About 100 Fayetteville residents gathered to protest against an Arkansas Supreme Court decision that ruled an LGBT protection ordinance was illegal, Friday, Feb. 24.
Motorist passerby honked and cheered from their vehicles as protesters waved rainbow pride flags and held up signs that had phrases such as “Y’all Means All” and “Give me back my LGBT Ordinance”.
While protesters were concerned about its potential future, ordinance 5781, The Uniform Civil Rights Protection Act, is still in effect. The decision stems from another state law — Act 137, the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, passed in February 2015 — that states discrimination laws have to be set at the state level for uniform intrastate commerce. So while the Fayetteville LGBT protection ordinance is illegal under Act 137, the constitutionality of that law is still in question and was sent to the Washington County Circuit Court by the state Supreme Court.
City Attorney Kit Williams said the city is able to keep enforcing the ordinance until a decision is made on whether Act 137 is constitutional or not.
Ordinance 5781 was passed with 53 percent of the vote in September 2015.
In a nutshell, the ordinance specifically provides three areas of protection for the LGBT community in employment, housing and business. In effect, a citizen could not be denied or removed from housing, fired from their job or refused business based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. At least, within the Fayetteville city limits.
Act 137 was sponsored by state Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs and state Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Berryville in February 2015. The law was approved without Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s signature. The law’s purpose is to improve intrastate commerce by ensuring all businesses, employers and organizations are subject to the same discrimination laws and obligations.
Nick Shoulders, a protester who stood atop a bucket with a sign stating “Religious law is Un-American”, said to protest is an obligation for people who are dissatisfied with the laws being given.
“I’m trying to help people separate the laws that benefit moral code, and those that benefit the people around them,” he said. “I’m trying to empower those who don’t have a voice and are underrepresented in government and law. To see so many people out and caring is something that gives you a certain a degree of hope that maybe the lawmakers aren’t willing to give us in terms of protecting people.”
Madison Beeler, a sub-deacon at the Old Catholic Church of America in Fayetteville, held a sign that said “What Would Jesus Do? Repeal Act 137”.
“It seems very counterproductive against the whole Christian message to say alright, the only people who have protections now are the only people that can have protections,” Beeler said. “Any new groups don’t exist, they are invalid. Jesus did nothing but validate people and this 137 is directly against what I believe.”
Shawn Sanders, a former business owner who identified as gay, said he’d like to see the decision reversed.
“Why don’t we deserve the same protections? I could be fired for being gay,” he said. “I’ve seen people where that’s happened to them and that’s terrible. I’m a little angry, I don’t see how they can do this. The city of Fayetteville voted for this. They want to scream about local government, and then they come and do something like this.”
Ward 4 Alderman John La Tour, a longtime critic of the city ordinance made a supportive statement for the Supreme Court’s decision on his Facebook page.
“The AR Supreme Court overturned our so called Civil Rights Ordinance which was anything but!” his statement reads. “This was a law in Fayetteville, AR that would put Christians, and others who agree with traditional marriage, in jail if they didn’t live their lives in such a way as to agree or endorse the homosexual and transgender lifestyle.”
The only legal punishment under the ordinance for a person who is found guilty of discrimination is a city penalty — not a misdemeanor or felony. The fine for the penalty would amount up to $100. In order to determine whether or not claims of discrimination are legitimate, a Civil Rights Commission group of citizens with relevant experience reviews complaints of alleged discrimination.