How opposition from religious groups halted Columbus’ non-discrimination ordinance
An anti-discrimination ordinance aimed at protecting Columbus residents’ equal rights to housing, employment and public accommodations is tabled until further notice.
Councilor Walker Garrett, the proposal’s primary sponsor, told the Ledger-Enquirer that there were not enough votes to pass the ordinance which was set for discussion during the Columbus Council’s Aug. 24 meeting. Councilors Toyia Tucker and Jerry “Pops” Barnes co-sponsored the ordinance.
Garrett said he may bring the measure back following additional public forums, and if he can get the support needed.
The legislation would protect Columbus residents regardless of a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, marital status, familial status and veteran status.
While the listed classes receive some federal protections, supporters say the local measure would add an extra layer.
Garrett and other supporters say misinformation fueled opposition to the measure. Those who opposed the ordinance allege it would, among other things, place greater restriction upon freedom of religious speech as well as provide “preferential treatment” to the city’s LGBTQ residents.
“I’m discouraged,” Garrett said.
Opposition to the ordinance
Garrett, who serves as a Deacon of First Baptist Church, said much of the opposition to the ordinance came from religious leaders.
Some churches, however, did offer support. The clergy and representatives from St. Thomas Episcopal Church sent a letter to Mayor Skip Henderson and the councilors in support of the ordinance. Garrett said there was no known opposition to the ordinance from First Baptist.
In the weeks leading up to the scheduled vote, various other religious leaders and residents contacted councilors and created a website expressing their opposition.
MyColumbusVoice.com argues that the ordinance would “serve as the catalyst for a larger discriminatory practice.”
“We DO NOT oppose equality for everyone, regardless of ethnicity or gender,” a portion of the website’s homepage reads. “This is NOT an ordinance that simply protects African Americans, Jews, and Veterans in hiring and housing practices.
“Those provisions are to be welcomed and applauded. However, we do not believe that civil rights should be an issue that offers preferential treatment to the LBGTQI+ identity,” the message continues. “The ordinance contains other restrictions that will be harmful to First Amendment rights and will adversely impact the local small business owners.”
A flyer on the website also alleges a provision in the ordinance allowing people to use facilities without discrimination would threaten the safety of women and children in restrooms, locker rooms and showers.
A 2018 study conducted by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law shows there is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks.
Pastor Marty O. Wynn of Community Baptist Church said he helped create MyColumbusVoice.
Wynn said he isn’t opposed to any particular group but thinks the ordinance is bad for the city because of its potential negative impacts on small businesses and faith communities. A lot of issues with the ordinance, he said, could have been avoided if it was worded more precisely.
When asked by an L-E reporter to provide an example of what he would change to make the ordinance more clear, Wynn refused.
“I’m trying to be very guarded here because I don’t want to be misquoted,” he said. “I just assume not to engage in that.”
Another religious leader who objects to the ordinance is Jimmy Blaton, the Associational Missionary of the Columbus Baptist Association.
Blanton said the ordinance was not good or right for the city. He said he particularly objected to provisions for LGBTQ residents.
“What the ordinance was doing was bringing a behavior or lifestyle to the level of civil rights,” he said. “Races should have civil rights. (People with disabilities) should have civil rights. Those in poverty should have civil rights. But not a behavior.
“If we’re going to do it for a chosen group — they chose their lifestyle — then we need a (non-)discrimination ordinance for Christians,” he added. “Behavior is not a civil right.”
A statement from Columbus Councilor Charmaine Crabb appears on the MyColumbusVoice website, requesting residents to attend the Tuesday council meeting. Crabb said it was from an email she sent to another person.
“I hope to see the room, hallway and downstairs atrium filled with believers of Jesus Christ and opponents to this ordinance,” a portion of the statement reads.
When contacted earlier this week before the ordinance was tabled, Crabb said she had concerns about “subjective language” that would create more problems than the legislation would solve.
Crabb said the ordinance shouldn’t include any fines and that adjustments to wording should be made. She mentioned specifically the phrase “regardless of intent.”
“Regardless of intent is subjective language. Whose intent? What’s intent?” she said. “(A business owner) would have to go through this whole process when they should be focusing on their business.”
The L-E reached out to all 10 councilors this week regarding the ordinance. Judy Thomas said she was leaning against the legislation. John House offered no comment. Toyia Tucker said she supported the measure. Bruce Huff, co-sponsor Pops Barnes, Gary Allen, Glenn Davis and Mimi Woodson did not respond.
What’s in the non-discrimination ordinance?
An updated version of the ordinance would have exempted employers with less than 15 employees, religious associations employing workers to conduct religious activities, nonprofits and employers “(observing) the conditions of a bona fide affirmative action plan or a bona fide merit system.”
Under the proposed ordinance, a resident who believes they were discriminated against could file a complaint with the Clerk of Council within 60 days of the alleged act. The case is sent to the city attorney’s office where a qualified hearing officer is assigned, and a copy of the complaint is sent to the accused.
If there is no probable cause, it is dismissed. However, if the officer finds reasonable cause for a violation, the case is referred to a mediator for non-binding mediation, which would be voluntary for both parties.
The mediator would be selected from a list provided by the Office of Dispute Resolution of the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit. Fees are split between the parties.
If the complaint was not resolved in mediation, the hearing officer sets a hearing to consider evidence and information from both parties. Both parties are allowed legal representation.
The hearing officer makes the final ruling, and offenders could be charged up to $500 for each violation. Appeals for judicial review can be filed at Muscogee County Superior Court 30 days after the ruling.
DeMarcus Beckham, the southern field organizer for Georgia Equality, told the L-E that cities with non-discrimination legislation haven’t seen courtrooms get bogged down because of the ordinances. Georgia Equality is a group of two organizations that advocate for the state’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and allied communities.
What’s next?
Both Garrett and Beckham said passing the ordinance would demonstrate that Columbus is welcoming to all people.
“This is not a political issue,” Beckham said. “This is a standard that all should be treated well. ... A lot of our founding laws in this country are just being expanded. That’s all this is doing. Expanding to make sure that all people are covered.”
According to the Movement Advancement Project, Georgia is one of 22 states without explicit prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity for public accommodations in state law.
Garrett said that while federal protections offer various protections for the classes listed, a local ordinance adds an extra layer of protection without long, expensive federal court proceedings.
Columbus is not the only large Georgia city considering a non-discrimination ordinance. To date, 13 Georgia cities have passed the legislation, including Atlanta, Savannah and Statesboro. Athens approved an ordinance late last month, Beckham said.
Macon-Bibb County approved a non-discrimination ordinance in late 2020, but the legislation was vetoed by then-Mayor Robert Reichert. Augusta-Richmond County is in the midst of a debate over its own ordinance.
For Garrett, getting the ordinance passed in the future is part of being a good Christian.
“The greatest commandment is that we love our neighbors,” he said. “It’s not an act of love to discriminate.”
This story was originally published August 20, 2021 at 12:01 PM.