Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents

Recent Comments

Re: Another Update on Pittsburgh Pirates and "It Gets Better Project"

Re: They want to cure me, they really want to cure me!

Re: Re: Happy Pridefest, Johnstown!

Re: Happy Pridefest, Johnstown!

Re: Blog for Equality 2011 - Tuesday

Month Archive

August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

Year Archive

2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

Main Page

« June 27 | June 29 »

Sunday, June 28

A few personal reflections on the Allegheny County Ordinance

by Sue on Sun 28 Jun 2009 10:07 PM EDT

I have spent the last 24 hours trying to mobilize folks to call County elected officials on Monday in the hopes that the Human Relations ordinance can be salvaged. I've been texting, tweeting and talking non-stop for most of the day (ask Ledcat). I feel like Scott Hanley during a WDUQ pledge drive. I even memorized the County telephone number. That's kind of sad considering I can barely remember my own work number.

I have been sort of glad not to stop and think about where I might come down if the ordinance comes to a vote as currently worded. It is not too late to impact the process and I sincerely hope you will make a call.

The advocates I've been speaking with are being very careful. Some want any version to pass, others do not want this verion period regardless of the potential to challenge the unconstitutional portions in court.

I confess that I'm struggling to buy the "something is better than nothing" argument. The potential for long term damage is pretty daunting. The idea that Mr. Onorato could ride this sort of victory into the "I'm a gay ally" sunset in his quest for Governor is disappointing. The impact on communities of faith that have been allies for decades is dismaying.

I hope that Dan Onorato can save the day. Gulp.

Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Somtimes, the Post-Gazette really pisses me off

by Sue on Sun 28 Jun 2009 11:02 AM EDT

Like this weekend. I open the Forum section to read an entire piece about deliberative polling on same sex marriage that is first of all, dull, and secondly, completely devoid of any actual human terms. Like gay. Or homosexual. Or LGBT.

This pretty much sums up how we can sanitize the whole issue to satisfy the homos without actually having to refer to them:

This Deliberative Poll deserves careful consideration by state legislators as they consider amendments to the state constitution or constitutional referenda. And to those like state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, who seek to broaden the legal recognition of same-sex couples, it appears that the issue is best framed as one of "civil marriage." This phrase combines the informed opinions of our deliberations. It draws an important distinction between state and church by differentiating the civil marriage contract from religious marriage sacraments.

As to the polling process itself, an overwhelming majority of participants found the experience helpful, enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. These were not college students, but a randomly selected sample of Pennsylvania voters, with a median age of 54.

Considering that the topic combined sex, religion and politics, perhaps we all should employ the process when our families sit down around the dinner table.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09179/980133-109.stm#ixzz0Jjjg8CYx&D

My head is going to explode. Seriously. We've spent the last week trying to get Tom Barnes or LA Johnson or Tony Norman to acknowledge that the issue of "allowing us to exist" is newsworthy. Clearly, we would be better served setting up enjoyable and intellectually stimulating experiences to sanitize discussions of homosexuality and make it more appealing by using clarifiers so as not to frighten the masses.

Listen up. Marriae has two meanings. That isn't my fault. The civil meaning has been there since the founding of this Nation and no one saw fit to change the lingo during any other great debates over the Century. So don't cry to me now about how it frightens the little Christians to share their word (and tax benefits) with the queers. That's clear. Let's move on.

If the Post-Gazette thinks this is the news thats fit to print relative to the gay community in Pittsburgh ... an entire column about gay marriage without the word gay. Sheesh.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Monday Call to Action

by Sue on Sun 28 Jun 2009 10:37 AM EDT

Call 412-350-6500. Ask Onorato to remove language from the proposed Human Relations Ordinance that allows organizations receiving County funding to discriminate.... more »

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

ACLU-PA analysis of proposed Allegheny County Council Human Relations Commission Ordinance as Amended

by Sue on Sun 28 Jun 2009 10:32 AM EDT

This is Section 215-31(H)(1), the problematic section of the Human Relations ordinance:

Section 215-31(H)(1)

For the purposes of this Article, the definition of "employer" shall not include any

religious organization, regardless of number of employees or County funding,

provided that such religious organization provides documentary evidence of its

religious nature to the Human Relations Commission of the County of Allegheny,

and avers in writing to the Commission that gender, sexual orientation, or gender

identity constitute grounds for employment decisions under the fundamental

tenets of the religion in question. Documentary evidence of an entity's religious

nature may consist of articles of incorporation, a charter or other foundational

document for the entity, documentary evidence of tax-exempt status as a

religious institution under ?501 of the Internal Revenue Code or any other

applicable Pennsylvania or federal law, or any other documentary evidence

deemed sufficient by the Commission.

This analysis has been made available to help explain why the ACLU cannot support the ordinance as currently amended. I think it speaks very well for itself. My source for this information has been Kris Rust, former chair of the Steel City Stonewall Democrats who has been working with myself and other media sources to educate the public about this process. Kris is very modest about this, but it was his initial conversation with County Councilwoman Amanda Green which sparked this ordinance. He continues to work very hard with a broad array of supporters. The ordinance in its currently amended form is attached to this post as a .pdf file.

ACLU Analysis

There are a number of problems with Section 215-31(H)(1) of the proposed ordinance. These problems are so endemic that this section should be removed from the ordinance in its entirety. First, the language of this section creates a preference for some religions over others, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As written, Section 215-31(H)(1) exempts from the ordinance those religious organizations that ?aver[] in writing to the Commission that gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitute grounds for employment decisions under the fundamental tenets of the religion in question.? Accordingly, the ordinance would allow a religious organization that considers gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity to be grounds for employment decisions based on its tenets to discriminate in its hiring on any basis, including race and disability. Conversely, a religious organization that does not consider gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity to be grounds for employment decisions would not be permitted to discriminate in its hiring on any of the protected categories identified in the ordinance, including race, color, religion,national origin or ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, familial status, and age. This language provides a benefit to some religions ? those whose beliefs require that they consider gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity in making employment decisions ? that is not provided to religions whose beliefs do not require that they base employment decisions on such criteria by exempting the former from the ordinance?s nondiscrimination provisions while requiring the latter to abide by them. Such governmental preference for some religious beliefs over others is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 703 (1994) (?principle at the heart of the Establishment Clause [is] that government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion?).

            Second, because the ordinance prohibits religious organizations that do not consider gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity to be grounds for employment decisions from discriminating in hiring on any basis, those organizations would be precluded from considering religion in their hiring decisions, even when they are hiring clergy members. That result would plainly violate those religious organizations? rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act, 71 P.S. ? 2401 et seq., to choose their clerical leadership.

            Third, Section 215-31(H)(1)?s requirement that religious organizations ?prove? their religious nature to the Commission in order to obtain the benefit of being exempted from the ordinance?s nondiscrimination requirements likely violates the Establishment Clause by creating excessive entanglement between the Commission and religious organizations. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, ?determining whether an activity is religious or secular requires a searching case-by-case analysis,? which ?results in considerable ongoing government entanglement in religious affairs.? Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 343 (1987).

            Finally, allowing those religious organizations whose beliefs require them to use gender, sexual, orientation, or gender identity as grounds for employment decisions to discriminate on any basis even if they receive county funds, but prohibiting fraternal, charitable, or sectarian organizations that receive county funds from discriminating on any of the bases identified in the ordinance violates the Establishment Clause because it provides a benefit to particular religious organizations that is not provided to similarly situated non-religious organizations, namely the right to receive public funds without complying with the nondiscrimination ordinance. See Grumet, 512 U.S. at 703.

sdf

1 Attachments

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Allegheny County: the explanation

by Sue on Sun 28 Jun 2009 10:19 AM EDT

On Wednesday, July 1, 2009, the Allegheny County Council will vote upon an ordinance which would create a Human Relations Commission to ensure that County residents are not being discriminated against in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. No such ordinance exists at the County level. Residents of the City of Pittsburgh have protections at that level and there are statewide protections as well. 13 other municipalities in Pennsylvania have Human Relations Acts of some form.

This particular ordinance includes sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression among the protected classes. As you might suspect, this has been a major bone of contention in socially conservative Southwestern Pennsylvania. The ordinance hearing in January 2009 drew record breaking crowds to testify for this legislation (and a some folks to testify against it such as the owner of Blumengarten Flowers who will hire gay people, but doesn't want them living near near his children.)

Over the past several months, advocates and opponents have rallied the troops and lobbied the Councilpersons to amend the ordinance based on the inevitable configuration of religious freedom versus civil rights. I'm sorry but that is how they frame it -- our basic civil rights are an affront on their religious freedoms which are CLEARLY embedded into the Constitution. It sucks, it doesn't reflect how all Christians feel but there you have what grabs headlines and spurs postcard/email campaigns. It has been the issue de jour since Nixon ... anything related to "gay marriage".

Anyway, the ordinance was heard in the Government Relations Committee last week and an amendment offered by County Councilmen Burn, Macy and Robinson added a complicated loophole that will give some religious organizations preferential treatment by allowing them to discriminate.

Essentially, it creates a registry for religious organizations to register as religiously opposed to homosexuality and thus, exempt from the ordinance. The problem for you is that it exempts them from complying with any of the ordinance. In essence, the Allegheny County Council is saying that they will condone discrimination against people of color or Jews or disabled folks in order to appease homophobes in your area. Councilman Robinson signed off on this. Granted, there are state and federal protections for those classes of people but is that the message Allegheny County wants to send to the world by embedding it in ordinance-- homophobia gives license for racism, sexism, ageism, etc --- really? (Big Registry of Hate pops to mind).

A second problem is that religious organizations receiving County funding can opt to join the Big Registry of Hate and keep their funding. Meanwhile, every other organization in the County that receives County funding must comply. How is that fair or just? Are you content to use your public dollars to fund someone who doesn't have to follow the law? That's absurd. This could actually set up a scenario where a faith based foster care/adoption agency could accept white babies only and place them in white straight married Christian homes only and it would all be perfectly legal. They would get paid for this.

Third problem is that this ordinance forces the Human Relations Commission to get entangled in figuring out which religious organizations are homophobic and which are not. The Constitutions already says this is a bad idea. How on earth would you define this -- three gay exorcisms a year and purging the choirs on a regular basis? The Catholic Church music ranks would be decimated in months. A vote by the populace? Buttons? Fred Phelps church fans? What?

Here's a fourth mind blower. The religious organizations that do not enroll in the Registry of Hate would be unable to use religion in their hiring decisions. So a gay-friendly Unitarian-Universalist Church that was interviewing for a pastor could not consider that pastor's religion in their hiring decision.

I. Am. Not. Making. This. Up.

This is a terrible turn of events. A amended, the ordinance is going to pass on Wednesday and a series of legal challenges will ensue. The good news is that the ordinance itself is worded so that it certain language is deemed unconstitutional, the rest of the ordinance stands. The really bad news is that this sets a precedent for HBO 300.

I am waiting permission to post the much more articulate and artful documents outlining this situation that I have provided. I tried to explain to a group of people last night and was met with a series of dropped jaws and disbelief. Several were churchgoers and none thought applying for dispensation based on homophobia would be a good thing.

So, here's the plan. We have three days to try and convince folks to restore the original language. Understand that the vote on Wednesday is on the whole measure, not the ordinance and the amendments. Before we tell them to vote against it, we want to try and reign it in to its original intent.

Call Dan Onorato on Monday. 412-350-6500. The message is simple: Please remove the language from the ordinance that allows organizations receiving County funding to discriminate.

In its current form, this ordinance does not embody tolerance, fairness or equal treatment.

If we can generate 100 calls to Onorato's office on Monday, it will make an impact. How many calls can you arrange? Your partner? Your mom? Your best friend? Your adult son?

Please.

Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents on Facebook

The Correspondents

Sue

Ledcat

Sarah

LGBTQ Businesses We Support

Klavon's Ice Cream Parlor

K.S. Kennedy Gourmet Floral and Gourmet

The Square Cafe

Veraldi's Salon