Equality Works Breaking News: Anchorage Ordinance Changes (6/6/09)

[bsara]

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Tiffany McClain [mailto:tmcclain@akclu.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:57 PM
To: Tiffany McClain
Subject: Equality Works Breaking News: Ordinance Changes

Equality Works Breaking News: Ordinance Changes

Dear Equality Works Supporters,

At a work session of the Municipal Assembly yesterday, Mayor Matt Claman & members of the Municipal Assembly presented a revised ordinance to amend Anchorage’s nondiscrimination law to include Anchorage’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender citizens from discrimination. Despite all of the second-guessing and speculation that has taken place in the media of late, the language regarding gender identity & expression WAS NOT taken out of the ordinance. As written, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people will still be protected from discrimination in most cases of employment, housing, public accommodations, education, financial services, and municipal business.

HOWEVER, we are concerned that some of the amendments fall short of our original goal by 1) weakening the scope of the law as it currently stands by exempting small businesses with four or fewer employees 2) endangering the physical safety of members of our transgender community by making it legal to force them to use a bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity/expression and 3) singling out LGBT people as second class citizens without equal protection under the law by allowing churches to discriminate against LGBT in any situation, while other groups still remain protected in some situations.


While Equality Works is not yet prepared to take an official position on these issues, we do want to present our concerns and misgivings to you—as community members and supporters—and hope that you will provide us with feedback as to what you believe the final ordinance should look like, what sacrifices you believe are worth making, and which issues should be absolutely non-negotiable.


The latest draft of the ordinance is attached. Our thoughts on the changes are shared in more detail below:

1)      Redefining Who Can Discriminate

In Anchorage’s current nondiscrimination codes, no business owner is exempt from having to abide by the law. However, in the most recent draft of the ordinance, “Employers” and “Public Accommodations” have been redefined to exclude home-based businesses employing no more than four persons. As drafted, exempted businesses would be able to discriminate against anyone they want, and on any basis—including age, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, nationality, disability, marital status, and religion. Written this way, Anchorage’s employment discrimination laws would still be more stringent than federal law as stated in Title VII and many of the laws that exist in other cities. But it would weaken the local code that is currently on the books, potentially jeopardizing the rights of employment and public accommodation not only for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, but for women, people of color, and immigrants too, among other protected classes.

2)      Legislating Bathroom Use

Arguably the most problematic amendment this ordinance is the statement that reads as follows: “The prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation imposed by this chapter does not apply to discrimination because of one’s biological gender in matters such as access to restrooms…” In a nutshell, what this means is that members of the transgender/transsexual community can still be forced to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity/expression.

Why do we take issue with this amendment?

Because the inclusion of such language is intended to prevent a problem that does not exist. Despite the “information” being spread by opponents of this ordinance, in none of the 108 cities and counties in which non-discrimination laws inclusive of gender identity have been passed has there ever been a reported case in which anyone has claimed to be transgender in order to restroom to commit a crime. To the contrary, transgender people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. In a 2002 survey conducted by San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, nearly 50% of transgender respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. (Yes, even in San Francisco.) The Human Rights Campaign estimates that transgender individuals have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered vs. 1 in 18,000 for the average American. Forcing transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex rather than their gender identity/expression only increases those odds.

In short, we feel that excluding transgender people from the right to use the restroom in which they feel most safe and comfortable is not only unnecessary, but an irresponsible public policy choice that endangers lives. We sincerely hope that we can work with Mayor Claman and other Assembly members to create an ordinance that respects everyone’s  right to safe use of public restrooms and is based on facts rather than fiction and fear.

3)      Singling Out LGBT people

While we generally respect the rights of religious groups, institutions, organizations, etc. to make decisions regarding employment and accommodations based on their firmly held beliefs, the newly amended religious exemption treats lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as a special class such that, for example, while churches are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or sex when hiring a new janitor, they are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. We believe that this new wording unnecessarily singles out LGBT people as second class citizens who are somehow less worthy of consideration than other protected classes. Our state and U.S. Constitutions promise all citizens equal protection under the law. By treating LGBT people differently in any respect, the Municipality of Anchorage is in danger of violating that promise. We strongly advocate that Assembly members delete the last sentence of the religious exemption and treat all protected classes equally in a new draft of the ordinance.

 

*******************************

We have lots of hard decisions to make in the next few days. We are committed to working in good faith with Mayor Claman and other Assembly members to come up with a draft of the ordinance that sufficiently addresses the concerns outlined above, but we know that there might also come a time where we have to withdraw our support for an ordinance that significantly dilutes the original intention of the law and/or doesn’t sufficiently protect the LGBT community. While we continue to work and weigh the pros and cons, we want to hear your concerns and opinions and hope that you will also share them with your Assembly members at the public hearing on June 9th.


Thank You,

Tiffany McClain

[Taylor-MadeAK]

I know this probably isn't the appropriate place to respond to the original author of this letter, but I wanted to open things out for discussion among my fellow AKCommunity members.

Although I didn't much give a damn about this ordinance and the controversy that it caused among Anchorage citizenry, I did read some of the louder arguments posited by both sides of the issue at hand as links were posted here in the forum.  I'll point out a couple of things that seem to be missed by people on a rather visceral level, starting with this section of the above posted letter:

HOWEVER, we are concerned that some of the amendments fall short of our original goal by 1) weakening the scope of the law as it currently stands by exempting small businesses with four or fewer employees 2) endangering the physical safety of members of our transgender community by making it legal to force them to use a bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity/expression and 3) singling out LGBT people as second class citizens without equal protection under the law by allowing churches to discriminate against LGBT in any situation, while other groups still remain protected in some situations.

The bulk of the proposition passed.  You won!  But you're unhappy because you had to compromise by having certain parts of the ordinance altered or left out?  Madam, it's called compromise.  Not sure what I mean?  Well, I'll show you:

1) weakening the scope of the law as it currently stands by exempting small businesses with four or fewer employees

and

1)      Redefining Who Can Discriminate

In Anchorage’s current nondiscrimination codes, no business owner is exempt from having to abide by the law. However, in the most recent draft of the ordinance, “Employers” and “Public Accommodations” have been redefined to exclude home-based businesses employing no more than four persons. As drafted, exempted businesses would be able to discriminate against anyone they want, and on any basis—including age, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, nationality, disability, marital status, and religion. Written this way, Anchorage’s employment discrimination laws would still be more stringent than federal law as stated in Title VII and many of the laws that exist in other cities. But it would weaken the local code that is currently on the books, potentially jeopardizing the rights of employment and public accommodation not only for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, but for women, people of color, and immigrants too, among other protected classes.

So...what you're saying is that, even though the bulk of the ordinance passed as written, you're upset because "home-based businesses employing more than four persons" are still allowed to decide whom they are willing to work with?  Okay, I can see where you'd be concerned with the possibility of this bit being maliciously exploited.  I still think you're disregarding the reality of the situation: businesses that have fewer than five employees are generally home-based family run businesses (home-based day care comes to mind), and these kind of businesses don't generally "hire" employees from outside of their small circle of family and friends unless no other option presents itself.

What it boils down to is that amendment preserves the right of those (very) small business owners to decide who can and cannot enter their homes, using whatever criterion they want, without fear of facing "discrimination" charges.  Wow.  That's terrible.

Next bullet:

2) endangering the physical safety of members of our transgender community by making it legal to force them to use a bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity/expression

and

2)      Legislating Bathroom Use

Arguably the most problematic amendment this ordinance is the statement that reads as follows: “The prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation imposed by this chapter does not apply to discrimination because of one’s biological gender in matters such as access to restrooms…” In a nutshell, what this means is that members of the transgender/transsexual community can still be forced to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity/expression.

Why do we take issue with this amendment?

Because the inclusion of such language is intended to prevent a problem that does not exist. Despite the “information” being spread by opponents of this ordinance, in none of the 108 cities and counties in which non-discrimination laws inclusive of gender identity have been passed has there ever been a reported case in which anyone has claimed to be transgender in order to restroom to commit a crime. To the contrary, transgender people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. In a 2002 survey conducted by San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, nearly 50% of transgender respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. (Yes, even in San Francisco.) The Human Rights Campaign estimates that transgender individuals have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered vs. 1 in 18,000 for the average American. Forcing transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex rather than their gender identity/expression only increases those odds.

In short, we feel that excluding transgender people from the right to use the restroom in which they feel most safe and comfortable is not only unnecessary, but an irresponsible public policy choice that endangers lives. We sincerely hope that we can work with Mayor Claman and other Assembly members to create an ordinance that respects everyone’s  right to safe use of public restrooms and is based on facts rather than fiction and fear.

Exactly where are you getting these numbers?  I, like most other rational people, disregard statistics unless presented with evidence which demonstrates their validity.  For purposes of my response, these numbers are effectively ignored.

I have bad news for you transgender types: you're outnumbered.  The majority of people are heterosexual and comfortable with their biological gender identity, and therefore what common sense they do possess tells them that when one is in a public place that has gender-divided public restrooms, one uses the facilities that were set aside for one's particular plumbing.  Young children who must be escorted to the restroom are a tolerable exception because they are not yet aware of the difference between genders in a sexual sense.

Teens and adults, by and large, are not a tolerable exception.  This is because those above mentioned young children are eventually going to be old enough to read the signs on the restroom doors and use the facilities by themselves.  How many parents do you think wouldn't be uncomfortable to know that their six year old daughter is sharing the restroom with a man who is disguised as a woman?  This isn't a rational fear, because public restrooms are still public places, and crimes are not generally committed in public places because of the high risk of being caught.

But there are still some public restrooms out there that can be locked, and sexual predators aren't known for being rational or particularly concerned about the consequences of their actions.

In this case, the fears of the few (transgenders) have been found to carry less weight than the fears of the many (everybody else).

Moving on:

3) singling out LGBT people as second class citizens without equal protection under the law by allowing churches to discriminate against LGBT in any situation, while other groups still remain protected in some situations.

and

3)      Singling Out LGBT people

While we generally respect the rights of religious groups, institutions, organizations, etc. to make decisions regarding employment and accommodations based on their firmly held beliefs, the newly amended religious exemption treats lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as a special class such that, for example, while churches are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or sex when hiring a new janitor, they are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. We believe that this new wording unnecessarily singles out LGBT people as second class citizens who are somehow less worthy of consideration than other protected classes. Our state and U.S. Constitutions promise all citizens equal protection under the law. By treating LGBT people differently in any respect, the Municipality of Anchorage is in danger of violating that promise. We strongly advocate that Assembly members delete the last sentence of the religious exemption and treat all protected classes equally in a new draft of the ordinance.

Actually...I completely agree with your viewpoint in this regard.  Unfortunately, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution most likely had something to do with this.  You're attempting to pass a law that prevents religious establishments from doing whatever the hell they want, without showing a compelling reason why they should be prevented from doing so.  That has been previously decided to be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment.

That's really all I've got.  The topic is now open for discussion.

[Oni]

A newly revised version of the ordinance is out - it's been gutted.
 
If you can't testify - please EMAIL the assembly.  www.muni.org and click assembly, then contact info.  They need to hear that 2nd class citizenship is not an option.
 
There is a consensus that an ordinance without Bi & Trans protections or private employment coverage is a DEAL BREAKER and we would rather have NO ordinance than a weak/meaningless one.  (We suspected this to be the case, but did not want to make this assertion to Assemblymembers without coalition agreement.)
Please cut/paste and forward the below widely to your lists.
We need “moderate” voices to show up at the Assembly – folks who are not LGBT or progressive activists, who are willing to say:

“Those few against this ordinance don’t speak for me.  While this might not be my priority, I DO NOT oppose this Ordinance and do not believe it will damage Anchorage.”   
We must counteract the fear by some Assemblymembers that the Ordinance will divide the community.
 
 
Please show up tonight – June 17th, 4-10 pm – for the third round of testimony on the Equal Rights Ordinance. Once again, we want to try to fill the Assembly Chambers with a sea of blue (and don't forget your Equality Works button).
You may have already testified, but we still need you to be there in solidarity with those who haven’t had a chance.  They need to hear you applauding and supporting their bravery.

Doors to the Assembly chambers are unlocked at 3 pm, so if you can get there early, even better. Bring a book, bring friends, bring your laptop.

 

Where?     Loussac Library (36th & Denali), Assembly Chambers 1st Floor

When?      5:00 -11:00 p.m. – Tuesday, June 16

4:00 -10:00 p.m. – Wednesday, June 17

 

(If you want to make sure you have a seat or plan to testify we recommend that you get there no later than 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday.)

What to do? Wear blue — the color of peace and unity.



Ya I know i am posting this late...but it leaves room for discussion.

[Im1ru1]

While the proposed ordinance does not go far enough (IMHO) to protect GLBT (yes T) persons from discrimination, we must start somewhere.  I testified in favor of the ordinance, and eagerly await the assembly taking action on it.