Delay of Carmel anti-discrimination ordinance may be brief

CARMEL — Social conservatives' victory Thursday in stalling an anti-discrimination ordinance that would add legal protections for gender identity and sexual orientation in Carmel may be short-lived.

Advance America Executive Director Eric Miller spoke at length during a Carmel finance committee meeting Thursday about issues he has with the legal wording of the ordinance, including the legal definitions of terms such as gender identity, sexual orientation and religious worship.

Miller, who once fought to ban gay marriage in the state constitution, also complained that a daily $500 fine was overly and indefensibly punitive. He delivered a similar speech in Columbus before that council unanimously approved a similar ordinance this week.

"In my opinion, the ordinance raises a number of serious legal questions and concerns that need to be addressed," Miller told the Carmel committee.

Some of his arguments resonated with committee Chairwoman Luci Snyder, who had her own concerns with some of the legal framework in the ordinance. She tabled it. She said she would work with the city's legal staff beginning next week to address issues.

Snyder said the ordinance appears to have holes in it that would leave the city open to lawsuits. But she also said it appeared to be an ordinance in search of a problem. She said she had not heard of discriminatory acts in Carmel.

"No one on this council or in this city is in favor of discrimination," Snyder said. "That is absurd."

Ex-Angie's List CEO forming tech coalition for LGBT rights

Her decision might not stand long, though. City Council President Rick Sharp told The Indianapolis Star after Thursday's meeting that he would lift the ordinance from the committee Monday. Sharp supports passing the ordinance.

"This has been sitting out there for a month," Sharp said. "If there were grave concerns, we could have scheduled a special meeting."

Sharp said he would hold a vote at the council meeting Monday if council members were prepared to pass the ordinance. Otherwise, he said he would work through their concerns and hoped to find a resolution to pass a strong ordinance.

Sharp, though, said he's not buying the concerns that have been raised so far. He said the majority seem to be similar to those raised during the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 1960s. And he didn't think the ordinance needed to have the legal definitions of the terms cited by Miller. He said the terms are adequately defined in the dictionary.

Sharp said he thinks questions about the legal wording of the ordinance are a stall tactic raised by socially conservative organizations that oppose adding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in general.

The other committee members are Sue Finkam, Carol Schleif and Eric Seidensticker. Only Finkam wanted to approve the ordinance Thursday as it was written.

How Carmel Republicans became gay rights activists

In a passionate speech, Councilman Ron Carter told the committee members they gave in to delay tactics. Carter, Kevin Rider and Sharp are not on the committee.

"What we are looking at here this evening, frankly, is an exercise in attempting to hold fast to discrimination," Carter told the committee. "We have people who are pleading in effect to let us continue, if that is the case, or let us have the ability to discriminate against a class of people that should not be discriminated against. No one should be discriminated against.

"But we are attempting to drag our feet and not pass a nondiscrimination ordinance based on a lot of technicalities that may or may not have any weight. I think that's not sending the right kind of message to our community. It is sending exactly the opposite message to what is proposed here this evening."

However, in a seeming victory for LGBT activists, two amendments that would have weakened the ordinance by allowing religious business owners to refuse to provide off-premises services or custom products appear to be off the table. The amendments would have addressed some of the concerns that socially conservative and Christian opponents have raised over catering same-sex weddings.

Snyder said the council did not send those amendments with the ordinance to her committee to consider. Mayor Jim Brainard and Sharp are opposed to the amendments, and neither thought it appeared likely they would have enough votes to pass.

Michael Wallack, a member of the Mayor's Commission on Human Relations, told the committee that the group supported the ordinance without the amendments.

"The next time Money Magazine ranks cities, we don't want to read that Carmel is no longer a top place to live because it tolerates discrimination," Wallack said. "We don't want to read an article touting our roundabouts but noting that we declined to adopt a human rights ordinance."

The Rev. Richard Doerr of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church told the committee he is against the ordinance, in part because it is dividing the city. He instead urged the committee and the council to propose a resolution that Carmel is welcoming to all. He suggested faith, religious and business leaders come together in unity for the good of all.

He said he has a petition with 750 names in support of the effort.

"We encourage the people of Carmel to work together so that Carmel will continue to be a desirable place to live and to flourish," Doerr said. "Why would we continue to follow this unnecessary trajectory of divisiveness and anguish when we could pass a resolution that satisfies and unites all peoples and all points of views?"

Brainard and several council members, though, think Carmel needs to take a strong stance to show it's a welcoming community that wants to foster economic development.

The ordinance also would include classes such as race and religion, which already are protected under state and federal law. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not.

The ordinance would carry fines of $500 for each violation and for each day until a discriminatory practice is resolved.

Amid heated debate, Carmel won't fast-track LGBT protections

The City Council heard about three hours of public testimony for and against the ordinance Aug. 17.

Freedom Indiana, a grass-roots organization advocating for the law, has been organizing support. Socially conservative groups such as Advance America and the American Family Association of Indiana have been urging the council to change or vote down the law. They say such local ordinances would interfere with the ability of the deeply religious to live by their beliefs.

Similar ordinances passed recently in Columbus, Zionsville, Terre Haute, Hammond and Muncie, joining long-standing LGBT civil rights protections in about a dozen Indiana communities, including Indianapolis.

Columbus adds sexual orientation to human rights ordinance

But social conservative groups stopped recent efforts to expand nondiscrimination ordinances to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Elkhart and Goshen.

Call Star reporter Chris Sikich at (317) 444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ ChrisSikich and at Facebook/chris.sikich.