said, according to the Express-News. “Just because I disagree with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community doesn’t mean that I dislike them.”
–30–
