Page 12 - the NOISE October 2015

sedona approves human rights ordinance
story by cindy cole
on September 8, 2015 Sedona became the fifth Arizona city to approve a general human rights ordinance (hro) joining Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tempe and Tucson. A report issued by the city prior to the City Council’s vote on the ordinance states, “A human rights ordinance is a practical and balanced strategy employed at the city or county level to promote diversity and economic growth and to prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics.” While the ordinance offers protection for all people in Sedona, including residents and visitors, it has been cheered particularly by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) community both locally and nationally.
Sedona’s newly approved ordinance states: “It is declared to be the policy for the citizens of the City of Sedona, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and housing, and contrary to public policy and unlawful to discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, marital status, familial status, age, disability, or veteran status, in places of public accommodation, employment, and housing; and contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful for vendors and contractors doing business with the City to discriminate, as set forth in this chapter.”
The basic purpose of the new ordinance is to supplement state and federal non- discrimination laws. The main addition the ordinance provides is to include language for protection based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Federal law already prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and gender. At the state level, Arizona only protects state employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation with no provisions regarding gender identity.
In September 2013, Sedona was the fourth Arizona city to recognize civil unions including those between same-sex partners. Same-sex marriages became legal in Arizona at the state level in October 2014. In June of this year, the Supreme Court of the united States ruled that all states must recognize and issue licenses to same-sex couples who wish to marry. The vote was a narrow win at 5-4. A great deal of public divide still exists on this issue prompting some municipalities to take the extra step and pass a human rights ordinance.
Not everyone who spoke before the council was in favor of the HRO. Some claimed the ordinance was unnecessary and that current state and federal non-discrimination laws were sufficient. Some questioned whether their own religious freedoms would be ignored and whether they might be forced by the ordinance to cater to a particular population of people with whom they have moral and ethical qualms.
Former city councilor Dan Mcelroy stated that his research showed that only Sedona’s LGBT community would be served by the HRO, which he estimated to be around 200 people, and that the provision was not for the benefit of “the community at large” as ordinances should be. He claimed that targeting Sedona’s small LGBT population would “add another layer of government” in the city and was concerned that religious objections would not be protected.
Former Pima County Attorney Steve Neely, now a Sedona resident, cautioned the city to be careful it was not “trampling on the rights of people of faith.” His wife, lynn Gallagher said that she was “concerned about the impact this ordinance will have on those who follow [biblical] commandments.” She illustrated her anxiety with a fictional anecdote of a Christian baker not being able to refuse to bake a cake for a satanic cult under the new ordinance.
Sedonan richard Newland, also a former attorney said, “I’m not here to promote hate or support mistreatment of anyone in our city.” But, he argued, there is no need for this ordinance in Sedona. “Sedona is unique and unlike any of the other cities this ordinance is modeled after,” he continued. He remarked on Sedona’s cultural diversity and said he had never heard of any instances of discrimination or bias. “This law creates a special class of person while creating danger for those that don’t see the same way. It creates a hammer that can be used without any cost by the complaining party to have the city beat up on somebody with whom the complaining party has a disagreement.” He expressed concern that it is the city that would end up having to pay for the enforcement of the ordinance even if it was misused.
One of the following speakers, however, disagreed. Frank robinson, Pastor of Sedona’s Christ Center Church said, “I disagree with the last attorney that spoke because I can attest to acts of discrimination against myself. I can give accounts of businesses that refused to serve me because of my Christianity.” He claimed that he had been called names like “Jesus freak” and “fanatic” because of his personal religious convictions. “There is discrimination in Sedona,” he concluded, “but not the kind that I’ve been hearing about here.”
2013 Pride Parade in Madrid Photo by laura hale
Since the early 1990’s several states around the nation have considered and/or passed so- called “religious freedom” acts. Action at the state level followed a Supreme Court decision in 1997 that limited the reach of the federal religious Freedom restoration act. Several states acted to restore the law’s provisions at the state level.
Last year in Arizona, SB 1062 passed both the state House and Senate but was vetoed by then-Governor Jan Brewer. The law sought to amend an existing state law to give any individual or legal entity an exemption from any state law if it “substantially burdened their exercise of religion.” Earlier in 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case which recognized a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious objection to providing certain health services to its employees.
The dispute between those who believe that gay marriage is an affront to their religious beliefs and the LGBT community and its supporters is playing out all over the country. Sedona’s decision to pass its HRO was heralded by national civil rights organizations like Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign whose missions are to guarantee protection for all members of the LGBT community. While in Kentucky, rowan County Clerk of Court Kim Davis recently spent several days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples claiming it was against her religious beliefs to validate gay marriage. She was released on the same day the city council approved the HRO. But, since returning to work, she continues to refuse to issue licenses to gay couples but has allowed her staff to do so. A developing issue at press time is whether she provided forms from which her name was removed that may be invalid due to additional changes she made to them.
There were plenty of community members in the council chambers who spoke in favor the HRO. Paula Donnelly rourke of Sedona said that she was strongly in support of the ordinance. She said that she was “shocked to hear that this was an LGBT movement.” She told the audience that it was Sedona’s International Cities of Peace organization that brought the issue to the attention of the city council. “It’s about everyone,” she said. “It supports equality and inclusion. This does not take away anyone’s religious rights. Pragmatically,” she continued, “we have a lot of friends in the tourist industry here. The more tourists regard Sedona as an open, loving place, the better off our businesses will be.”
One of the most notable speakers of the night was 15-year-old Kai Simpson. Mr. Simpson identified himself as being “different” in several ways including being younger than the other speakers, having had learning challenges, and being the son of two dads. He related a story of being asked to leave a restaurant while someone called the police asking for him to be taken away from his dad “because the people at the restaurant didn’t think gay men should be parents.” He urged the city council to approve the ordinance “so that all people and families can feel safe in Sedona.”
John biggers, a former lawyer and theologian said that, “This ordinance does not change the world. What is says is that Sedona has something to say in a positive, meaningful way.”
Sedona musician and producer Susie Shoemaker said, “To all of you who are afraid of this ordinance, what if you’re different? What if people think that ‘you’re not part of my fabric — then you can’t fit in?’ Don’t use religion for this reason. Religion is for us inside, to grow and love.”
Susan hughes, the founder and President of Sedona’s Pflag organization was also present. She identified herself as “the mother of a gay son and a Christian.” She said, “As a Christian, I find nothing offensive in this ordinance. We aren’t here to debate religious freedoms. We are here to support the extension of the same civil rights to those people who don’t have the same legal protections that I as a white female enjoy. That’s it.”
After hearing additional words of support from all members of the city council, Mayor Sandy Moriarty concluded that the ordinance “doesn’t do any more than broaden the base of people who are protected from discrimination. This ordinance stands for fairness and equality and it is good public policy. It is the right thing to do.” The HRO was approved by the city council unanimously.
| Cindy Cole is getting the scoop on Sedona. Cindycole@live.com
NEWSfeature newsfeature
16 • october 2015 •
NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
the
12 • october 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us