« Issues « Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
Metro Task Force Letter
Received via email on 5/9/11
Philadelphia Metro Task Force
END THE THREAT OF ANTI-FAMILY LEGISLATION
In cooperation with the American Family Association of Pennsylvania
www.afaofpa.org
Dear Springfield Township Commissioners:
During the past month additional implications of the homosexual-rights ordinances like the one you are considering have come to light and we wanted you to have this information as soon as possible.
Firstly, it is telling that the ordinances recently passed, as well as your proposed ordinance, openly discriminate and even segregate on a basis of religious belief, and so you, the board, are in theory the first possible recipients of a summons under your own ordinance. This is a further example of the outright illegality of the ordinances, which we are consistently bringing to leaders and the public's attention.
Bear in mind please that we claim enormous transgressions on citizens' moral beliefs as well, but morality is not (yet !) a protected class in any discrimination laws. Decisions by various appeals courts (in only some states), such as those finding the outlawing of sodomy to be unconstitutional, are used to impress upon the public a fictional dissipation of morality, but the people of this country and state are not following the lead. A backswing is apparent, and for good reason !
Secondly, the ordinances are, or would, openly deprive many citizens of rights to free speech and religious worship, which is actionable harm. The act of passing the ordinance itself falls under this category.
This is because the ordinances — even the very existence of them — are an immediate and ongoing denigration and even a punishing to citizens for expression of religious doctrine, and are an imposition of special disabilities on a basis of religious beliefs. They even have characteristics of a lending of your power to one or the other side in a controversy over religious authority and dogma. These are illegal.
Thirdly, the ordinances and your passing of the ordinance, stand as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because many religious individuals would be treated in a derogatory manner and as subservients, and unequally to other citizens, by the ordinance.
The ordinance's waiver on basis of religion is stated to exist only in regard to religious associations and, even in that case, only to religious associations who do not receive government funds of any sort. Individual and business township citizens in this class are thus treated in a manner far different from other citizens. Even now, or at a time of passing a bill, unconstitutional inequality is caused to all of your religious-minded constituents who are perceived to be affected and denigrated in their ability to practice their religion by the ordinance. Your efforts, and we mean no harm, resemble non-legitimate governmental interests. We believe, in fact, that the ordinances declare the intent to be civil rights, yet have as their essence special rights, coupled with denigration of religious civil rights.
Last, citizens' rights to privacy, as protected in the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, stand to be denigrated by any ordinance.
This is true as to privacy in non-disclosure of personal and business matters because the policy would allow, without sworn testimony, and in a milieu of taking away of rights to religion and free speech, quasi-judicial proceedings that are public record and that include exposure in the media and in specialized intrusive types of media and information gathering, including by activist groups.
Also deprived by the ordinance would be citizens' privacy interest of independence in making decisions regarding citizen's property, business, and personal lives. Citizens' and business owners' personal decisionmaking will be affronted by the existence of the ordinance, and it is likely that the type of records requested would be in regard to private decisions; that would be likely to contain personal views, decisions, observations, and/or characteristics. What a terrible cost, for an issue where the proponents have yet to offer any concrete examples of discrimination.
I hope this hasn't been a tutorial ! We are extremely concerned about these aspects of the law, as our prior messages have noted. Now we are seeing these deeper problems in these ordinances, regarding citizens' day to day liberty and comforts.
There was an article about the Conshohocken bill in late April that you might find informative. View it here [pdf] or possibly at the Times Herald website.
We felt that the Conshohocken Council bent and spun their discussion of the ordinance so that it appeared that they were simply approving a motion to introduce — and they also forbade non-residents from speaking until after adjournment — in other words, the meeting was biased to an extent not yet seen in the area's series of h-activist municipal bills. The council caused non-participation by some community members who had been alerted of the bill and who came to the meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Jim Schneller
Philadelphia Metro Task Force
END THE THREAT OF ANTI-FAMILY LEGISLATION
500 E. lancaster avenue 111d
Radnor, pa 19087
610-688-9471
mainmorality@aol.com