Timeline

2005

Dec. 8 - The Human Rights and Services Board begins an initiative to modify the city anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation as a protected class. They permit public comments at the first meeting. A group called One Voice Kansas, which had been instrumental in rallying support for the marriage amendment that was adopted by Kansas, presents arguments before the Board emphasizing the negative impact of various aspects of the proposed ordinance on religious freedom, cultural norms, and businesses trying to cope with the provisions while noting that there had been no documentation showing that discrimination was occurring. The final vote of the Board is 3 to 3 and the initiative is forwarded to the city commission without a recommendation. The Commission takes no further action.

2010

April - A homosexual male appears before the city commission claiming discrimination in housing when he and his partner were denied an apartment when he made known to the landlord his orientation. He is told by the mayor to present his claim to the human rights board, but he does not. He does, though, give testimony at a public hearing before the Commission.

May 18 - The city commission indicates a desire that the Human Rights and Services Board explore whether or not discrimination based on sexual orientation exists in Manhattan; and, if so, whether or not the city should amend its existing ordinance to address the issue. In order to begin this process, the city commission provides directs city administration to develop a draft that the city commission could consider issuing to the Human Rights and Services Board regarding this issue.

June 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Jim Sherow declares June 2010 as LGBT Pride Month. A group of Manhattan pastors draft a response to the declaration. It is presented to the Commission by Pastors Paul Barkey and Darryl Martin. In the meantime, city staff is directed to draft an amended anti-discrimination ordinance.

July 6 - The city commission provides further direction for city administration to develop a proposed ordinance adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected class list in the existing discrimination ordinance, along with the appropriate mechanisms for the enforcement of violations of the ordinance. The city commission also indicates they would like to review the draft ordinance before sending it to the Human Rights and Services Board for feedback.

July 6 - Kansas State University announces the opening of a campus resource center for the LGBT community that will be open 20 hours a week.

Aug. 20 - The first draft of the proposed ordinance is made public. The group of pastors form Awaken Manhattan and submit a statement opposing the proposed ordinance.

Aug. 24 - The city staff present the proposed ordinance to the city commission at a work session. Groups present arguments supporting and opposing the ordinance. Three commissioners declare their support of some form of the proposed ordinance, citing biological determinism as the cause of homosexuality. The Commission votes 3 to 2 to send the proposed draft to the human rights board with instruction to research definitions but not to consider whether or not such an ordinance is required. Commissioners Strawn and Pepperd argue there is no known need for the proposed ordinance, and both declare that they will block the ordinance if it contains "gender identity."

Sep. 16 - The Human Rights and Services Board holds a work session and receives public comments. A pastor presents a statement by an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer pointing out numerous problematic areas of the ordinance. A summary of his statement is below:

I’ve completed my review of the ordinance. While it has some improvements, at least regarding some religious liberty protections, it remains deeply problematic. Here’s a list of significant problems:

A. “First and foremost, it creates special protections for sexual orientation and gender identity (“SO/GI”). Any law that does this inevitably creates moral, social, economic, and legal problems.

B. The current definition of “employer” would still bind state, county, and federal employees, along with large Christian organizations like Manhattan Christian College.

C. The definitional exemption of religious organizations from the public accommodations provision is completely useless. It wouldn’t protect churches, Christian schools, Christian daycare’s, ministries, social religious groups, homeless shelters, etc. Even the Boy Scouts would be shut down under it.

D. The definition of “sexual orientation” is so broad that it could undermine numerous workplace policies, like rules against workplace fraternization or rules about other types of immoral sexual behavior (like adultery or fornication). This is particularly true since the ordinance states that it is to be “construed liberally”—that is, interpreted to apply broadly.

E. The ordinance requires discrimination on the Human Rights Board (it sets up a virtual quota system for getting board members who are “representative” of the protected classes, an impossible task given that there are 14 protected classes with near endless variations within the classes but only 7 board members) and allows it in businesses.

F. Complaints filed with the City human rights commission (HRC) will be unfairly stacked against the defendants, since the HRC acts as judge, jury, and prosecutor. Plus, the City will recover fines that the HRC imposes, so it will create a new means of generating income for local government, one that the HRC can enforce as it deems fit.

G. The unlawful employment practices section will generate significant litigation over things like sex-specific uniform policies, employee privacy issues (like bathroom/locker room concerns, etc.), and freedom of conscience protections.

H. The unlawful public accommodations section will do the same, and will limit the ability of churches, ministries, Christian school (like MCC), Christian businesses, etc., to continue to exist without violating their consciences.

I. The unlawful housing section will do the same, particularly since the religious exemption it offers is incoherent.

J. The policy allows drawn-out investigations of local businesses which can end in significant monetary damages, fines, and further lawsuits. The costs of defending against such a process alone—even for entirely “innocent” parties—can be devastating.”

At this session, the Board sets two future work sessions for October 14 and 28, 2010.

Oct. 14 - The Alliance Defense Fund lawyer presents an analysis of the proposed ordinance and gives his recommendations for changing the ordinance. To view his statement, click here.

There are lengthy comments from those in support of and against the ordinance. The Board takes no action but to verify the next meeting would be on October 28, 2010.

Oct. 28 - No public comments are permitted. Human Rights and Services Board Member Strawn immediately makes a motion for the Board to recommend to the city commission that the ordinance as proposed be adopted. The city attorney representative makes a proposal to modify the religious exemption and admits that the Board doesn't have a copy of the proposed modification.

Board Member Hampton challenges the appropriateness of the ordinance, citing unknown costs of enforcement as a negative. Still, the Commission votes 5 to 1 to recommend the proposed ordinance to the Commission for consideration.

Nov. 2 - At a city commission meeting, Pastor Bob Flack reads a letter to the Commission drafted by 27 local pastors in opposition to the ordinance, some of whom stand in attendance. To read the letter, click here.

Dec. 7 - The Manhattan City Commission approves the first reading of the ordinance by a vote of 3-2. Gender identity - an especially-debated subjected -- remains on the ordinance along with sexual orientation.

2011

Feb. 8 - The City Commission approves the proposed ordinance by a vote of 3-2. The ordinance is not scheduled to take effect until September 1, 2011.

April 5 - Manhattan has city elections for new city commissioners and school board members. Three of the previous five city commissioners are replaced by John Matta, Wynn Butler, and Rich Jankovich. Matta and Butler commit to voting to revoke the recently-approved discrimination ordinance. Commissioner Loren Peppered, who retains his seat from the previous Commission, also commits to voting to revoke the ordinance. These three men now hold the majority vote of the five-person Commission.

May 3 - The City Commission hears public testimony at a Commission meeting from those on both sides of the ordinance issue. The Commission votes 3-2 to approve the first reading to revoke the newly-amended discrimination ordinance and adopt the previous one. Commissioners Matta, Butler, and Pepperd vote to approve while Commissioner Rich Jankovich and Mayor Jim Sherow vote not to approve. The ordinance must be read twice before it is officially revoked. The second reading is scheduled for May 17.

May 17 - The City Commission hears public testimony again at a Commission meeting from those on both sides of the ordinance issue. With a second vote of 3-2, the ordinance is officially repealed. Those voting to repeal the ordinance are Commissioners Matta, Butler, and Pepperd. Those voting retain the ordinance are Mayor Jim Sherow and Commissioner Jankovich. To read Matta's reasons for voting to repeal, click here.