A Debate Over Rights And Wrongs

Two campaigns are painting very different pictures of what will happen in Spokane if voters approve Proposition 4, which would take away protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians.

Opponents say Spokane would have a reputation for supporting discrimination and possibly become a city that major businesses would avoid.

Supporters say Spokane would become a place where a national agenda to advance a gay and lesbian lifestyle was stopped, where people would have free choice whether to rent to or hire gays and lesbians.

Ron Greene, interim co-director of the Spokane Council of Ecumenical Ministries, said a lot of people in churches are afraid to even talk about the issue.

“It’s such a divisive thing,” Greene said. “This is the kind of thing that divides families.”

In town meetings, speakers have disagreed sharply on the effects of stripping away the protection against discrimination provided by the human rights ordinance passed by the City Council last January.

Some people believe the protection has limited power and scope. Others believe it paves the way for further laws empowering gays and lesbians, which they say would influence school curriculum.

It goes back and forth. On Nov. 2, voters will decide.

Does the protection legitimize a lifestyle some people can never support? Or does it offer justice and protection for a gay and lesbian community that asked the city for help against chronic abuses?

The human rights ordinance reinforces state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status and disability. But it goes further by offering protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

From the beginning, that addition has been controversial. Despite fear of losing their jobs if their employer discovered their sexual orientation, people testified before the City Council on the kinds of discrimination they suffered, including harassment in schools and physical abuse.

The Rev. Ron Johnson, of the Indian Trail Community Church, contested the need for the protection, saying it’s not about human rights, but special rights for gays and lesbians.

Johnson believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Friends and supporters of the gay and lesbian community disagree.

When the ordinance was passed by the City Council on a 4-3 vote, Johnson led a group called Equal Rights Not Special Rights and raised enough signatures to put Proposition 4 on the ballot.

Equal Rights Not Special Rights has purchased pamphlets and a series of radio ads using $4,000 raised in the campaign, said Penny Lancaster, a group researcher. It’s still seeking more cash for more air time, she said.

A group opposing the proposition, No on Discrimination, has accumulated more than $40,000 to date and has purchased newspaper ads and numerous mailings.

A pamphlet distributed by No on Discrimination states removing the protection is bad for the city’s image and businesses. It hurts the civil rights of a group in need and reinforces Spokane’s image of being intolerant, the pamphlet says.

A pamphlet distributed by Equal Rights Not Special Rights states the protection will allow gays and lesbians to sue people with opposing viewpoints.

At the request of the Spokane Council of Ecumenical Ministries, Vince Lemus, the city’s human rights specialist, gave what he called an unbiased presentation of what the ordinance covers last week at Hamblen Park Presbyterian Church. About 30 people attended and heard this outline:

* The ordinance affects only Spokane residents or those who discriminate within the city limits. It applies only to issues concerning housing, employment and public accommodation.

* It does not protect criminal activity. Two people who attended a panel discussion at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane two weeks ago were concerned that pedophiles or rapists could claim their actions stem from sexual orientation and would therefore be protected. It wouldn’t.

* The penalty for not complying, be it a first or a 10th offense, would be a civil fine of $250. Johnson, of Equal Rights Not Special Rights, asked Lemus if the penalties would increase for each offense and eventually result in criminal charges. As the law is written, it could never become more than a civil matter and the fine could not be increased, said Assistant City Attorney Lauri Connelly.

* Exceptions for not complying to the ordinance exist for religious concerns if a situation would “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” Lemus said. Religious institutions can’t be strong-armed because of the ordinance into hiring teachers or leaders who don’t best serve their needs, he said.

“A church decides what’s best for the church,” Lemus said. “There has to be a reason to discriminate.”

Not hiring a man to mow the church lawn only because he is gay is not acceptable under the law, Lemus said.

* Public schools would not be affected by the ordinance. As written, the ordinance has no affect on state-created systems like school districts, said Connelly. But that issue might be further explored if a complaint came from a Spokane public school.

Religious private schools have exceptions just like churches. Only non-religious private schools in the city would fall under the ordinance.

As Lemus sees it, the ordinance acts as a watchdog by offering some protections, but it has very little actual bite.

Not everyone sees it that way.

Johnson and Lancaster believe that if Spokane keeps protection for gays and lesbians in the human rights ordinance, it moves the city a step closer to seeing a homosexual lifestyle pushed in the schools.

“We feel it is bad public policy to require business employers and property owners to accommodate applicants based on their homosexual or bisexuality,” Lancaster said. “It is appropriate for employers, landlords, insurance agents, parents and others to use discernment in certain situations when encountering individuals who openly proclaim their homosexuality.”

This law will invite more laws, she said.

“If you accept a law that says you have to affirm homosexuality, then it only follows you have to accept policies, procedures and more laws that demand you affirm homosexuality as acceptable,” she said.

“Our concern is that more and more young people will be pulled into this,” Lancaster said. “It will be hurtful to them and destroy their families.

“It sounds like we’re against homosexuals and we’re not,” Lancaster added. “We’re actually for homosexuals, out of a sense of compassion. We feel that this a behavior that is changeable.”

The No on Discrimination efforts to defeat Proposition 4 have received support from many organizations, including the Spokane Area League of Women Voters, the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Inland Northwest African AmericanJewish Coalition for Justice, the Spokane County Democratic Central Committee, the Church Women United of Washington and North Idaho, the Spokane Labor Council and the Spokane Education Association.

Church Women United issued a statement that takes issue with the religious grounds used to remove protections of gays and lesbians.

“This is an insult to our values because it is contrary, reprehensible and hateful,” said Jan Cate, the organization’s Washington state president. “This is not the pathway for the demonstration of the love of the spiritual community.”

No on Discrimination has organized rallies, church sermons and fund-raising concerts against Proposition 4.

One event at the Jesuit-run Gonzaga University registered 125 new voters who came to hear more about the No on Discrimination campaign.

This sidebar appeared with the story: ON THE BALLOT Proposition 4 Ballot title: Shall the city remove sexual orientation from the list of classifications that receive legal protection from discrimination, leaving other protected classifications in place?