11/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Ridenour maintained that those not appearing were not staying away because of fear of reprisal, rather that they realized what society recognized. She felt those e presenting the amendment were "riding on the shirt tails of the present-day womens' lib movement." Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Manager noted letters received in favor of the amendment from: Thomas F. Nugent, director of Lane County Mental Health Division Diane M. Gardner, 1360 West 13th Avenue Raymond Lokken, no address Lester A. Kirkendall, 12601 S. E. River Road, Portland (two) Therese Engelmann, chairperson of Lane County Community Mental Health Center Letters received in opposition were from: Marta and Crawford Pierce, 659 West 2nd Avenue (corrected in January 28, 1974 minutes to "in favor") Maureen Gieber, 3147 Sorrel Way Sol Cuddeback, no address Mr. and Mrs. J. Gannon, no address Ben and Nellie Russell, 1030 Forrester Way . B. W.. Bond, 1730 Chambers Street Pearl and Ann Wolf, 355 Bond Lane Ethel L. Menge, 4460 Aster Street, Springfield Orpha E. Wilson, 467 West 10th Avenue Rene Laughlin, 1816 Swank Court, Springfield Robert G. Nill, 311 Bertelsen Road Petitions were also presented in favor of the amendment containing some 600 signatures. Councilwoman Campbell asked whether staff had any information from other areas regard- ing adoption and implementation of this type of ordinance. Manager reported similar ordinances adopted in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Those cities have had no significant administrative problems, however because the ordinances were recently adopted there has not been much experience with them. He mentioned that Michigan state law made it a statutory violation to encourage congregation in public places by homosexuals, whereas Ann Arbor's legislation made discrimination against homosexual a misdemeanor. The contradiction coliilld make a difficult position for a proprietor caught between State and municipal law. Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the ordinance with respect to the pro- tection requested against discrimination in the areas of housing and public accommoda- tion. He said it appeared the Council was being asked to legislate something that was . already covered by constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Stan Long, city attorney's office, said that state law is neutral on the subject. However, this measure if adopted would create a shield. There have been too few cases and the law has not been developed enough for definitive comment. Legislative enactment would clearly recognize the situation and thus provide the courts with something specific to point to in dealing with a situation. Councilwoman Beal asked whether other Council members wished to take action at this meeting or have an opportunity to discuss at length with action taken at some later meeting. Councilwoman Campbell preferred reaching a'-decision at this meeting. She congratulated the proponents of the resolution for their presentation and said she would favor the amendment. . Mayor Anderson for the record said.there appeared to be no question from testimony presented at this hearing that discrimination did exist against persons observing various sexual preferences. He recognized the emotional viewpoints, especially of those-.opposing the legislation. He himself had no particular objections to behavior patterns different from the majority of society. At the same time he was not im- pressed with the viewpoint that employers would lose money by hiring homosexuals. However, he was persuaded after talking to many people in the community to look at the legal and political side of the issue. He commented on the importance of the City's . human rights legislation and said that it reflected this community's recognition of protection of the individual's rights under the law. It also gave iliocal government the opportunity to implement state law in meeting the community's goals and objectives in the human rights field, and he had no doubt that the existing equal opportunity ordinance would stand up under a vote of the people. However, he went on, in the situation under consideration there was no direction from any higher level of govern- ment, even though recently adopted state legislation seemed a step in that direction. 3104 11/27/73 - 3