At the start of the week, there were no bills about expanding the human rights ordinance.
By the end of the week, there will be two.
City Council member Tommy Hazouri said this morning he will file a bill that would make council decide whether to expand the city’s human rights ordinance to include the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
His decision to go through with the bill comes the same day council member Bill Gulliford filed a bill that would put the issue on the ballot for voters in August.
“I want them both to be on the same track (for council),” Hazouri said.
Hazouri said he’s had his bill ready, but was allowing Mayor Lenny Curry to offer up a suggestion. Gulliford filing his bill sped up the process, Hazouri said.
“It’s a cop-out,” Hazouri said of Gulliford’s bill. “We were elected to make the tough decisions.”
Hazouri said he is all for referendums on matters like tax increases, but not for issues like human rights.
His bill is in the final stages of being prepared and will be filed no later than Friday, he said.
The community conversations have ended, but they’re about to begin for City Council.
Council member Bill Gulliford said this morning he’s filing legislation today that would put the question of expanding the city’s anti-discrimination laws before voters.
“I don’t see any reason to wait,” he said.
Gulliford said he told Mayor Lenny Curry about his decision Tuesday. He wanted to wait until the three public forums Curry conducted on discrimination had concluded to make the move.
He said the mayor “absolutely did not” have any influence on his decision.
“Many times we act together,” said Gulliford. “Sometimes we don’t. I just think it’s the right thing to do.”
Gulliford said Curry didn’t offer support or opposition — and he wasn’t asking for either.
Curry spokeswoman Marsha Oliver didn’t return a call this morning seeking comment.
The two-term council member said “finality” on the subject could be achieved through a referendum rather than by mayoral or council action. If done by the latter, additional pushes by the “losing side” would continue.
The bill as filed would be the same language as the all-inclusive 2012-296, which council overwhelmingly defeated 17-2.
That legislation included gender identity. An amended version dropped that classification, but was defeated 10-9.
Gulliford’s bill could be amended during council review.
“I expect a healthy debate,” he said.
He wants the referendum on the Aug. 30 primary ballot.
Council member Jim Love said he understands Gulliford’s position, but doesn’t agree with a referendum.
“I believe we would be shirking our duties,” said Love. “I believe it would cost a lot less (for council to decide) and would be the right thing to do.”
Gulliford said he expects people from both sides of the issue to weigh in, much like they did Tuesday during the forum focused on the law and business. A six-person panel was split on the topic, much like the crowd.
The referendum topic came up at the forum when panelist, the Rev. Ken Adkins, said he thought the law shouldn’t be expanded — but if it was, it needed to go before the people.
Former City Council President Jack Webb quickly disagreed.
“We had a referendum,” said Webb, who also was on the panel. “It was called the general election.”
He thought council should be able to do its job crafting a bill that would incorporate community give-and-take. A referendum, he said, is a “canned ordinance” that is “one size fits all” without flexibility.
Webb supports expanding the law.
Hugh Greene of Baptist Health and Amy Ruth of Florida Blue represented two of Jacksonville’s larger companies with more than 15,000 total jobs. Both companies offer protections for their employees. Both believe the law should be expanded.
Greene brought up a JAX Chamber statement from 1992 that included opposition to discrimination.
Yet, “here we are two-and-a-half decades later,” he said.
However, panelists Diann Catlin of Diann Catlin Lessons-Etiquette, Roger Gannum of the Liberty Counsel and Adkins disagreed, saying there isn’t a need for expanding the law.
Jacksonville’s already a friendly city, Catlin said, and small business owners would be “crucified” by the number of lawsuits.
Gannum said the city already has the highest percentage of LGBT people in the state and there wasn’t evidence expansion was needed.
Adkins agreed, saying he didn’t support discrimination and was offended when the issue was compared to the Civil Rights Movement. He called being LGBT a “behavior,” which elicited both groans and applause from the audience.
A question-and-answer session with audience members was handled the same way as it was two weeks ago during a forum at Edward Waters College. Speakers were randomly selected, allowing both sides to have a voice.
One man asked whether expanding the law would, for example, require stores to carry shoe sizes that would accommodate everyone or risk being sued. He said he had a friend who couldn’t find shoes at regular stores.
“No,” Webb bluntly said. He then suggested the person try amazon.com.
Attorney Jimmy Midyette, a leading local advocate to expand the ordinance, asked if the panel was aware of riots or problems with other cities and municipalities that had expanded such laws.
Greene said he was aware of issues because he talks to his employees. Conversely, Catlin said she was aware because of lawsuits being filed against business owners for their beliefs.
Curry said he’s still learning about the issue. Unless he acts in the next month or so, council will do so first as it discusses the referendum.
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466