Nonbias ordinance draws long and loud argument

A color-coded audience packed City Council Chambers and spilled onto the grounds outside Wednesday for an emotional and sometimes heated debate over proposed changes to San Antonio's nondiscrimination ordinance.

Residents — those in favor wearing red and those opposed wearing blue — lined up through Main Plaza hours before the meeting began in hopes of securing a seat in chambers.

Others listened to the discussion in overflow rooms throughout the municipal complex. Groups outside clasped hands and prayed or watched as factions pointed fingers and lobbed threats of eternal damnation.

“Today as I was walking up (to chambers), I was told again I'm 'going to hell,'” said Anel Flores, who grew up facing down gay slurs. “I am a business owner, a published author, a taxpayer, a consumer, and artist, and I'm a lesbian mother.”

During her turn at the mic, Janice Flowers said that if the ordinance passes, men would flock to San Antonio to parade in the streets. The pastor's wife showed photos of men in gay pride parades she called “X-rated.”

George Luna (right) holds a Bible while debating with Rene Roberts (left) regarding the issues surrounding the non-discrimination ordinance in front of City Council Chambers on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. George Luna (right) holds a Bible while debating with Rene Roberts (left) regarding the issues surrounding the non-discrimination ordinance in front of City Council Chambers on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. Photo: Kin Man Hui, San Antonio Express-News Photo: Kin Man Hui, San Antonio Express-News Image 1 of / 50 Caption Close Nonbias ordinance draws long and loud argument 1 / 50 Back to Gallery

Wednesday marked the first time the full council discussed the proposed nondiscrimination ordinance, or NDO, which would add protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status.

Tension between opposing groups was high, sometimes erupting in shouting matches outside and cries of “liar!” during discussion.

On several occasions, Mayor Julián Castro, dressed in a pink shirt and red tie, asked the audience members to quiet down because they were overpowering speakers.

A sea of blue and a raucous applause greeted Elisa Chan to begin discussion on the ordinance. The District 9 councilwoman last week defended comments she'd made against the ordinance, including remarks about same-sex families and transgender people.

If passed next Thursday, when the council plans to vote, the proposal would bring together nondiscrimination clauses into a single chapter. It would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability.

A divided crowd continued to stream in during the evening public comment period that stretched late into the night. Just past 10 p.m., it had not diminished much, leaving few chairs open in chambers where the red shirts overtook the blue.

Throughout the session, people became increasingly animated, each side booing the other. More than three hours after it began, speakers kept the line moving, sharing their thoughts.

“People have given their lives for freedom in this country. How many more have to die because they live in fear?” said Mick Hinson, pastor of Metropolitan Community Church, an LGBT-friendly congregation.

Nancy Russell, who said in an interview that she was a founding member of the Stonewall Democrats in Bexar County, told the council she is a veteran and a lesbian.

“I served my country for 20 years to protect the equal rights of all Americans,” she said, “rights I still do not have because of the blatant ignorance of a small percentage of the public.”

Allan Parker, lawyer and president of the Justice Foundation, which opposes the ordinance, said he feels it especially lacks protections for individuals and businesses.

“Discrimination is undefined. It's not spelled out in the statute, and if you're wrong about it, you get criminalized,” he said.

Violation of the ordinance, if it's passed, would be a Class C misdemeanor, with up to a $500 fine — the same fines in place under current ordinance for violations pertaining to housing and public accommodations.

City Attorney Michael Bernard offered basic explanation of the ordinance's provisions.

It would not require anyone to support a “particular lifestyle or religious view,” he said.

It does not to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage or require businesses to provide same-sex benefits. It does not require separate bathroom facilities or monitor use. It does not regulate speech, religion or political activity.

Councilman Diego Bernal, who spearheaded the effort for the NDO, called Wednesday's meeting “an opportunity for us to explain to you what it is we're doing and what we're not doing.”

“Part of my job here on City Council is to protect vulnerable people,” he said.

“If you believe that under no circumstances we should offer protections to gays and lesbians, then we're going to have to agree to disagree,” he said. “If you believe we can work together to come to a balance where we can offer protections to a group that I think sorely needs them ... and at the same time respect the religious liberties and First Amendment rights of folks who may have a different view, I believe we can do that.”

Some religious leaders have supported the proposal, some have called for clearer protections of religious expression and others flatly oppose it.

For weeks, opponents have complained about a portion of the ordinance that dealt with “prior discriminatory acts.”

Bernal met with religious leaders and others who voiced concerns and removed the language at their behest. Though the language already exists in city code, Bernal has said its removal wouldn't weaken it. He floated a new version of the NDO late Tuesday.

Councilman Carlton Soules, on the opposing side, questioned removing that portion and said taking it out would undo 20-plus years of city law.

He contended it would allow an avowed racist to be appointed to city boards or commissions.

Bernal and Bernard both said that assertion is untrue — that the council appoints board members and would be able to keep racists from being appointed with or without the language.

Chan, who drew standing ovations throughout the day, said she was confused by definitions in the proposal and voiced concerns over unintended consequences of passing the ordinance.

She called for a citywide ballot initiative rather than council action for approval. Soules agreed.

Soules and Chan asked whether there are statistics showing a need for added protections.

Councilman Rey Saldaña said he has witnessed “deliberate attacks of this ordinance to confuse folks.” He said he wanted to address those issues, including the claim there's no discrimination in San Antonio.

“The protection's not in there because they exposed an illness, a problem that exists, but much more so to cover up a potential gap, a potential discrimination,” the city attorney said.

Soules and Chan hammered the issue of restrooms, locker rooms and other sex-specific public accommodations, continually voicing concerns that men would be able to invade women's facilities, though Bernard explained existing laws prohibit it.

Other council members who already have publicly announced their support for the ordinance — Shirley Gonzales, Ray Lopez, Cris Medina and Ron Nirenberg — underscored that support Wednesday. Council members Ivy Taylor and Rebecca Viagran both left lingering questions as to how they'd ultimately vote.

Just before 12:30 a.m. Thursday, the council adjourned, having heard hundreds of speakers in more than six hours of public commentary.

jbaugh@express-news.net