JACKSON, MI - Of the 86 individuals to address the Jackson City Council Tuesday, Jan. 24 regarding an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance, 82 were in favor, three were against and one said the city needed to study it more.

Of the seven city council members, four voted in favor and three voted against.

The long-discussed NDO progresses forward following the 4-3 vote, but still has another hurdle.

The ordinance must pass through two readings to become official, and the informal discussion at the Oct. 11 meeting does not qualify as a reading, Mayor Bill Jors announced at the start of the meeting.

The issue resurfaces at the next council meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 7. If it receives four affirmative votes, the NDO goes into effect 30 days later.

The NDO prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, public housing and public accommodations. If no conciliation agreement is made between parties, a civil infraction is given with a fine of up to $500 per each day of the violation.

To view the full, nine-page ordinance, see page 33 in this version of the city council agenda packet.

Reaching 11:55 p.m.

The road to adjournment was long but historic. The council chambers on the second floor of Jackson City Hall filled prior to the planned 6:30 p.m. start time, as the line to get in reached Michigan Avenue.

Because of fire codes, the chambers could not accommodate the crowd.

The meeting was eventually relocated to the Michigan Theatre of Jackson, to begin at 8 p.m. Councilman Daniel Greer - who's been on the council since 1997 - said it's the largest crowd he's ever seen at a meeting.

Of the 90 public commenters, 86 spoke on the NDO, spanning more than two hours and 23 minutes - plus a 13-minute bathroom break.

"A lot of people are here today risking apartments, jobs and more to speak in front of you," said the Rev. Cynthia Landrum. "It takes a show of faith, confidence and a lot of courage for anyone to come here and speak to you on behalf of the NDO, stating their address and being open about their sexual orientation."

Another 31 people expressed public support of the NDO without speaking to the council.

One of the few opponents to passing the ordinance Tuesday was Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clark Lake. He represents Michigan's 16th District in the state senate, which includes Jackson, Hillsdale and Branch counties.

"I'm not here tonight to debate the merits of this specific ordinance," Shirkey said. "I'm here to share that this is a technical and complex issue that requires a tremendous amount of study to fully understand the implications."

Words like "egregious" or "sexual orientation" can be defined many ways, Shirkey added, and he prompted council to study the issue more.

"There are many other questions that I believe leave this ordinance, as written, to be not only technical and not only complex, it is not properly written," Shirkey said. "It's dangerous."

Consumers Energy Vice President Daniel Malone spoke for the second meeting in a row, telling council that the largest employer in the county supports the inclusiveness the NDO would provide.

The supporters came from many walks of life - including clergy, landlords, teachers, college students, business executives and more.

"I'm just humbled by my fellow residents of the city," said Kate Martin, a Jackson homeowner for more than 30 years and landlord of multiple properties. "This is who we want. This is our future. I'm old, but these are my people. This is what's going to make Jackson a better place. Let's do the right thing."

Where the council members landed

The ordinance has been pushed by Councilman Derek Dobies, however other council members have been hesitant to take a firm stance. Tuesday's vote shed more light on their thoughts, with the close vote leaving the NDO in uncertainty heading into Feb. 7 - but not killing it.

Here's a breakdown of how each council member came to their decision. The list follows the order council members presented their thoughts on the issue, Tuesday.

Derek Dobies, Sixth Ward

Vote: Yes

Dobies began the discussion of the NDO on Tuesday with the exact words he spoke before council in September 2014.

"I think that it's unacceptable in 2017 that here in Michigan, hard-working employees can be fired from their job, (denied) public accommodations and residents can be evicted or refused housing just because of who they are," he said.

After describing the 17-year process it's taken to get to this vote, Dobies said this ordinance help attract future residents and businesses.

"We should send a message to the rest of Michigan, to the LGBT community and to their allies, that if you love Jackson, Jackson will love you back," Dobies said. "We will welcome you, protect you and we will rebuild our city with you in it."

Daniel Greer, Third Ward

Vote: No

The issue of discrimination toward the LGBT community would be best dealt with at the state and federal level, Greer said Tuesday. He complimented the supporters for their efforts, however.

"I'm literally blown away by the turnout, the activism," Greer said. "It's wonderful and I thank you all. This is our government in action. The people are the city. Your voices have been heard this evening."

Greer added the ordinance is poor policy and exposes the city to litigation.

"I don't want anyone to feel hated. I don't want anyone to feel like they're discriminated against, based on anything," Greer said. "We should all love one another. At this point, I cannot vote for this ordinance the way it is written."

Andrew Frounfelker, Fifth Ward

Vote: Yes

Frounfelker spoke for two minutes on the topic, explaining how passing the NDO opens up opportunity for the city.

"I look at this ordinance as just another way we can have a tool that gives people that feel they're not given a voice, a chance to have a voice," he said.

Freddie Dancy, Second Ward

Vote: Yes

Dancy admitted he didn't know what an NDO was when he started on city council. When he learned about what it was, he did not support it.

"At the time, I was totally against the NDO," Dancy said. "I just felt like my religion, my faith wouldn't let me go that way. I had a talk with my pastor, we sat down and we talked about what every human has a right for. A right to live where you want to live, work where you want and not be discriminated against."

Dancy has become one of the council's biggest supporters of the ordinance.

"For me, this is a no-brainer," Dancy said. "My job is to do what I think in my heart. I prayed and asked God for guidance. I hope this goes to a second reading and we can do what we should do."

Craig Pappin, Fourth Ward

Vote: No

Pappin, an attorney in Jackson, had concerns about the effects an NDO could have on the community.

"I am concerned about it not protecting the rights of those who may be wrongfully accused of discrimination," Pappin said. "It could ruin somebody's reputation, it could severely damage their business and I'm concerned about things like that."

He wasn't consulted about the language of the ordinance, Pappin said, and added he doesn't want to see people discriminated against.

"This version of the NDO, as written right now, I don't feel I can support it," Pappin said. "I don't think all the protections are in there."

Arlene Robinson, First Ward

Vote: Yes

Robinson was the most torn of the group, but provided the necessary fourth affirmative vote to move the ordinance forward.

"I'm a little floored, after tonight," Robinson said. "We're all human. We all have breaths. I'm just very confused on how we've had so many issues that came before us tonight and nothing has been done about that."

Robinson would not commit to voting 'yes' again in two weeks.

"I'm really confused. I'm going to vote in support tonight, but there are some concerns that came from other council members tonight, with the legal side on the city of Jackson. I don't want to jeopardize our city," Robinson said. "I'm not saying that I won't support you on the second reading. However, I really do need to get that understanding of where we are legally as the city of Jackson."

Mayor Bill Jors

Vote: No

Jors was the only city council member to not give his opinion on the ordinance before the vote. He also passed on council member comment at the end of the meeting.

Previously, Jors said the decision should be made through a public vote, going on the May ballot. Many commenters spoke against the initiative being put on the ballot, however, during Tuesday's meeting.

"Show me a benefit, show me a need," Jors said earlier in January. "And I will certainly back it 100 percent."