07-26-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2010 experience the practical people who run successful small businesses simply won’t. When you look objectively at the benefits that are alleged to come from this legislation but the burdens that are imposed by this amendment are a job killer and urged the Council to vote against this bill. Ryan McCan, Indiana Family Institute, 155 Market Street, Indianapolis stated that the Indiana Family Institute is an affiliate of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a letter was read earlier this evening by Mr. Micah Clark on behalf of the ADF and likewise the Indiana Family Institute strongly opposes this bill. Timothy Wescott, 59771 Red Bird Ct., Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that he attends church and do business in South Bend and urges the Council to vote against this bill. Eric Miller, Founder, Executive Director, Advance America, 101 W. Ohio, P.O. Box 44590, Indianapolis, Indiana, stated that all Council Members were supplied with a manual from Citizens for Community Values of Indiana and would like to make that document a part of the record. A copy of that manual is on file with the Office of the City Clerk. Mr. Miller stated that the has worked in the Indiana General Assembly for over 29 years reviewing legislation. He stated that he has reviewed Bill No. 30-10 and agrees that this bill is vague and detrimental to businesses and religious organizations of State of Indiana. He stated that he is here tonight also representing a long time business owner and resident of South Bend, Mr. Bill Gates, who is also a Board Member of Bethel College who could not be here tonight but wishes to voice his opposition to this proposed amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance. For the betterment of South Bend, St. Joseph County and the State of Indiana he urged the Council to defeat this legislation for it is adverse to businesses, children, churches, families and religious organizations. He stated that South Bend should vote down this proposed amendment like their neighboring cities of Goshen and Ft. Wayne who have voted down a similar amendment within the past year. In Rebuttal, Mr. Charles Leone stated that he and Mr. Urda put together that language on behalf of the Boy Scouts with respect to that effect. He stated that there was a U.S. Supreme Court case that is cited in that section of the ordinance. He suggested that Professor Rice and others who might not be familiar with that language read that particular court case because the language that is in that particular exemption is derived directly from that U.S. Supreme Court case and grant that it is a little hard to understand but that is where is comes from. It is designed to say that a religious organization has the same level of exemption with respect to these particular characteristics as it does in other types of employment in terms of a religious discrimination. A religious organization may discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring. For example a religious organization may discriminate from hiring a GLBT person if in fact that is part of the religious basis for the decision. So in fact it is designed to create the exemption. The question of interpretation is one that comes to the South Bend Human Rights Commission, but certainly the Commission is not going to be in a position to choose or dole out religious doctrine. If a religious organization says that this is their choice because of our religious belief then that is the way it is going to be. Aladean DeRose stated that as the Commission does its work it does rely on interpretations of the law as handed down by the Supreme Court and by the Courts of the State and carefully reviews all issues of defense such as this because other issues have come up in the past because there are other exemptions in the employment ordinance for educational institutions. She stated that State funded educational institutions are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission. She noted that in the past that the school corporation has permitted the South Bend Human Rights Commission to hear its cases even though the ordinance does not permit that because that it is a right specific to that exempt organization but have decided to allow the Commission to hear their case because they feel that the South Bend Human Rights Commission fairly and fully and completely investigates their case with respect to protecting their employers which is a duty of the commission as well as protecting their employees who are victims 11