Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

On September 14, 2011, The Board of Commissioners enacted an ordinance that makes it illegal in Springfield, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, to discriminate in housing, jobs, and public accommodation against anyone based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. I introduced drafting such an ordinance back in November 2010, and after many months of public comment and revisions, the result is one I was proud to cast my vote for.

Springfield is currently home to many in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, who are now protected against discrimination in Springfield.

The ordinance does two things. It establishes a Human Relations Commission that, with the consent of both parties, can mediate cases of alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as well as for all the other protected classes established by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act. The second is that, for residents of Springfield, it adds LGBT as a protected class to the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act. Our ordinance does contain an exemption for religious corporations and associations.

It is illegal to discriminate by race, creed, color, and gender, plus others. However, there is no federal or Pennsylvania law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Previously, if you were discriminated against because of your sexual orientation while in Springfield, there was nothing we could legally do to protect you. That has been corrected.

“A June 2003 poll of Pennsylvania voters by a Republican polling organization found that 68% of Pennsylvanians support legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. Equal rights in workplace are supported by 84%, in public accommodation by 81%, and in housing by 77%. Interestingly, the majority of Pennsylvania voters incorrectly believe that these rights are already secured by federal law and 38% thought they were protected by state law.” [ref]

It is a fact that there is a long history of discrimination against the LGBT community in our country, including in nearby communities, and indeed within our own town.

Our legal system has declared as fact that "individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation" (see below).

Jim Schneller, a tea-party-minded birther [Obama born in Uganda)], truther [9/11 conspiracy], choicer [LGBT is a choice] politician, representing Metro Task Force, affiliated with AFA of PA (see right panel) objects to this ordinance, has sent a series of emails to the Board of Commissioners and to me and has appeared at Commissioners meetings to express his viewpoint.

Notwithstanding his arguments brought to the board in our February 2011 to September 2011 meetings in opposition to the ordinance, which I found extreme, there are two arguments that did seem reasonable, on the surface.

The first was that this issue should be decided at the federal or state level. While, I agree with that, neither of those two bodies has acted, even after concerted efforts to do so. Almost every year since 1992, there have been efforts at both the federal and state levels to enact such legislation. These have all failed. For example, House Bill 300 in the Pennsylvania Assembly (2011-2012) is given little hope of gaining enough support to get out of committee. Twenty-one other states already have such an ordinance. Even many Pennsylvania businesses already have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 1975, Pennsylvania Governor Milton Shapp issued the first state executive order banning discrimination in state employment on the basis of sexual orientation. With the current administration in Harrisburg, there's little room for optimism for passage of such a bill. So, in this vacuum, we in Springfield acted to protect our own residents.

The second argument was that because there were no reported instances of discrimination based on sexual orientation, that no ordinance was required. We have heard from local residents of instances of discrimination, but where they chose not to make a formal complaint. Even if they had, there was nothing to be done as that form of discrimination was actually legal. Fact: "Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination" (see below). We had a civic responsibility to act before one more Springfield resident had to suffer this indignity.

Using survey responses from a US national probability sample of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults (N=662), this article reports prevalence estimates of criminal victimization and related experience based on the target’s sexual orientation. Approximately 20% of respondents reported having experienced a person crime or property crime based on their sexual orientation, about half had experienced verbal harassment, and more than one in ten reported having experienced employment or housing discrimination. Gay men were significantly more likely than lesbians or bisexuals to experience violence or property crimes. More than one third of gay men (37.6%) reported experiencing one or both types of crimes, compared to 12.5% of lesbians, 10.7% of bisexual men, and 12.7% of bisexual women. Gay men also reported higher levels of harassment and verbal abuse than the other sexual orientation groups. Employment and housing discrimination were significantly more likely among gay men and lesbians (reported by 17.7% and 16.3%, respectively). [Ref: “Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates from a National Probability Sample”, Dr. Gregory Herek from Department of Psychology, UC Davis, 2009]

Findings of Fact

By the federal court in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al [pdf], re California's Proposition 8. Below are a few of the pertinent findings of fact:

• Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century. (FF #42, p. 71)
• An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. (FF #43, pp. 71-72)
• Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence. (FF #44, p. 72)
• Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation. (FF #46, p. 74)
• California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (FF #47, p. 76)
• Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (FF #58, pp. 85-86)
• Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (FF #67, p. 93)
• The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. (FF #70, p. 95)
• Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination. (FF #74, p. 96)
• Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States. (FF #75, p. 97)
• Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes. (FF #76, p. 98)
• Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (FF #77, p. 101)
• Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians. (FF #78, p. 103)

Other Pennsylvania Communities that have Enacted a Similar Ordinance

List compiled by Joanne Tosti-Vasey

• Allentown
• Allegheny Co.
• Bethlehem
• Doylestown
• Easton
• Erie
• Harrisburg
• Haverford
• Lansdowne
• Lower Merion
• New Hope
• Philadelphia*
• Pittsburgh
• Reading
• Scranton
• State College
• Swarthmore
• West Chester
• York

* enacted in 1980