I read with great interest the front page story in the August 16th edition of the Indianapolis Star, written by Chris Sikich, on how a Republican stronghold like Carmel decided to move toward enacting a new city ordinance providing LGBT civil rights protections. Sikich explored the way a fairly conservative community decided to enact significant legal protections for sexual orientation and gender identification. The Star reporter framed the development as the corporate part of the Republican Party at odds with the social conservatives, with the corporate faction coming out on top in this case.
This all brought my thoughts back to March 30th of this year. State lawmakers had passed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (commonly known as RFRA) and Indiana was being portrayed nationally as a state not welcoming to people who are LGBT. Keep in mind that the primary election for Indiana cities was only a few weeks away. Hamilton County incumbent mayors in Carmel, Westfield and Noblesville all had opponents in the May 5th election. Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness was unopposed.
It is true Mayor Fadness was in a position to take a stronger stand with no primary opponent. However, after getting to know the mayor a bit over the past few years, I know civil rights for all, including those LGBT citizens, is a core issue with him. We will never know for sure, but it is my view that Scott Fadness would be out front on this issue with or without a political opponent.
On the morning of March 30th, the Indiana RFRA debate was raging, not just in within our state, but all around the nation. I contacted one of the mayor’s aides and discovered Fadness planned to release a statement that day. He called for the city council to pass a resolution as soon as a meeting could be called and still meet the legal notice requirements. The Fishers City Council unanimously passed the resolution on April 1st, proclaiming Fishers as a place welcoming to all.
Some will say this was just a reaction to business community pressures. There is no doubt that was part of it. Many of the companies the city was trying to lure to Fishers at that time were high-tech firms that want nothing to do with any form of discrimination.
After threats by several businesses and conventions that they would abandon the state if RFRA were to stand, our lawmakers passed what was described as a measure to “fix” the RFRA law and eased the pressure somewhat.
But there is a very important piece of unfinished business. Even though the United States Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, Indiana and many other states do not include sexual orientation and gender identification in their civil rights law listing of protected classes. So, a same sex couple could be legally married today and fired by their employer tomorrow based on their sexual orientation. That is currently legal in Indiana.
The leaders of the Indiana General Assembly say they are studying a possible change in the state’s civil rights law to include protections for LGBT Hoosiers. Sadly, the word I have received is that those leaders are conducting opinion polls to determine what they can get away with politically on this issue rather than studying how to change the law.
The business community in the state, which includes the largest companies doing business here, such as Lilly, Cummins Engine and Salesforce, will be lobbying state lawmakers next year to enact civil rights protections in state law based on sexual orientation or gender identification.
With Indiana Legislative leadership only promising a discussion of this issue in the 2016 session, it is up to local governments to provide LGBT civil rights protections under municipal ordinances.
In the meantime, Carmel is poised to act (as I write this piece the evening of August 16th.) Where is Fishers on this issue?
I spoke to the mayor on August 10th and he is working with City Attorney Chris Greisl to research the best way to not just enact an ordinance protecting LGBT people, he wants a system for investigating complaints. That is a valid concern.
I would suggest the mayor take a look at a city smaller than Fishers, with a Republican mayor and city council, that has a long-standing Human Rights Commission. I lived in Columbus, Indiana for four years in the late 1070s to the early 1980s. That city of 44,000 has a 9-member Human Rights Commission, and a staff consisting of a director, deputy director and a secretary. I’m not saying Fishers and Columbus are exactly alike, they have major differences. But it’s one Indiana community that has managed to handle this issue administratively.
I firmly believe that once Scott Fadness is satisfied a proposal is ready, he will send the ordinance to the city council. Fishers has shown a willingness to move forward on this issue, and I am confident the city leadership will act once the details have been worked out.
As I wrote in my Current in Fishers column appearing in the April 14th edition, I was very proud of my city’s actions April 1st. I expect to watch with pride as Fishers takes the next steps toward verifying it is a welcoming city to all.