Family Council Releases Two New Policy Briefs on Fayetteville Ordinance

Current Events, , , , , ,

Today Family Council is releasing two new policy briefs on the recently-passed “nondiscrimination” ordinance in Fayetteville (Fayetteville Chapter 119).

The first policy brief analyzes the last-minute amendments adopted by the Fayetteville City Council prior to passing the ordinance.

The second policy brief reexamines the ordinance as a whole and the unintended consequences it carries.

Of particular importance are that the ordinance:

  • Still opens churches, private schools, and religious people who own businesses to the threat of criminal prosecution;
  • Opens some ministers, individually, to the possibility of criminal prosecution; and
  • Still does not prevent a man who claims to be a woman from using the women’s restrooms, showers, locker rooms, or changing areas at businesses and public locations.

Click here to read Family Council’s analysis of the amendments made to Fayetteville Chapter 119 prior to passage.

Click here to read Family Council’s new policy brief on Fayetteville Chapter 119.

READ MORE

Understanding the Amendments to the Fayetteville Ordinance

Current Events, Religious Freedom, , , , , , ,

A Further Analysis of Chapter 119

Overview: On August 20, 2014, the Fayetteville City Council passed asexual-orientation and gender-identity nondiscrimination ordinance (Chapter 119). Proponents of the ordinance added two amendments to the proposal in an effort to alleviate some concerns over the measure’s unintended consequences. The amendments, however, fail to address many of the flaws in the proposal.

Church Property Amendment

Amendment 1: “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to require any religious or denominational institution or association to open its tax exempt property or place of worship to any individual or group for any ceremony or meeting, except for any activity or service that is supported in whole or part by public funds.”

Analysis: This amendment partly addresses one of the many ways Proposed Chapter 119 restricts religious liberty in Fayetteville. It generally prevents church property from being used, for example, for a same-sex wedding or reception. However, it fails to address the following:

  • Churches still face the threat of prosecution. This amendment does not exempt churches altogether. At best, it exempts church property. Churches can still be forced to employ a gay or transgender person for “secular” job positions (e.g. bookkeeper, receptionist, etc.). Even with this amendment,a church still faces the threat of criminal prosecution simply for wanting to employ people who share and abide by the faith that church proclaims.
     
  • Ministers still face the threat of prosecution, individually. This ordinance affects ministers who officiate weddings or ceremonies for non-church-members, because they are offering a public service. This amendment protects church property, but not the ministers employed by the church. This means ministers could still be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies on non-church property (e.g. a park, private wedding chapel, etc.). This opens ministers to the possibility of prosecution simply for declining to perform a ceremony contradictory their religious convictions.
     
  • Businesspeople are still open to prosecution. Across the nation, florists, bakers, photographers, wedding venue owners, and similar businesspeople have faced litigation and prosecution for declining to take part in same-sex ceremonies. This amendment does not protect religious businesspeople who object to hosting or serving in a same-sex ceremony.
     
  • Private schools are not exempted. This amendment does not protect a private school’s ability to employ people who share its religious views or safeguard any of its other religious liberties. 

(more…)

READ MORE

No Exemption for Churches From Proposed Fayetteville Ordinance

2 CommentsReligious Freedom, , ,

We have written about Fayetteville’s proposed nondiscrimination ordinance and its unintended consequences–particularly where churches are concerned.

In particular, churches could face criminal prosecution if they:

  • Refuse to hire a gay or transgender person to fill a “secular” staff position;
  • Decline to let a same-sex couple use their property for a same-sex ceremony or reception.

A few of you have asked about the amendment adopted at last week’s meeting supposedly exempting churches from the ordinance. Here is how the amendment reads:

“Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to require any religious or denominational institution or association to open its sanctuary or chapel to any individual or group for any ceremony including, but not limited to, weddings, funerals, confirmations, or baptisms.”

Here is the problem: The amendment only exempts the church sanctuary or chapel, and only for “ceremonies.”

A church could still be forced to open its sanctuary for non-ceremonial meetings–if the church lets other groups use its sanctuary for meetings.

The church could still be forced to open other parts of its property–such as the fellowship hall, classrooms, outdoor lawns or gardens, additional auditoriums, and so on–for ceremonies or receptions.

To put it another way, the ordinance does not exempt churches; it exempts one room from a church’s entire property: The sanctuary. That’s it. Every other piece of church property is fair game.

If the Fayetteville City Council intended to exempt churches, they could have done so. As it is, they only exempted the church sanctuary or chapel. That sends a very clear message: The ordinance is fully intended to affect churches.

Read the full language of the ordinance here.

READ MORE