704-358-5160″
You are using an outdated browser
For a better experience using this site, please upgrade to a modern web browser.
$(document).ready(function() {
$(“#miub_close a”).click(function() {
$(this).parent().parent().hide();
});
if(!$.cookie(“miub_timer”)) { // no cookie, show the warning
$(“#miub_container”).show();
$.cookie(“miub_timer”,”You need to upgrade your browser”, { expires: 7});
}
});
Plus digital subscription sign in
-
Get Newsletters
-
Contact Us
-
Reader Services
-
Stay Connected
-
Advertise
48°
Rain | Forecast
Modified: Sunday, Dec. 21, 2014
The city of Charlotte is considering expanding its ordinances to prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation against people based on their sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity.
The proposed changes would give lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents some recourse when they feel discriminated against, but it would not give them protection in employment issues.
For instance, a restaurant or any other business could still fire someone because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and not run afoul of the expanded city ordinance.
There is also no state protection for gay or transgender people when it comes to hiring and firing. At the federal level, protection could be coming after Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the Justice Department would extend employment protection to include a person’s gender identity.
But if the City Council approves the changes, that same restaurant would be prohibited against discriminating against a customer because they are gay or transgender.
Scott Bishop, of the Mecklenburg LGBT political action committee, or MeckPAC, said he hears complaints from gay and transgender groups about vendors canceling when they learn about their group’s sexual orientation or gender expression.
“An LGBT organization is having a function, and at the last minute (a caterer or other vendor) realizes they are an LGBT organization and backs out,” Bishop said.
Bishop presented a proposal to the City Council last month. Though some council members had concerns about the proposal, they unanimously voted for the city attorney’s office to study the issue and how an expanded ordinance might be implemented.
Bishop also has proposed adding familial status and marital status to the groups of protected classes, though it’s unclear whether the city will include those groups.
A vote could come in early 2015.
Bathroom debate
As gay marriage has become increasingly common, the issue of special protection based on sexual orientation appears to be relatively uncontroversial among council members.
But one potential flashpoint is over access to bathrooms in restaurants, bars, stores and other places of public accommodation.
Bishop said a goal of the ordinance is to allow transgender people to use the bathroom where they feel most comfortable. For instance, those born male who identify with and express their identity as women should be able to use the bathroom with other women if they so choose, Bishop said.
That issue flared up at Central Piedmont Community College earlier this year and also has been contentious nationwide. At CPCC, a transgender student, Andraya Williams, was stopped by a security guard after using the women’s restroom. The student complained that the guard mocked her.
In Utah, a state lawmaker proposed a bill that would prohibit transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice. California, on the other hand, approved a bill allowing K-12 students to use whatever bathroom they choose.
Bishop said questions about bathrooms are a “scare tactic.”
“The opposition is afraid a pedophile will dress up as a woman and go into a women’s restroom,” he said. “Nothing in this ordinance will enable someone to do that.”
Other cities
Cathryn Oakley is the legislative council for state and municipal advocacy for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. She said most of the nation’s largest cities have non discrimination policies that include LGBT residents, though Charlotte and Jacksonville do not. An expanded ordinance in Houston has been in limbo due to a legal challenge.
She said Minneapolis was the first city to enact nondiscrimination protection for LGBT residents in the 1970s. “The opposition has the same horror stories that they roll out,” she said. “They are unfounded.”
During the City Council’s discussion, council member Greg Phipps asked how many instances of discrimination the city has tracked against LGBT residents. Willie Ratchford, executive director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Human Rights Committee, said the city doesn’t keep statistics on that because discrimination isn’t prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Chartlotte considered a similar ordinance in 1992 that would have prohibited discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation or family status. It was defeated 7-4.
That proposal did not include gender identity or gender expression.
Little ‘teeth’
The proposed expansion to the ordinance is in many ways limited.
If a resident files a discrimination complaint with the city, the city has little recourse. The city can’t shut down the business or fine it. The ordinance instead calls for the two sides to come together in mediation.
City Attorney Bob Hagemann admits the existing ordinance doesn’t have many “teeth” and that none of the proposed changes would give the city any enforcement powers.
There are two aspects of the non discrimination ordinance in which the city has some leverage.
One would govern taxi cabs, limousines and other so-called “passenger vehicles for hire.”
Under the proposal, they would be prohibited from refusing to serve an LGBT customer. The city licenses taxis and limousines and could revoke their ability to operate if they are found to discriminate against the LGBT community.
The existing ordinance allows for the city not to do business with a contractor that is found to have discriminated against a subcontractor or that is found to discriminate against a customer. Under the changes, if a contractor were found to have discriminated against a subcontractor or customer because they are gay, lesbian or transgender, they could be barred from city contracts.
A number of organizations have refrained from commenting on the issue.
The Charlotte Chamber said it has not taken a position, and the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority – which promotes the city’s hotels, restaurants and general tourism – said its board has not discussed it.
Tom Sasser of Harper’s Restaurant Group said he hasn’t had a chance to study the proposal and can’t comment about it. But he added that his restaurants would “comply with any nondiscrimination laws or ordinances.”
Former City Manager Curt Walton expanded the city’s own internal nondiscrimination policy about two years ago, adding sexual orientation and gender “as expressed through dress, appearance or behavior.”
Insurance questions
The MeckPAC proposal also would include marital status and familial status on the list of protected groups.
Bishop said that mostly stems from a desire to prevent housing discrimination, in which a landlord could refuse to rent to a single parent with children. Housing will not be covered under the proposed changes.
Adding marital status and familial status could pose problems for the city with its own policies for providing employee benefits.
The city today provides benefits to the spouses of employees in opposite-sex marriages. It also provides benefits to partners in same-sex relationships.
Now that gay marriage is legal in N.C., the city may require that gay couples be married to receive benefits.
If the city included marital status and familial status as a protected class, it could make it difficult for the city to justify denying benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
Hagemann acknowledged that could be a hurdle.
Subscribe to The Charlotte
Observer.
This affects comments on all stories.
This affects comments on all stories.
Get the Deal!
![]()
Recent Blogs
