Community Affairs Meeting Minutes

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016
MEETING MINUTES
Community Affairs Committee Meeting
August 10, 2016
7:00pm
Ross County Service Center
475 Western Avenue, Chillicothe, Ohio
I.
Welcome and Introductions
The following Council Members were present: Cartee, Clay, Corcoran, Fleurima, Gray, Neal,
Patrick, Proehl, and Tatman. Council President Arnold, Mayor Feeney, and Law Director
Rutherford were also present. Approximately 200 community members attended the meeting,
along with members of the news media, including the Chillicothe Gazette, the Columbus
Dispatch, NBC 4, and 10TV.
Mr. Cartee, Chair of the Community Affairs Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:05pm.
He welcomed and thanked everyone for attending the evenings meeting. He then went over the
agenda for the evening, the ground rules for public comment, and the nature of the Community
Affairs Committee. (See Attachment A for the meeting Agenda.) He noted that the committee
was considering legislative assignment 16-079, and that no ordinance was currently before the
entire City Council. He noted that tentative date has been set for a public hearing, which will
give members of the public a greater opportunity to voice their opinions on the legislative
assignment. The date is currently set at August 29, 2016 at 7pm, location to be announced. He
said that more information will be forthcoming.
II.
Committee Assignment and Process
Mr. Cartee explained that he made a committee assignment request during the week of June 27th,
and included proposed language with that request. He acknowledged that the proposed language
has generated a great deal of discussion in the past few weeks. He apologized for not making
clear that the proposed language was merely a draft, subject to substantial change. He said that
the language was meant to serve as a blueprint, or starting point, for discussion. He said that it
has come to his intention that including the proposed language with his assignment request may
not have been part of the traditional process that City Council has followed. For that, he
apologized for the confusion that the process has caused.
III.
Committee Discussion
Mr. Cartee began committee discussion by introducing his fellow committee members,
Councilwoman Alicia Gray and Councilman Joel Fleurima. He said that after Ms. Gray and Mr.
Fleurima had an opportunity to speak, discussion would then be opened to any other Council
Member who wished to speak.
Mr. Cartee suggested that the proposed language might best be tabled, either in whole or in part.
He then opened the discussion to the committee.
Ms. Gray agreed that the proposed language should be tabled. She thanked Mr. Cartee for the
perspective he has added to Council, but noted that he has had a steep learning curve. She said it
would be best to follow the procedure that Council has traditionally followed, and seek public
input first before drafting ordinance language.
Mr. Fleurima concurred with Ms. Gray. He said that he supported the intent of the legislation,
and that he wants to see that everybody in Chillicothe gets a fair shake. He noted his
disagreements with certain parts of the proposed legislation. He agreed that having a process that
relies on public input will be better.
Mr. Cartee then asked whether it was the consensus of the committee that the proposed language
be tabled. Both Ms. Gray and Mr. Fleurima agreed that it was. Mr. Cartee then declared the
proposed language tabled. He said the committee will have a reset, and receive significant public
input before new ordinance language is drafted. (See Attachment B for the tabled language.)
Mr. Cartee then opened discussion up to other City Council members.
Mr. Clay thanked Mr. Cartee and the committee for tabling the proposed legislation. He said that
he wants to make sure that Chillicothe is a welcoming environment for everybody, but that the
process that was followed up until this point had divided the community. He said he looked
forward to having a process that will engage the community and produce legislation that people
can get behind.
Mr. Cartee asked whether other Council members had anything to add. Seeing none, Mr. Cartee
asked Mayor Feeney whether he would like to say anything.
Mayor Feeney thanked everybody for being at the meeting. He said the large crowd was proof
that Chillicothe residents care about their community. He said he looked forward to hearing
public input.
IV.
Public Comment
Mr. Cartee again noted the ground rules for public comment. (See Attachment A). He introduced
Bart Henshaw, President of the Chillicothe-Ross League of Women Voters, who would be
keeping track of time tonight. He said that Mrs. Henshaw would give speakers a one-minute
warning, and then notify them when their time was up. He then took the public comment sign-in
sheet from the podium (Attachment C) and called the speakers in the order in which they had
signed:
1. Randy Davies See Attachment D for Mr. Davies prepared remarks, which he noted
would be changed in light of the committees decision to table the proposed legislation.
2. Keith A. Richter Mr. Richter began by stating that the liberty bell in Philadelphia tones
a mournful sound today. He said the proposed ordinance was an attempt of big
government to micromanage the daily lives of citizens, and he is opposed to that. He said
the language was an attempt to engineer a broad-brush solution to a non-existent

problem. He wants any ordinance to die before it ever sees the light of day.
3. Cathy Zangri Mrs. Zangri gave the following prepared remarks: I will keep this brief,
my name is Cathy Zangri and I am a lifelong member of the Chillicothe community
residing on Piatt Ave. I want to thank those involved in tonights discussion for the
opportunity to speak. I only want to say that I hope tonight we can all remain calm cool
and collected. That we receive what anyone says in this room tonight with an open mind
and open heart and that we remember that we are a wonderful community full of loving
citizens that only want the betterment of Chillicothe. Lets make tonight an open forum
for intelligent discussion of important ideas and allow cool heads to prevail. Its just
that simple. Thank you.
4. Jenifer Circle Potter Mrs. Circle Potter introduced herself as a public school teacher,
who will be beginning her 26th year working in the same school district she has worked in
for her entire career. She said she and her husband have lived in Chillicothe for 25 years
and love this community. She told the story of one of her students, J., who she met
when J was a freshman in high school. She said that she got to know J. during high
school, but that J. started acting differently a few years into his high school career. One
day, Mrs. Circle Potter took J. aside and asked him what was going on. J. said to Mrs.
Circle Potter that he was gay, to which she said so what? She urged the audience to be
kind and respectful to everyone. (For Mrs. Circle Potters full prepared statement, see
Attachment D.)
5. Diane Carnes Mrs. Carnes introduced herself as a former three-term City Council
Member. She prefaced her remarks by thanking the committee for withdrawing the
proposed legislation. She said that it was not Councils job to propose language first and
that the Law Director was bypassed. She said she talked with a man who was concerned
about opening a coffee shop in the city with an ordinance like the one proposed on the
books. She closed by saying that we cannot legislate tolerance, kindness, and love.
6. Trish Wilson Mrs. Wilson said she was born and raised in this fine community. She
thanked the committee for tabling the proposed ordinance. She feels that people are
already covered by the U.S. Constitution. She said we need to work with each other and
be kind to each other. We dont need something like this on the books.
7. Trish Gisvold Mrs. Gisvold said that, as a Christian, she does not pick on people with
different beliefs. She discussed her First Amendment freedom of religion, and said that
the proposed ordinance reminded her of Islamic Sharia Law. She worried that the
proposed legislation would have required to churches to marry people that the churches
did not want to marry.
8. Shaun Howard Mr. Howard asked to reserve his time in case he wished to speak later.
Mr. Cartee granted the request.
9. Mark Clendaniel Mr. Clendaniel declined to comment because the proposed legislation
had been tabled.
10. David Clay Mr. Clay declined to comment because he had already spoken during
committee discussion.
11. Phyllis Mathis Mrs. Mathis said that she is a business owner with 4-8 employees. She
said that she and her husband hire all types of people, and that the proposed ordinance
would have held husband back from training employees.
12. Brent Rolsten Mr. Rolsten thanked Councilmember Cartee for tabling the proposed
legislation. He said that the committee would need to deal with a number of issues as it
proceeded with crafting legislation: how many grievances have been brought to the courts
in the last 12 months? What do other communities do? How do we make sure that Due
Process guarantees are preserved? What should be the size of the commission? What
should commissioners qualifications be? What will be the economic impact on business?
13. Woodrow Wilson Mr. Wilson said that we do not need another law that will divide the
community. He cited the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. He said that the Civil Rights
Act protects certain immutable characteristics like race, national origin, color, and sex.
He said that sexual attraction and gender identity are changeable.
14. Portia Boulger Mrs. Boulger thanked Councilmember Cartee for fighting for equality.
She said bravo for putting the intent out there. She said she was born in Chillicothe and
grew up in a Christian Church, where she was taught love. She said that when one of us is
oppressed, we are all oppressed. She would argue that LGBTQ discrimination is very
prevalent in the country, and in Chillicothe.
15. Nena Park Ms. Park said that she teaches pre-school in Chillicothe and has a 7-year old
daughter. She wants all children to be able to chase their dreams. She responded to a local
petition that had been circulating that opposed the proposed ordinance. She said that the
petition was disheartening because it expressed the view that LGBTQ people are
unsuitable for certain employment. Ms. Park gave Mr. Cartee her prepared, written
remarks for inclusion in the record (Attachment D).
16. Janet Griffith Mrs. Griffith began by saying she ran the Skate-a-Way for many years.
When she and her husband ran the skating rink, she said that all children were treated
with respect. She does not agree with the need for an ordinance. She is not a fan of
appointed boards because of their political influence. She said that a big problem
throughout America today is the lack of respect for one another.
17. Sarah Wagner Mrs. Wagner said she spoke today as an ordinary citizen of Chillicothe,
one who made regular trips to the grocery store and the bank, and who had to find a way
to feed and clothe teenage boys. She also said that she is a lesbian with three boys and
one girl. She said she lives in fear on a daily basis. She said that she and her wife have
been subject to homophobic slurs, spit on, been asked not to hold hands with each other
in public, and even asked to leave a restaurant. They have been told that they should not
be allowed to live. Mrs. Wagner asked the audience to imagine having to tell their
children that they are not allowed to play with other children because the childrens
parents did not like Mrs. Wagner and her wife. She said that Chillicothe does have a
discrimination problem.
18. Terry Williams Mr. Williams said that he grew up in Waverly and chose to live in
Chillicothe. He said he loves this place and chose to come back when Orchard Hill
United Church of Christ was searching for a minister and was told that Orchard Hill had
trouble finding ministers because Chillicothe was too small. Mr. Williams said he
couldnt believe that because he always thought Chillicothe was great. He said he was
unhappy in Chillicothe a couple weeks ago, however, when his churchs sign saying
God is still speaking was vandalized. He said that the tabled language might not have
been the best, but the intent was good, and he hopes that we as a community can work out
a compromise.
19. Daniel Richmond Mr. Richmond said that he is a student at Chillicothe High School
and is a member of band and jazz band. He also said that he is the son of Sarah Wagner
and friend of Terry Williams. He said that the proposed ordinance would be a safe haven
for the future generations of this community. He said that there are people out there afraid
of businesses because they can be legally discriminated against for being LGBT. He said
that it was sad that a teenager has to point out this fact to a room full of adults.
20. Sherri Rutherford Law Director Rutherford began by saying that drafting a piece of
legislation is different from enforcing it. She said that the proposed legislation was void
for vagueness, contained a presumption of guilt, had due process issues, among other
defects. Law Director Rutherford pointed out the Bexley nondiscrimination ordinance is
superior to the proposed language. The Bexley ordinance requires cases to be a heard by
a Magistrate, someone with legal training, and it does not give sweeping power to its
equivalent of the community relations commission. She also favorably indicated that the
Bexley ordinance required complainants to go to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission first
if they were complaining on the basis of classes that were already protected by state law.
She asked where we want our resources to go, as a community. Assault and harassment
are already on the books. She concluded by noting that the EEO office has received no
complaints on the basis of LGBT discrimination in the last five years.
21. Tom Morgan Mr. Morgan said that he is gay. In 2004, he could not make decisions on
behalf of his longtime partner, when his partner was involved a near-fatal accident that
placed him into a coma. Mr. Morgan said that all he is asking for is legal protection for
himself and his loved ones. He said there is already a long list of protected classes that
receive protection against discrimination, including race, age, sex, and disability. He is
just asking to be added to the list of protected classes.
22. Daniel DeGarmo Mr. DeGarmo declined to comment because the proposed legislation
had been tabled.
23. Obadiah Harris Mr. Harris said that he had concerns and consternations coming here
this evening. He said that Man has his opinion, but God has dominion, and that people
need to changeGod doesnt. He asked pastors in the room that came in opposition to
the ordinance to stand. Approximately 12 to 15 people stood. Mr. Harris concluded by
saying the state needs the church.
24. Steven Truman Mr. Truman introduced himself as a former candidate for Chillicothe
City Council. He said he does believe there needs to be some sort of nondiscrimination
law on the books, but that he would not have been able to support the proposed
legislation. He said he is glad the proposal was tabled.
25. Dee Stevenson Mrs. Stevenson says she works with the National Parks System in
Chillicothe. She noted that there is a good possibility that Chillicothe will be getting a
World Heritage designation soon, and with that an influx of tourists from all over the
world. She said she did not like the proposal and is glad the committee tabled it.
26. Logan Shoemaker Mr. Shoemaker said that he was a junior in college. He said that is
also gay and that if you dont think there is a discrimination problem in Chillicothe and
the country, you have never been afraid to hold your significant others hand in public.
He asked where do we draw the line before we act against discrimination?
27. Jhan Corzine Mr. Corzine introduced himself as a former Law Director for the City of
Chillicothe for 5 years, and a former Common Pleas Judge for 18 years. He said he
supports equality and we need a way to protect LGBTQ people. He said the proposed
language was too broad and penalties were too high. But he noted that the commission in
the proposal was modeled after the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, a state-level
commission of 5 unelected commissioners who decide discrimination cases. Mr. Corzine
responded to other speakers who brought up the fact that there have been no LGBT
discrimination complaints in Chillicothe. He said the reason you havent heard any
complaints is that people have no recourse. There is currently no state law, or other law
giving them legal protection, so why complain?
28. Chelion Preston Ms. Preston said that she works at the public library. She said that
discrimination is a problem in Chillicothe, and has seen such discrimination in her
capacity as a library worker. She said she does not congratulate Council for tabling the
ordinance. If the committee tabled the ordinance because the correct procedure was not
followed, then that is okay. But, she urged Council not to bury its head in the sand just
because some members of the community have come out in vocal opposition to the
ordinance.
V.
Concluding Committee Discussion
Mr. Cartee again thanked everyone for attending the evenings committee meeting. He thanked
everybody for maintaining a respectful tone during discussion. He reiterated the tentatively
scheduled public hearing on August 29th at 7pm, location to be announced. He asked if any
Council Member had any concluding remarks. Seeing none, Mr. Cartee declared the meeting
adjourned at 8:40pm.
ATTACHMENT A
Monday, August 10, 2016
7:00pm
AGENDA
Assignment No. 16-079: Request for legislation for nondiscrimination ordinance
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Welcome and Introductions

Committee Assignment and Process
Committee Discussion
Public Comment
Concluding Committee Discussion
GROUND RULES
1. Be respectful.
2. Refrain from personal attacks. This is an emotional topic for many people, so please
respond only to ideas put forward by other speakers, not to personal characteristics of the
speakers themselves.
3. Each speaker will have three (3) minutes to speak. The purpose of this time limit is to
accommodate all people who wish to speak. You will get a warning when you have one
(1) minute remaining. If you have written, prepared remarks and would like them
included in the record, please email them to Josh Cartee at josh.cartee@gmail.com. The
record will be compiled and sent to council, the administration, and the media.
BACKGROUND
The Community Affairs Committee is a 3-member committee of Chillicothe City

Council.
There is no ordinance currently before the entire City Council.
The Community Affairs Committee is examining a legislative request as to what a

nondiscrimination ordinance would like look.
SAVE THE DATE
Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7pm Public Hearing on Nondiscrimination Ordinance

Assignment No. 16-079 (changed due to the tabling of the proposed language)
8
TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed by:
ORDINANCE NO. __________

AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 516 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF CHILLICOTHE, PROHIBITING AND MAKING UNLAWFUL CERTAIN
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHILLICOTHE IN
EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, AND PROVIDING
FOR A REMEDIAL PROCEDURE.
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council, in enacting this ordinance, to protect and
safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to be free from all forms of discrimination,
including discrimination based on age, ancestry, color, familial status, gender, gender identity or
expression, handicap, marital status, national origin, race, sexual orientation, or veteran/military
status. The Councils purpose in enacting this ordinance is to promote the public health and
welfare of all persons who live, work, or visit the City of Chillicothe. It is important for the City
of Chillicothe to ensure that all persons within the city have equal access to employment,
housing, and public accommodations;
WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the City of Chillicothe, by executive order, to prohibit
discrimination by City employees on the basis of age, color, national origin, physical or mental
disability, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression,
veteran/military status, socioeconomic status or any other characteristic protected by federal,
state or local law and by City of Chillicothe workforce policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide an inclusive and welcoming environment for
purposes of enhancing regional economic development,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHILLICOTHE, STATE OF
OHIO:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 516, Discrimination Prohibited, of the Chillicothe Codified
Ordinances, is enacted to read as follows:
Chapter 516 DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
516.01 DEFINITIONS.
(a) Advertising means to make, print, publish, advertise or otherwise disseminate any notice,
statement or advertisement, with respect to any employment activity, any business activity, or


any educational activity.
(b) Age means 40 years of age or older, except as otherwise provided by law.
(c) Business establishment means any entity, however organized, which furnishes goods,
services or accommodations to the general public. An otherwise qualifying establishment which
has membership requirements is considered to furnish services to the general public if its
membership requirements consist only of payment of fees or consist only of requirements under
which a substantial portion of the residents of the city could qualify.
(d) Disability or disabled means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental
impairment, a record of such an impairment, or being perceived or regarded as having such
impairment. For purposes of this chapter discrimination on the basis of disability means that no
covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of that
individuals disability. The term qualified individual with a disability shall mean an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential
functions of the employment positions that the individual holds or desires.
(e) Discriminate, discrimination or discriminatory means any act, policy or practice that,
regardless of intent, has the effect of subjecting any person to differential treatment as a result of
that persons age, ancestry, color, familial status, gender, gender identity or expression,
handicap, marital status, national origin, race, sexual orientation, or veteran/military status.
(f) Employee means any individual employed or seeking employment from an employer.
(g) Employer means any person who, for compensation, regularly employs four (4) or more
individuals, not including the employers parents, spouse or children. For purposes of this
chapter an employer regularly employs four (4) individuals when the employer employs four
(4) or more individuals for each working day in any twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the
current or previous calendar year. For purposes of this chapter an employer is also any person
acting on behalf of an employer, directly or indirectly, or any employment agency.
(h) "Gender" means actual or perceived sex.
(i) Gender identity or expression means having or being perceived as having a gender identity
or expression whether or not that gender identity or expression is different from that traditionally
associated with the sex assigned to that individual at birth.
(j) Labor organization means any organization that exists and is constituted for the purpose, in


whole or in part, of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning grievances,
terms or conditions of employment, or of other mutual aid or protection on behalf of employees.
(k) Person means a natural person, firm, corporation, partnership or other organization,
association or group of persons however arranged.
(l) Physical characteristic means a bodily condition or bodily characteristic of any person that
is from birth, accident, or disease, or from any natural physical development, including
individual physical mannerisms including but not limited to height and weight. Physical
characteristic shall not relate to those situations where a bodily condition or characteristic will
present a danger to the health, welfare or safety of any individual.
(m) Place of public accommodation means inns, taverns, hotels, motels, restaurants, wholesale
outlets, retail outlets, banks, savings and loan associations, other financial institutions, credit
information bureaus, insurance companies, dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, theaters, recreational
parks and facilities, trailer camps, garages, public halls, and all other establishments which offers
goods, services, accommodations and entertainment to the public within the City. A place of
public accommodation does not include any institution, club or other place of accommodation,
which by its nature is distinctly private. Place of public accommodation does not include a
benevolent corporation incorporated as such or a religious corporation incorporated as such
under the laws of Ohio.
(n) Sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, either actual or
perceived.
(o) Transaction in real estate means the exhibiting, listing, advertising, negotiating, agreeing to
transfer or transferring, whether by sale, lease, sublease, rent, assignment or other agreement, of
any interest in real property or improvements thereon.
516.02 PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT.
With regard to employment, it shall be unlawful for any employers or labor organizations to
engage in any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason:
(a) To fail to hire, refuse to hire or discharge an individual;
(b) To discriminate against any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, including promotion. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
require any employer to provide benefits, such as insurance, to individuals not employed by the


employer;
(c) To limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive
any employee of employment opportunities, or which would otherwise tend to adversely affect
his or her status as an employee;
(d) To fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual in such a manner that would deprive
an individual of employment opportunities, that would limit an individuals employment
opportunities or that would otherwise adversely affect an individuals status as a prospective
employee or as an applicant for employment;
(e) To discriminate against an individual in admission to, or employment in, any program
established to provide apprenticeship or other job training, including an on-the-job training
program;
(f) To print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any discriminatory notice or
advertisement relating to employment. This subsection shall not be construed so as to expose the
person who prints or publishes the notice or advertisement, such as a newspaper, to liability;
(g) To discriminate in referring an individual for employment whether the referral is by an
employment agency, labor organization or any other person.
516.03 PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION RELATING TO HOUSING AND REAL
ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.
With regard to housing and real estate transactions, it shall be unlawful to engage in any of the
following acts wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason:
(a) To discriminate by impeding, delaying, discouraging or otherwise limiting or restricting any
transaction in real estate;
(b) To discriminate by imposing different terms on a real estate transaction;
(c) To represent falsely that an interest in real estate is not available for transaction;
(d) To include in the terms or conditions of a real estate transaction any discriminatory clause,
condition or restriction;
(e) To discriminate in performing, or refusing to perform, any act necessary to determine an
individuals financial ability to engage in a real estate transaction;


(f) For a property manager to discriminate by refusing to provide equal treatment of, or services
to, occupants of any real estate which he or she manages;
(g) To make, print or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any discriminatory
notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to a real estate transaction or proposed real estate
transaction, or financing relating thereto. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit
advertising directed to physically disabled persons or persons over the age of 55 for the purpose
of calling to their attention the existence or absence of housing accommodations or services for
the physically disabled or elderly;
(h) To discriminate in any financial transaction involving real estate, on account of the location
of the real estate be it residential or non-residential (red-lining);
(i) For a real estate operator, a real estate broker, a real estate salesperson, a financial institution ,
an employee of any of these, or any other person, for the purposes of inducing a real estate
transaction from which such person may benefit financially to represent that a change has
occurred or will or may occur in the composition with respect to age, ancestry, color, familial
status, gender, gender identity or expression, handicap, marital status, national origin, race,
sexual orientation, or veteran/military status of the owners or occupants in the block,
neighborhood or area in which the real property is located or to represent that this change will or
may result in the lowering of property values, an increase in criminal or antisocial behavior, or a
decline in the quality of schools in the block, neighborhood or area in which the real property is
located (block-busting);
(j) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) through (h), it shall not be an unlawful
discriminatory practice for an owner to limit occupancy on the basis of a persons low-income,
age over 55 years or disability status in accordance with federal or state law;
(k) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) through (h), it shall not be an unlawful
discriminatory practice for an owner, lessor or renter to refuse to rent, lease or sublease a portion
of a single family dwelling unit to a person as a tenant, roomer or boarder where it is anticipated
that the owner, lessor or renter will be occupying any portion of the single-family dwelling or to
refuse to rent, lease or sublease where it is anticipated that the owner, lessor or renter will be
sharing either a kitchen or a bathroom with the tenant, roomer or boarder.
516.04 PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION RELATING TO BUSINESS
ESTABLISHMENTS OR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

It shall be unlawful for a business establishment or place of public accommodation to engage in
any of the following acts wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason:
(a) To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and accommodations of any business establishment or place of public
accommodation;
(b) To print, publish, circulate, post, or mail, directly or indirectly, a statement, advertisement, or
sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a business establishment or place of public
accommodation will be unlawfully refused, withheld from or denied an individual, or which
indicates that an individuals patronage of, or presence at, the business establishment or place of
public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable or undesirable.
516.05 PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS.
It shall be unlawful for an educational institution to engage in any of the following acts wholly or
partially for a discriminatory reason:
(a) To deny, restrict, abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any educational facilities or
educational services to any person otherwise qualified;
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory
practice to limit attendance in classes or programs conducted by an educational institution based
upon a reasonable educational objective, except where to do so would otherwise violate a duty
imposed upon the institution by federal or state law to provide reasonable accommodation;
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory
practice for an educational institution operated by a religious or denominational institution, or
established for a bona fide religious purpose, to admit students or program attendees on the basis
of that students or attendees religious or denominational affiliation or preference.
516.06 CITY SERVICES, FACILITIES, TRANSACTIONS AND CONTRACTS.
The City shall be bound by the provisions of this chapter to the same extent as private
individuals. All contractors proposing to, or currently doing business with the City, shall abide
by this ordinance.

516.07 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Any practice which has a discriminatory effect and which would otherwise be prohibited by
this chapter shall not be deemed unlawful if it can be established that the practice is not
intentionally devised to contravene the prohibitions of this chapter and there exists no less
discriminatory means of satisfying a business purpose.
(b) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to
prohibit promotional activities such as senior citizen discounts and other similar practices
designed primarily to encourage participation by protected group.
(c) It shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to observe the conditions
of a bona fide seniority system or a bona fide employee benefit system such as a retirement,
pension or insurance plan which is not a subterfuge or pretext to evade the purposes of this
chapter.
(d) It shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to carry out an affirmative
action plan. An affirmative action plan is any plan devised to effectuate remedial or corrective
action taken in response to past discriminatory practices, or as otherwise required by state or
federal law.
(e) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to prohibit selection or rejection based
solely upon a bona fide occupational qualification or a bona fide physical requirement. Nothing
contained in this chapter shall be deemed to prohibit a religious or denominational institution
from selecting or rejecting applicants and employees for non-secular positions on the basis of the
applicants or employees conformance with the institutions religious or denominational
principles. If a party asserts that an otherwise unlawful practice is justified as a permissible bona
fide occupational qualification, or a permissible bona fide physical requirement, that party shall
have the burden of proving:
(1) That the discrimination is in fact a necessary result of such a bona fide condition; and
(2) That there exists no less discriminatory means of satisfying the bona fide requirement.
(f) If a party asserts that an otherwise unlawful practice is justified as a permissible bona fide
religious or denominational preference, that party shall have the burden of proving that the
discrimination is in fact a necessary result of such a bona fide condition.
516.08 POSTING OF NOTICES.


Every employer or institution subject to this chapter shall post and keep posted in a conspicuous
location where business or activity is customarily conducted or negotiated, a notice, the language
and form of which has been prepared by the City, setting forth excerpts from or summaries of the
pertinent provisions of this chapter and information pertinent to the enforcement of rights
hereunder. At the request of the employer or institution, notices required by this section shall be
provided by the City. Notices shall be posted within ten days after the receipt from the City.
516.09 CORRECTION OR RETALIATION.
(a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to coerce, threaten, retaliate against or interfere
with any person in the exercise of, or on account of having exercised, or on account of having
aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise of, any right granted or protected under this
ordinance, or on account of having expressed opposition to any practice prohibited by this
ordinance.
(b) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to require, request, or suggest
that a person retaliate against, interfere with, intimidate or discriminate against a person, because
that person has opposed any practice made unlawful by this ordinance, or because that person
has made a charge, or because that person has testified, assisted or participated in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding or hearing authorized under this ordinance.
(c) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to cause or coerce, or attempt to
cause or coerce, directly or indirectly, any person in order to prevent that person from complying
with the provisions of this ordinance.
516.10 PRESERVATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS.
Where a complaint of discrimination has been filed against a person under this ordinance, such
person shall preserve all records relevant to the complaint, until a final disposition of the
complaint.
516.11 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION.
(a) There is hereby created the City of Chillicothe Community Relations Commission, hereafter
referred to as the Commission, to be comprised of three (3) members. One member shall be the
Director of Human Resources or his or her designee for the City. The second member shall be
appointed by the mayor. The third member shall be appointed by majority vote of council. Each
member of the Commission shall serve a term of three years and until his or her successor has

been appointed and qualified for office. With the exception of Director of Human Resources or
his or her designee, members of the Commission shall be ineligible to be reappointed to succeed
themselves for more than one additional three-year term, unless the member is completing a term
for which he or she was appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy. Every member shall have been a
resident of the City for at least one year prior to appointment and shall continue to be a resident
so long as he or she shall serve as a member of the Commission. In the event of a vacancy a
replacement will be chosen by the appropriate appointing authority of that seat and will serve out
the remainder of the vacant term.
(b) The Commission may create and modify rules regarding its meetings and procedures. The
Commission may create and appoint task forces and committees it deems appropriate to carry out
its functions.
(c) The work of the Commission shall be managed by the Human Resources Department.
(d) The responsibilities of the Human Resources Department include managing Commission
records and accounts, developing public education programs as needed, providing training for
Commission members, managing citizen complaints, facilitating Commission scheduling and
communication, and any other tasks needed to effectuate the functions of the Commission.
(e) In addition, the Commission may use the services of attorneys, hearing examiners, clerks and
other employees and agents who are city government employees, except in those cases in which
the city government is a party, and in which case the Commission may seek the city attorneys
approval to engage appropriate counsel.
(f) In the enforcement of this chapter, the Commission shall have the following powers and
duties:
(1) To receive, initiate, investigate, seek to conciliate, hold hearings on and pass upon complaints
alleging violations of this chapter;
(2) To cooperate with relevant federal and state authorities;
(3) To present an annual report to the mayor and city council setting forth the number of
complaints received during the prior year, as well as the disposition of the complaints, and the
number of convictions for violation. The Commission shall publish this report and make it
available in some format to the general public;
(4) To require answers to interrogatories, compel the attendance of witnesses, examine


witnesses under oath or affirmation in person by deposition and require the production of
documents relevant to the complaint. The Commission may make rules authorizing or
designating any member or individual to exercise these powers in the performance of official
duties;
(5) To cooperate with community, professional, civic and religious organizations, as well as state
and federal agencies, in the development of public education programs regarding compliance
with the provisions of this chapter and equal opportunity and treatment of all individuals;
(6) To conduct tests to ascertain the availability of housing, both in sales and also in rentals of
real property;
(7) To make available for the Citys website information on this chapter, grievance procedures,
the Commissions annual report and any other information that would further the purposes and
intentions of this chapter.
516.12 COMPLAINTS CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.
(a) A person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice, or a member of the
Commission, may file with the Commission a written sworn complaint stating that a
discriminatory practice has been committed, setting forth the facts sufficient to enable the
Commission to identify the persons charged (hereinafter the respondent). Within 10 days after
receipt of the complaint, the Commission shall serve on the complainant a notice acknowledging
the filing of the complaint and informing the complainant of the respondent's time limits.(b)
The Commission shall, within 10 days of the filing of the complaint, furnish the respondent with
a copy of the complaint and a notice advising the respondent of the respondent's procedural
rights and obligations under this chapter.
(c) The complaint must be filed within one year after the commission of the alleged
discriminatory practice.
(d) The Commission shall commence an investigation of the complaint within 30 days after the
filing of the complaint. The Commission, or designee, shall promptly investigate the matter to
determine whether the discriminatory practice exists.
(e) If it is determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has engaged
in a discriminatory practice, the Commission shall furnish a copy of the order to the complainant,
the respondent and such public officers and persons as the Commission deems proper.
10

(f) The complainant, within 30 days after receiving a copy of the order dismissing the complaint,
may file with the Commission an application for reconsideration of the order.
(g) Upon such application, the Commission shall review the original investigation and make a
determination within 30 days whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has
engaged in a discriminatory practice.
(h) If it is determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has engaged
in a discriminatory practice, the Commission shall issue an order dismissing the complaint after
reconsideration and furnish a copy of the order to the complainant, the respondent and such
public officers and persons as the Commission deems proper.
516.13 CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS.
(a) If the Commission determines after investigation that there is
reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory practice, the
Commission shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged discriminatory practices by conference,
conciliation and persuasion.
(b) The terms of a conciliation agreement reached with a respondent shall require the respondent
to refrain from discriminatory practices in the future and shall make such further provisions as
may be agreed upon between the Commission or its assigned staff and the respondent.
(c) If a conciliation agreement is entered into, the Commission shall issue and serve on the
complainant an order stating its terms. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the respondent
and such public officers and persons as the Commission deems proper.
(d) Except for the terms of the conciliation agreement, the Commission shall not make public,
without the written consent of the complainant and the respondent, information concerning
efforts in a particular case to eliminate discriminatory practice by conference, conciliation or
persuasion, whether or not there is a determination of reasonable cause or a conciliation
agreement. The conciliation agreement itself shall not be made public unless the complainant and
the respondent otherwise agree and the Commission also determines that disclosure is not
required to further the purposes of this chapter.
(e) At the expiration of one year from the date of a conciliation agreement, and at other times in
its reasonable discretion, the Commission or its staff may investigate whether the respondent is
following the terms of the agreement.

11

(f) If a finding is made that the respondent is not complying with the terms of the agreement, the
Commission shall take such action as it deems appropriate to assure compliance.
516.13 HEARINGS.
(a) If a conciliation agreement has not been reached within 90 days after an administrative
determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination took place, the Commission
shall serve on the respondent by mail or in person a written notice, together with a copy of the
complaint as it may have been amended, or a copy of the letter of determination, requiring the
respondent to answer the allegation(s) of the complaint at a hearing before the Commission or
another individual pursuant to its rules, at a time and place specified by the hearing examiner or
examiners after conference with the parties or their attorneys. A copy of the notice shall be
furnished to the complainant and such public officers and persons as the Commission deems
proper.
(b) A member of the Commission who filed the complaint or endeavored to eliminate the alleged
discriminatory practice by conference, conciliation or persuasion shall not participate in the
hearing or in the subsequent deliberation of the Commission. In the case where a member of the
Commission filed a complaint and a hearing or subsequent deliberation of the Commission is
required, a temporary Commissioner shall be appointed by the City Law Director for the purpose
of adjudicating the regular Commission members complaint.
(c) The respondent may file an answer with the Commission by registered or certified mail in
accordance with the rules of the Commission before the hearing date. The respondent may
amend an answer at any time prior to the issuance of an order based on the complaint, but no
order shall be issued unless the respondent has had an opportunity of a hearing on the complaint
or amendment on which the order is based.
(d) A respondent, who has filed an answer or whose default in answering has been set aside for
good cause shown, may appear at the hearing with or without representation, may examine and
cross-examine witnesses and the complainant and may offer evidence.
(e) The complainant, and, in the discretion of the Commission, any person may intervene,
examine and cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
(f) If the respondent fails to answer the complaint, the Commission may find the respondent in
default. Unless the default is set aside for good cause shown, the hearing may proceed on the
evidence in support of the complaint.

12

(g) Efforts at conference, conciliation and persuasion shall not be received in evidence.
(h) Testimony taken at the hearing shall be under oath and recorded. If the testimony is not taken
before the Commission, the record shall be transmitted to the Commission.
(i) In a proceeding under this chapter, the production of a written, printed or visual
communication, advertisement or other form of publication, or a written inquiry, or record, or
other document purporting to have been made by a person shall be prima facie evidence that it
was authorized by the person.
(j) All hearings conducted under this section shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 119
of the Ohio Revised Code.
516.14 FINDINGS AND ORDERS.
(a) If the Commission determines that the respondent has not engaged in a discriminatory
practice, the Commission shall state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall issue an
order dismissing the complaint. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the complainant, the
respondent and such public officers and persons as the Commission deems proper.
(b) If the Commission determines that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory practice,
the Commission shall state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall issue an order
requiring the respondent to cease and desist from the discriminatory practice and to take such
affirmative action as in the judgment of the Commission will carry out the purposes of this
chapter. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the respondent, the complainant and to such
public officers and persons as the Commission deems proper.
516.15 REMEDIES.
(a) Action ordered under this section may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of employees with or without back pay. Interim earnings
or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against
shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable;
(2) Admission or restoration of individuals to union membership, admission to or participation
in, a guidance program, apprenticeship, training program, on-the-job training program, or other
occupational training or retraining program, and the utilization of objective criteria in the
admission of individuals to such programs;

13

(3) Admission of individuals to a place of public accommodation;
(4) The extension to all individuals of the full and equal enjoyment of the advantages, facilities,
privileges and services of the respondent;
(5) Reporting as to the manner of compliance;
(6) Posting notices in conspicuous places in the respondent's place of business in the form
prescribed by the Commission and inclusion of such notices in advertising material;
(7) Payment to the complainant of damages for an injury, including humiliation and
embarrassment, caused by the discriminatory practice, and costs, including reasonable attorney
fees;
(8) Payment to the Commission of a $500 fine for each violation. Each day on which a
continuing violation occurs shall constitute a new and separate violation of this ordinance. Fines
collected pursuant to this section will be used to establish a fund to educate the community about
nondiscrimination practices and to promote nondiscrimination in the City;
(9) Such other remedies as shall be necessary and proper to eliminate all the discrimination
identified by the evidence submitted at the hearing or in the record.
(b) The Commission may, in its discretion, publish, or cause to be published, the names of
persons who have been determined to have engaged in a discriminatory practice.
516.16 JUDICIAL REVIEW.
A complainant or respondent aggrieved by an order of the Commission, including an order
dismissing a complaint or stating the terms of a conciliation agreement, may obtain judicial
review in accordance with applicable law.
516.17 SUBPOENAS.
(a) Upon written application to the Commission, a party to a proceeding is entitled as of right to
the issuance of subpoenas for deposition or hearing in the name of the Commission by an
individual designated pursuant to its rules requiring attendance and the giving of testimony by
witnesses and the production of documents.
(b) A subpoena so issued shall show on its face the name and address of the party at whose
request the subpoena is directed.

14

(c) On petition of the person to whom the subpoena is directed and notice to the requesting party,
the Commission or an individual designated pursuant to its rules may vacate or modify the
subpoena.
(d) Any depositions of witnesses shall be taken as prescribed by the Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure.
(e) Witnesses whose depositions are taken, or who are summoned before the Commission or its
agents, will be entitled to the same witness and mileage fees as are paid to the witnesses
subpoenaed in municipal court.
(f) If a person fails to comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission, the municipal court
may issue an order requiring compliance. In any proceeding brought under this section, the court
may modify or set aside the subpoena.
516.18 RESISTANCE TO, OBSTRUCTION, ETC., OF COMMISSION.
Any person who willfully resists, prevents, impedes or interferes with the Commission, its
members, agents or agencies in the performance of duties pursuant to this Act, or violates any
order of the Commission shall be subject to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars
($500.00) in addition to such or order or decree that may be issued.
516.19 STATE/FEDERAL REMEDIES.
(a) The remedies provided for in this chapter are in addition to, not in lieu of, those provided for
by state and federal law. This chapter shall therefore not be construed so as to limit a persons
right to file complaint with any state or federal agency, board, tribunal or court vested with
jurisdiction to receive, review and act upon complaints of discrimination This chapter shall not
be construed as limiting the right of any person to seek remedies in courts of competent
jurisdiction pursuant to state or federal law which grant private rights of action to persons
aggrieved by discriminatory acts of the type prohibited by this chapter. There is no requirement
that an aggrieved person file a complaint with the City pursuant to this chapter before seeking
any other federal, state or other remedy available to the person.
(b) A persons election to seek remedies provided for in this chapter shall not operate to toll any
statute of limitation set forth in state or federal law for pursuing remedies under state or federal
law for acts of discrimination of the type prohibited by this chapter.
516.20 SEVERABILITY.

15

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this chapter, or the application
thereof to any person, firm, corporation or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. The City Council of the City hereby declares
that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
516.99 PENALTY.
Whoever violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
SECTION 2. It is found and determined that all formal actions of this Council concerning and
relating to the passage of this ordinance were adopted in an open meeting of this Council, and
that all such deliberations of this Council and of any of its committees that resulted in such
formal action were in meetings open to the public in compliance with all legal requirements.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect at the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed:
, 2016
PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL
Attest:
CLERK OF COUNCIL
Approved:
, 2016
FILED WITH THE MAYOR

, 2016
MAYOR
Voting yea were the following members of Council:
__________________
16
ATTACHMENT C
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET
August 10, 2016
7:00pm
Name
E-mail address
Randy Davies
Keith A. Richter
-o-
Cathy Zangri
zangri@roadrunner.com
Jenifer Circle Potter

Diane Carnes
dianec55@hotmail.com
Trish Wilson
latriciawilson1@yahoo.com
Trish Gisvold
trishg917@gmail.com
Shaun Howard
pastorshaun@chillicotheassembly.com
Mark Clendaniel
jefferson_ave@yahoo.com
David Clay
Phyllis Mathis
Brent Rolsten
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET

August 10, 2016
7:00pm
Name
E-mail address
Woodrow Wilson
Portia A. Boulger
portiaboulger50@gmail.com
Nena Park
nena.park@gmail.com
Janet Griffith
Sarah Wagner
Terry Williams
Terry.Williams.2006@owu.edu
Daniel Richmond
richmond.dan.31@gmail.com
LAW DIRECTOR
Tom Morgan
tb614@aol.com
Daniel DeGarmo
danieldegarmo@yahoo.com
Obadiah E. Harris
oeharris54@yahoo.com
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBMITTED REMARKS
1. Statement of Randy Davies, Chillicothe-Ross Chamber of Commerce
Over the last year our community has battled many issues. Issues that have taken time to
understand, research, develop action plans, communicate with one another, and work together for
whats best for our city.
Chillicothe has been known for centuries as a gathering place. A place where people come
together to live, work, and play. The beauty of this area is part of its attraction. But I believe our
hometown hospitality and the way we treat one another are the key reasons were known as a
great place to visit, a profitable place to do business, and welcoming place to make friendships.
For this community to continue to be the attraction of those already here, and to those who may
be coming, we must continue to be the community with open arms. I believe our businesses want
to be welcoming and do not portray an atmosphere of hatred or bigotry toward any individual or
class.
I think the majority, if not all of our business owners, manufacturers, laborers and service
personnel work hard to be fair to those they work with, those they serve, and those they employ.
We dont, and shouldnt, tolerate any type of discrimination. And for the most part, I dont
believe this is the issue behind the negative thoughts and feelings toward this once-proposed
template of legislation that has started a divide within our community.
The proposed template offered suggestions of building another layer of government. One that has
supreme power and suggested guilt rather than offering a path to due process. It was filled with
punitive options and negative solutions.
Im appreciative that Councilman Cartee stated Monday night that it was his intent to offer a
starting place for discussion. Ive tried to keep an open mind over the past month, listening to our
chamber members, community leaders and those who have an opinion to either side of this
discussion. Ive state through all of my interactions that we do have deep concerns with some of
the proposed language, specifically the development of the commission, its structure and
authority that was written within this template. By no means does that mean we, the chamber, are
opposed to equality or fairness. We are a body that represents acceptance, one that wants to help
our community grow and prosper. One that seeks fairness to those who may be discriminated
against and one that will not tolerate discrimination or acts of violence toward anyone or any
class of people. We do, however, strive to promote economic development, address issues that
are important to business and we hope that through this process of open discussion, that IF
legislation must be passed, it does the same and is not used as a road block to work within our
city limits.
We must continue to be a gathering place in southern Ohio. To do that we must be willing to

work together, have open and fair discussions without threats of retribution because of our
different opinions and views.
I look forward for the chamber to be part of this discussion, to listen to all sides, and to work
together to help make our community one of acceptance and fairness for business, for residents,
and to those who come to our gathering place.
Thank you.
2. Statement of Jenifer Circle Potter
Thank you, Council members, for allowing me the opportunity to address you this evening.
At this time in our everyday hectic lives, when we are surrounded by threats of violence, hateful
rhetoric and so much ugliness, I want us all to take the time to breathe deeply and to remember
how to treat the least among us; for our children are watching. Please listen to one another.
Really listen and actually hear what the other person has to say. Respect each other. Respect the
opinions of others. Be kind to one another. Look into the heart of others and hear their concerns.
Find common ground and appreciate that everyone deserves to be heard and respected. We live
in a land with great diversity. Embrace that diversity. Love one another.
My name is Jenifer Circle Potter. My husband and I have lived and worked in this community
for the past 25 years. We love Chillicothe. We love the people and we love being a part of
community who is willing to accept and appreciate diversity in all life. Beginning this fall, I will
be returning to the classroom where I will begin my 26th year working in the same school
district in which I have worked my entire career, right here in this very community. During the
months of August through May, I dedicate the majority of my life to teaching, supporting,
encouraging and loving the students who are under my care. I love teaching and I love my
students. My husband and I spend our Friday nights cheering on my students on the playing field
and shaking our groove thing to the tunes of those on the marching field at half time. I am a selfproclaimed band and choir geek and I support my students who excel in musical intelligence
every chance that I get. During basketball season, my husband and I cheer with the band, the
cheerleaders and other fans every time our team takes to the court. We have cheered for soccer
teams and quiz bowl teams as well. I have even found an appreciation and understanding for the
game of baseball. I love cheering on and encouraging my students in all aspects of their young
lives. As a teacher, I cannot begin to imagine any other profession that, albeit a most difficult
undertaking, could possibly be any more rewarding as well as challenging than to help shape the
life of another human being.
During my first year of teaching, 26 years ago this month, I began the lifelong process of
developing and shaping close student-teacher relationships with my students. These students still
remain close to my heart after all of these years. One of my former students during those first
years, who is now an elementary principal in Cleveland, Ohio, sends me flowers every year for
Teacher Appreciation Week. It never fails that I tear up and my heart swells with pride when I
think of all of the wonderful students, who are now successful adults with families of their own,
whom I have been blessed to know and work with during my teaching career. I have probably
learned more from them than they ever did from me.
I would like to share the story of one student in particular. I first met J during his freshman year
of high school in 1991. He was a bright, funny, outgoing child with a huge heart and a beautiful
smile. He and I developed a strong rapport throughout his four years of high school. However,
there was a very dark time in his life that I was fortunate enough to help him through, even
though I feel that I had done nothing more than just listen to him and to show him basic human
love and kindness. A few years into his high school career, J starting acting differently. His
appearance and demeanor changed drastically. He began dressing in all black clothing, he
darkened and grew out his hair so that it covered up his beautiful smile, his circle of friends
began to disappear from his life and he seemed to retreat inside of a shell. With growing concern
each day, I feared the worst. One day, during lunch time, I called him into my room to ask what
was wrong. He began to cry. I knew that something was terribly wrong at the time but I had no
idea the amount of torment that he had been going through during his very young life. My mind
immediately began to think that he was addicted to drugs. I kept pressing him to share his story.
After many tears, he looked up at me and said, "Ms. Circle-Potter, I'm gay." My response was.
"Ok, so what is the problem?" He sobbed, I sobbed and we hugged for a long time. Since that
moment, we have had many conversations about life and about love.
Never did I dream in a million years the different path that my life was going to take at that very
moment. I suddenly realized and was horrified that my beloved student was contemplating
suicide because of the hatred and discrimination that he was facing on a daily basis as a young
gay man who was trying to conceal the person, his authentic self, that he was born to be. I could
not even begin to imagine what it would feel like for me to try and conceal from the world the
person that I truly was from birth. To hide the way that I love another, just because it was
different from most. I knew at that very moment that I had to become an ally, possibly even an
advocate, in the face of injustice and speak up for all of my students, including those who may be
gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. I made a promise to myself that day that I would not
remain silent if and when a situation of discrimination and/or injustice posed any threat to the
basic human and civil rights of any of my students.
As a teacher, how can I look into the eyes of any of my students, including my LGBTQ students,
and try to explain to them that, according to the petition that has been circulated in our
community in opposition to this ordinance, some members of their beloved community believe
that, because of who they were born to be, it would not be "appropriate" for them to seek
employment in the fields of education or childcare? That some people in this community feel
that they would be "inappropriate role models for children and youth"? That some people in this
community would find it "highly unconvincing and disturbing" for transgender individuals to
live a life that is congruent with their own gender identity? That some people in this community
believe that this ordinance " imposes the 'morality' of the sexual revolution on the City of
Chillicothe" and that "This is a morality that many of us reject as untrue and harmful to society"?
How do I look into the faces of my friends, family and colleagues in the field of education and
explain to them that some members of our community do not value equal protection for all
members of this community? That basic fairness and equality only applies to those who love
differently than you because some members of this community believe that this ordinance
"would be an official government declaration that homosexual behavior is the equivalent of

heterosexual behavior in every way"?
I try to teach my students to respect and love each other no matter who they are or how they
love. I encourage my students to be true to themselves and to be the best person that they can be
at all times. To always be kind, to respect diversity and to always treat others the way that they
would like to be treated. To always treat others with fairness and equality, even though fair may
not always be equal. To do as much good as possible in life and to pay it forward. I would never
ask something of my students that I would not be willing to do myself. Therefore, I stand here
today to speak for those who may be afraid to stand up for themselves. For those current, former
and future students who may show up at my door one day, frightened and marginalized because
they have been rejected and excluded for whom they love. To show my support for nondiscrimination in any form and to trust that goodness and love, not hurtfulness, will prevail.
Our children are watching. The LGBTQ child is listening and watching. Listening to hear what
words are used to describe the way that they love. Do those words represent actions that are
accepting or rejecting, loving or hurtful, equal or unjust?
The heterosexual child is watching. Watching parents, friends and family members. Learning
how to treat others. Will that child learn to treat others with acceptance or rejection? Love or
hurt? Equality or injustice?
Let's be civil. Let's hear each other. Let's find a way to model respect, acceptance, equality and
how to treat each other as adults. Let Council legislate fairly and justly with respectful
community input. Show our children that love is love. Our children are watching.
Matthew 25:40 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): And the king will answer them, Truly
I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it
to me.
3. Statement of Nena Park
Good evening.
My name is Nena Park. I teach preschool here in Chillicothe and I have a 7 year old daughter.
I'm in front of you now to speak about the importance of non-discrimination laws for the
protection of people living in this community now - and for the benefit of Chillicothe's future.
I brought Lydia along. She's probably introduced herself to half the people here by now. She
really likes people. All people. Sometimes, I admit, she likes people so much it's scary. Being a
parent can be terrifying. You go through the pain and struggle of birthing a child. You teach it,
you feed it and clothe it. You watch it learn and grow. You love it - more than anything. And you
know without a doubt that the pain of losing that child or having it come to significant harm
would be more than you could bear.
We do what we can, but despite our best efforts, we see all too often the terrible things that can
happen to innocent children, potentially causing long-term physical and mental harm, preventing
them from succeeding in life. We want all children to grow up safe, happy, connected and loved,
with plenty of opportunity to realize their dreams, but there are dangers everywhere! So what's a
parent to do, but to look to their community for support. Band together. Communicate with local
government as I'm doing now.
You see, there's a petition going around town in response to the proposed anti-discrimination
ordinance which I find quite disturbing. It suggests, among other things, that Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender or Queer people are not suitable for certain positions, namely in childcare
and education. Reading it, I couldn't help but think what a devastating mistake that would be.
I know some may argue that "There are plenty of straight people to fill those roles. Straight
people are better role models for children", but please hear me out.
As I said before, I teach preschool. Now there's a State guideline requiring all preschool
classrooms to include images of children of different races and cultures throughout classroom
displays and give children regular access to multicultural books and books which include kids
with disabilities.
There's a dual purpose in this. Obviously, it exposes children to diversity early on - very
important. Chillicothe's pretty white. My class, too, mostly consists of white kids, but not all.
You see, those images and those books have to be there for the lone Indian girl, the lone black
boy, whoever - to see someone who looks like them, so they can come to my classroom and,
before a word is uttered, feel like they belong. It helps them feel safe. Comfortable in their own
skin. Ready to learn. And this is relevant to today's conversation.
We want all children to grow up feeling safe, happy, connected and loved, with the chance to
realize their dreams, remember? What about the kids who grow up without meeting a single
positive Lesbian, Gay, Biesexual, Transgender or Queer role model. Not one. Because in some
communities, openly LGBTQ people are deemed unsuitable to hold active teaching roles,
regardless of skill. They have to hide or face loosing their jobs, maybe even face assault in a
public restroom because they don't appear as others think they should. How will these kids feel
about LGBTQ classmates? How will they treat them? Unfortunately, we know the answer to this
question.
Now imagine a child grows up and feels in their heart that they are gay or queer or transgender.
Imagine how alone and hopeless they might feel growing up in a community that doesn't accept
them for who they are, a community that thinks it's ok to limit a person's employment or
bathroom opportunities based on their private lives, their private parts. Imagine it. Now imagine
that's your child, in this community, growing up having to choose between being themselves or
finding meaningful employment, being respected as a person, feeling safe.
When I think about safety, I think about my own child. She hasn't hit puberty yet. It's hard to say
what she might become in her life. I think about the many children who touch my life day to day.
They are future teachers, entrepreneurs, police officers and doctors and mothers and fathers - and
there's a chance a few of them may grow up to identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
or Queer. A non-discrimination ordinance will protect these kids. It will allow them to find
positive role models who have dealt with the problems they are dealing with. It will assure that
they are free to make their own life choices, feel valued, and make positive contributions to our
community.
I also think about the effect this petition is having on my town. My heart aches with parents of
LGBTQ children and teens who can't speak out tonight for fear that their dear child will come to
significant harm as a result. I fear for the livelihoods of my teacher friends, for the futures of the
children they teach. It's for all of these that I'm speaking today, but I'm also speaking for me. If I
stood by in silence, succumbed to fear despite my straight, white, well-educated, middle-class
position of power, and the discrimination continued, I know I would suffer, because I know my
community would suffer. We are all connected, whether we acknowledge it or not. We're in this
together.
4. Statement of Roy Butcher
Thank You Mr. Cartee for bringing such an important issue before Chillicothe Council. I have
lived in Chillicothe nearly all my life. If anyone feels that discrimination does not exist then it is
a case of ignoring it. I have had personal experience with it over my years here.
Chillicothe has been decimated by drugs and drug related deaths and incarcerations. WE need
Chillicothe to be open and welcoming to ALL. We need a community where all feel free to live,
love and raise families. WE need entrepreneurs from all walks of life.
We lose people and stop people from coming here due to a reputation of close minded
individuals.
Chillicothe is beginning a resurgence. Please do not devalue ANY citizen. Protect all our
citizens.
To those who oppose this ordinance in any form, I would say, if you believe this is not needed
then nothing will change if it passes. No discrimination , No problem.
5. Statement of Dave Costilow
9 August 2016
A response to the draft proposal ordinance regarding discriminatory practices.
I think it goes without saying no one should be discriminated against. However, Americans are
free to associate, form organizations of like-minded individuals who share common interests,
values, etc. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus only accepts membership of those
who are of African-American ancestry. There are religious groups in Chillicothe and Ross
County who have doctrinal statements against alcoholic beverages, smoking, certain types of
dress, certain views on ethics and morality, and sexual behavior. The various faith communities
in Chillicothe have accepted each others right to live and work according to the doctrines of
their communities. Yet, it is the last category relating to sexual behavior and gender that seems
to be stretching limits of governance versus privacy, and moral behavior. An extremely small
minority of individuals seek to force acceptance of a particular brand of morals on the
majority. In some cases there are legitimate concerns and we have laws in place to deal with
those issues. Some voices have become strident. The Chillicothe Gazette reported that a leader
in LGBT community said an individual should lose their job because they dared express
objections to this ordinance. The intolerance of this one individual in the LGBT community is
astounding. We need to work together to find a middle ground that is acceptable to all and
without compromising anyone's moral principles.
My personal view is this ordinance is a poor solution in search of a problem. We have bigger
issues confronting this community, e.g., poverty, drugs, homelessness, and domestic abuse, just
to name a few. Enough said on that. Now to the draft proposal:
General comment: Reduce the legalese; increase the use of plain English. Some of the wording
is awkward and makes it hard to understand.
Reference Preamble, paragraph 1: The paragraph listed protected classes of
individuals. However, there are two protected classes not mentioned (based on The Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and legislation establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). They
are religion and creed. Recent history has shown that laws such as the one proposed have
been used as a cudgel against those who do not share the views or morals of the LBGT
community. If you are proposing to protect the rights of the LGBT community, you also need to
protect the rights of those who may object to what many regard as an immoral behavior or
lifestyle.
Reference Preamble, paragraph 2: While this section has religion as a protected class, creed
is not mentioned. Both paragraphs in the preamble need to be consistent.
Reference 516.01(c): The definition of Business establishment appears to be too broad. Does
this include non-profit organizations, churches, religious charities, para-church ministries?
Reference 516.01(e): As before, the protected classes of religion and creed need to be
included.
Reference 516.01(m): Do we really need this? This is legislation that is agenda driven. New
York City recently published a guide describing 31 genders that are recognized by the city and
anyone running afoul of this is endangering their livelihood for any real, perceived, or imaginary
discrimination. Has any business in Chillicothe denied any member of the LGBT community
service? Does religious corporation also include church-sponsored events and para-church
groups, e.g., Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, etc.? Do
businesses that base their enterprise on the moral and ethical teachings the Bible or Koran have
to comply with actions their faith considers immoral? At what point would a private function be
declared public and subject to this ordinance? Clarify what you mean by by its nature is
distinctly private.
Reference 516.07 (e)(1)(2): Delete section. Religious organizations should to be free to hire or
remove individuals based on the institutions creedal statement, code of conduct, or
doctrine. Government has no place in the internal workings of religious groups.
Reference 516.11: Delete entire section. We have no need for an inquisition.
6. Statement of Derek and Natasha Rapp
I am writing out of concern for the proposed anti discrimination ordinance. I feel that all
individuals should be free from discrimination, however, I believe that this ordinance is an over
reach of government authority and would perpetuate the very thing it would be said to guard
against. My concern is for business owners and city employees not being able to live and
practice business in accordance with their spiritual values out of fear of retribution by our city
government. I believe the appointed panel set to define discrimination (Mayor Feeny, Terry
Williams and Mr Cartee) are in no way bi-partisan. I believe the city government should stay out
of the private values of a city worker. Sadly, I believe it will be my evangelical brothers and
sisters ONLY who will bear the brunt of this city's ordinance by refusing to conform to secular
society's ideas on marriage and gender. Please reconsider this ordinance and reconsider the
selection of members of this panel. This city is in need of healing and it is my prayer that you
will all seek the face of God and His will on this matter.
Thank you.
7. Statement of Jim Buchanan
ISSUES SEEN IN PROPOSED CHAPTER 516
My name is Jim Buchanan and I have been a resident of Chillicothe for 29 years. I am an
attorney now in private practice, formerly working with Legal Aid as did both Mayor Feeney and
Councilman Cartee. More important to my discussion today is that I am the Moderator, or lay
leader, of Tabernacle Baptist Church.
Because the document was a first draft and not a final version, and now it has been tabled, I am
offering these insights as suggestions in your review and redrafting of any such legislation.
Religious Exemptions
In reviewing this ordinance and its religious impacts, one has to remember the second part of the
religion clauses of the Constitution. The religion clauses prohibit Congress, and through the 14th
amendment, other levels of government, from establishing a religion. The real issue here is the
second religion clause. Commonly called the Free Exercise clause, which states :
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The proposal listed religious organizations and denominations in several sections, some good
and some which would place the government in the role of prohibiting the free exercise of
religious beliefs.
On the positive side, religious organizations are excluded from the definition of places of public
accommodation if they are incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio. Most of the
churches and religious organizations in the City are so organized. The problem arises with small
store-front or family ministries which may not be incorporated. Is the city intending to prohibit
the free exercise of religion if the organization is not incorporated? Will the Commission be
called upon to determine the legality of a home or store-front church and, if so, will this entangle
the local government with religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion by some citizens?
It would be better just to exempt all religious organizations from the definition in section
516.01(m).
A second positive clause was the educational exception in 516.04(c ) for admission of students
when there is a bona fide religious preference purpose. The problems arise in several aspects of
this limited exemption. It doesnt say who determines what is bona fide, so I assume the
Commission would decide if complaint is filed. To have the Commission deciding the
legitimacy of religious beliefs would, again entangling the government with religion. The
section also doesnt exclude other things relating to religious educational institutions. Under the
definition of discrimination in Section 516.01(e ), any policy or practice, regardless of intent, that
has the effect of subjecting a person to differential treatment as a result of one of the variety of
listed characteristics is discrimination. For example, is religious teaching therefore to be
restricted by the Commission or Council if some of the curriculum used in religious schools goes
against what somebody perceives as their protected characteristics? Three of my sisters went to
parochial school and the lessons they were taught would run afoul of this legislation if taught at
Bishop Flaget school.
The issue of employment has two areas that need to be examined, one being the advertising of
jobs in Section 516.02(f) and the other being the limited employment exemption in Section
516.07. Ironically, the Commission would be greatly entangled with religion because the limited
exception gives it the power to determine religious beliefs for pastoral and other ministerial staff,
called non-secular here. Secular jobs are not exempted, but in regard to non-secular hiring, if a
party (i.e. church) asserts permissible bona fide religious or denominational preference of such a
bona fide condition, then the religious organization has the burden to prove its beliefs. The
Commission will decide on the propriety of beliefs and even then can determine that there are
less discriminatory means of satisfying the bona fide requirement. As for advertising, religious
jobs would require a restrictive job posting stating whatever religious requirements the institution
has, which would seem to violate that section of the ordinance. (See in particular Section
516.07(f) since any religious requirements exempting certain persons would be unlawful under
the Section 516,01(e) definition.
Of all of the things in this proposal, this is one clearly showing excessive entanglement of
government with religion as well as specifically opposing the Free Exercise Clause of First
Amendment. One of tests used in church-state cases is whether there is excessive entanglement
between the two. If the Commission gets to decide whether religious beliefs are bona fide, or
whether the beliefs may be real but there is a less-discriminatory way of hiring somebody
without these requirements, this clearly crosses the line.
The American Baptist Churches of Ohio has a statement on Human Sexuality and our local
church has an earlier version. Tabernacle Baptist Church has four employees, and is searching
for a youth pastor. This makes it an employer under Section 516.01(g). All employees are
church members and are subject to the church beliefs which include that God created man and
woman, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. If a Commission can tell the church
that such beliefs based on Gods word are not bona fide requirements for employment of staff
(Section 516.07(e)(1), whether secular or pastoral, or that we must hire persons who oppose
these beliefs because the Commission decides it is a less-discriminatory outcome (Section
516.07(e )(2), the government will then be deciding on the legitimacy of a churchs religious
beliefs. Each church and their doctrine would become subject to the Commissions opinions.
They would be prohibiting the free exercise of these beliefs and greatly entangling themselves
with the religious beliefs of a church.
Governments do not get to determine the legitimacy of church beliefs. I would suggest that the
exemption be expanded to simply state that religious organizations and denominations are
exempt from the employment requirements.
The last religious issue deals with the definition of discrimination under Section 516.01(d). It
brings up a touchier issue, which is commonly called the bathroom bill. It appears that other
than selection of students, religious educational institutions would be subject to all other aspects
of the proposed ordinance. This would include the touchier issue of whether requiring use of a
specific bathroom or shower would subject a person (Section 516.01(k) to discrimination on
the basis of their gender or gender identity as defined in Sections 516.01(g) and (h). Also, the
definitions of gender and gender identity use the word perceived - perceived by whom? I
assume the answer is a perception by the complainant. In our religious belief God created man
and woman and does not include how men or women perceive themselves. The religious belief
remains the same regardless of the variety of and ever-changing human beliefs.
On the positive side, the church building would be exempt because of the exemption in the
public accommodations definition,
Commission Structure and Duties
Because many of these issues were discussed at the meeting and the legal people (Judge Corzine
and Sherri Rutherford) both seemed to agree about problems with the procedures, I will limit my
comments from what I originally gave to Luke.
The description of the Commissions structure and duties raises many questions. First and
foremost is who pays for the work? Surely there will not be so many cases that cost awards
would pay for everything. Also the ordinance allocates any fines to be used for educational
purposes, not enforcement expenses.
10
There will be two non-employee members, trainings, records, hiring outside attorneys, and
investigators where does the money come from to do all this? Even if the city finds small
businesses or landlords liable, any attempt to collect through the courts would probably bring
litigation against the city as well as the individual. Also, individuals could seek protection
through the laws protecting them from collection of assets and income or through bankruptcy.
Jurisdiction
Section 516.17(f) states that the Municipal Court is to order compliance with Commission
orders. Although it is called a Municipal Court, I question whether a city can order a statecreated court what to do. Also, if the case goes to court for any reason, I imagine counterclaims
would be filed by the person against whom the case has been filed, causing more expense and
time on the part of the city. If the city won in court, those court costs would go to the court, not
to the Commission.
Remedies
There are problems with several of the remedies suggested in the bill.
The most obvious problem is with attorney fees. This ordinance is what is often called an
Attorney Full Employment Law. It allows only a complainant to receive damages and attorney
fees, which encourages the filing of complaints. The same law exists in disability cases and
numerous problems have been found in those cases. In disability cases, professional
complainants have filed hundreds of cases and get attorney fees. Targets of complaints do not
get reimbursed costs or attorney fees if they win
Businesses may be taken over by the Commission. The Commission could hire, upgrade status
of employees, order admission to unions, programs and so forth. In other words, Commission
will replace employer and union decisions on these matters. (Section 516.15(a).
For an individuals damages, the Commission decides on humiliation and embarrassment
damages, which in civil cases is usually decided by an impartial jury. What kind of procedures
would be allowed for testimony and cross-examination, filing of legal briefs and so forth? The
ordinance cites to the Rules of Civil Procedure, but those are court rules rather than the
Administrative Procedures Act which is cited in the ordinance.
Fines of $500 per day are levied for each day the Commission believes a practice continues. If
the Commission follow all procedures through investigation, subpoenas, depositions, etc., it
could take 60 days or more, which would equal $30,000 or more. For small businesses,
especially if they had no intent to discriminate, the result could easily be bankruptcy.
Another definition problem is that discrimination is defined as without regard to intent, so
somebody could innocently violate the law, or not know it is a violation. Yet Section 516.99
makes it a criminal offensive to violate any section of the law, with a penalty of up to 60 days in
jail and an additional $500 fine. The bigger question is how can a person be charged criminally
without any criminal intent?
11
Other remedies listed in the ordinance are vague by stating that such other remedies as shall be
necessary and proper
All of this procedure seems to be an attempt to create our own local Ohio Civil Rights
Commission. Section 516.19 already includes the right to file with state or federal agencies.
Now that the courts and federal agencies are including gender as discrimination on the basis of
sex, why not just use those agencies instead?
General Questions
One has to ask a number of general questions as to why this ordinance is needed. How large is
the many LGBTQ population in Chillicothe? How many have such persons have filed
complaints with Tamara Lowe about such issues as raised here? Have these complaints. If any,
been resolved without the need for this bill and Commission?
(These were addressed by Ms. Rutherford and Mr. Corzine)
The big question is why the bathroom bill? The employment and business/public
accommodations parts of the law make it a violation to deny the use of the facilities for any
discriminatory reason, which includes the sections previously cited. Perhaps we need to look at
the results in similar jurisdictions, where numerous cases have already been reported of people
using their perception as excuse to enter other genders bathrooms, showers, and so forth. Even
Target is paying for its policy now as arrests have been made in two cases already in their stores.
The worst transgender case happened in Toronto, Ontario, where a man claiming to be
transgender was admitted to womens shelters and sexually assaulted women.
It is not out of the question to ask what protections will be included in the bill for young girls and
women in these cases? Will there be additional remedies, criminal charges or other penalties for
people who abuse the system? Certainly complainants face no criminal charges, fines, costs or
attorney fees in the bill. The wording of Section 516.99 is hat whoever violates it will face
criminal charges, but there is no provision as to how a complainant could violate it, only the
person who is charged by a complainant.
Conclusion
These issues are raised so that you may review the proposal for revisions going forward. I am
glad to see the Council at least willing to do so. I remember what happened with the traffic
camera ordinance when Council approved them with only one opposing vote, but the citizens
eliminated them by referendum with around 75% of the vote.
Also, revisions now might lessen the chances of lawsuit and referendum, both of which are
possible with the current draft of the ordinance.
12
8. Statement of Leslye Coles

My transgender wife and I have experienced discrimination in Chillicothe. We were members of
the local Moose Lodge (I was a high ranking member of the ladies council). She needed to use
the restroom. I went with her into the ladies room. She used a stall separate from the other stalls
in the ladies room. There were no other persons in the room but us. We were in and out in less
than 5 minutes. Later that evening she needed to use the restroom again. I went with her again.
It was the same situation, less than 5 minutes, and no one else in there. Several days later we
received a letter in the mail stating that we were banned from the Moose Lodge for thirty days
for a violation of their policy (no violation mentioned), and that we had to appear before the
mens council to answer the charges (again, not stated).
I went before the board and was told that someone complained that she had used the ladies room
and that she could not use the ladies room as her membership (which had been done several
years before she officially changed her name in court) was male. I was reinstated, but she was
not as she refused to go before the board. We have, as have several of our LGBTQ+ friends who
were also members, since resigned from the Lodge.
Since this happened she has become more of a recluse as she is afraid that if she has to use the
ladies room in any other public place she could be arrested.
9. Statement of Kate Meehan
I am writing to express my support for an equality ordinance in the city of Chillicothe that will
protect the rights of all people regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. I attended the
meeting last night and I was sorry to hear so many voices in our community denying the need for
equal rights for all. However, there were some very powerful voices asserting the need for an
ordinance like this in our city and I hope they were heard. I hope you move forward with this
legislation in a way that satisfies the rest of the council so we can have these much needed
protections. Thank you for doing this important work.
10. Statement of Thomas Nelson (Dublin, OH)
I am writing concerning your LGBT discrimination proposal. At one point in my life I would sit
back and chuckle ignorant that this type of legislation would be needed however after almost five
years working for Lab Corporation of America I experienced it first hand. I reported to work one
night, glanced down at my table and noticed the word fag written in permanent marker. I did not
say much about it, I documented it, submitted it to H.R. and I promised myself I would not
publicly react as to not give the person who wrote it any satisfaction of seeing my heart ache. I
left the wording on the table, I was almost certain H.R. would address the issue however the
following night it was still written on the table. Again I was taken back as to how this was still
on the table, I actually scrapped it off with my knife realizing that Lab Corp was not taking this
issue seriously. My Failure to react only escalated the issue as the following night I suspected
the same person put laxatives in my food. H.R. took no position on this issue, in fact their only
action was to arrange a meeting, however they failed to attend. Eventually out of concerns for
my safety I drove to the lab on my time off to address the issue. You could imagine my surprise
13
when H.R. simply stated "These things Happen". Out of desperation I then decided to contact
Corporate Compliance. That same night H.R. came into the lab, questioned a few of my
Coworkers by stating "I have one question, who wrote fag on the table". I was again mortified
not only at the previous interactions but the fact that H.R. was using the term Fag during the
questioning. Had this been any other word they clearly would not repeat it. My Coworkers were
walking out of her office, over to my table and I expected to be asked what was written on the
table, however I was not expecting them to directly inquire about the word fag, I expected
graffiti or profanity however that was not the case. I followed up that morning with Corporate
again however shortly after I was called into the office and terminated. As the three Dublin
police officers walked me through the building I chuckled as I thought to myself there was no
way this was legal. Prior to my termination I had already followed up with the EEOC and
several Attorneys as I was certain this could not be legal. I filed a report with Ohio Civil Right,
Equal Opportunity and filed for unemployment. My Unemployment was denied, Ohio Civil
Rights basically stated Civil Rights did not apply to me because I was Gay, and EEOC stated the
word Fag was not derogatory. After 4 unemployment hearings I was finally awarded
unemployment, however I had not had any income for six months prior to this. I applied for
several jobs, in fact I even had several interviews however explaining the circumstances
surrounding my Lab Corp separation was detrimental. Had I not experienced this first hand I am
not certain I would believe it either.
I reached out to the City of Dublin however they offered no assistance. I reached out to State
Government and still no assistance. 8,000.00 dollar in legal fees, and I have nothing to show for
it.
The following link is attached to my Google Drive. It contains my original complaint as well as
a Power point containing statement from Lab Corp collected from my unemployment hearing.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7xoaXwvnTw2RHQwNmJYa284QTQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQQ3p6HVi64
In the end I applaud you for addressing this issue, some may say it is not needed, in fact I wish I
could say it was not needed as well however pleas learn from my issue.
11. Statement of Bruce Pauley
My Name is Bruce Pauley, I was at Committee Discussion On Wednesday August 10th. I went
to see what others had to say.
I going to tell you how I feel. I personally don't care if there is a law on the books or not.
Although I am a business owner I not worried because I don't judge. So it would be hard for me
to break such a law.
However I will let you know that I do not agree on the appointed commission, as people are not
trusting politicians. nor do I agree on the fine. How is the panel going to judge to see if there was
discrimination or not. If a member of the GBLT felt like they should have the job. But the
14
employer didn't think so, that would be subjective. If the employer was being discriminatory why
would someone want to work there, let a lone a business where members of the GBLT
community want to shop there. As a CCL holder there are many businesses where my gun was
not welcomed; I just don't go to those places when I am carrying. And I do think that Churches
would have right to refuse to do wedding for the GBLT for it is a religious belief. I have been
ask to do a wedding that other preachers have turned down because both parties had been
married once before. So if there is such a law, I think Churches would have to be exempt from
such a law.
But if a law is made, when will it stop. Will there be a law for Obesity? Fat people get made fun
of all the time. I think that today society has become too soft. We need to stop worrying what
other people think. I am a child of the 70's and 80's. I was made fun of do to my size all the time.
Until I started taking up for myself.
I will be honest I thought there where already laws for discrimination toward the GBLT group. I
had to look it up. I thought it would have been covered by sexual discrimination since this is a
gender issue.
12. Statement of Richard Lockwood
Thank you very much for allowing me to have the opportunity to express my comments
regarding the proposed nondiscrimination ordinance for the City of Chillicothe. I also would
like to express my appreciation for the fact that you have tabled the proposed ordinance for the
reasons that were explained at the meeting Wednesday evening at the Ross County Service
Center.
Regarding the proposed nondiscrimination ordinance I would offer the following remarks: The
City Council of Chillicothe should reject this ordinance and any other ordinance that would
include sexual preference or gender identity as a protected class under the law. My reason for
this position is that passage of such an ordinance would pose a serious threat to the first
amendment rights of all people in Chillicothe. Specifically it would be a serious impediment to
free speech and religious liberty. If these freedoms are lost, all of our cherished freedoms will be
lost in very short order. In short, we have too much to lose with this ordinance.
It is my goal to treat all people (including people of the LGBT persuasion) with respect and
compassion. I do not need an ordinance such as the one under discussion to force me to do
so. Although I do respect all people and have compassion for them, that does not mean that I am
obligated to condone all of their behaviors and lifestyle choices. One of the speakers at the
meeting on Wednesday evening asked if anybody present really believed all that is written in the
Bible. I do believe that the Bible, all of it, is God's written word to all mankind; I take it at face
value. The Bible has taken a clear stand on this issue. If anyone has a problem with the stand
that the Bible has taken on this issue, they should not bring up their problem with me but rather
the author of the Bible, that is with God.
Thank you very much for allowing me to have this opportunity to share my views. It is my hope
15
that all of the people of our community can come together and resolve this issue in a manner that
is fair to all concerned.
16
To: Chillicothe City Council Members

Re: Nondiscrimination Ordinance
Equality Ohio is a statewide organization that educates and advocates to achieve fair treatment
and equal opportunity for all Ohioans regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression.
We are grateful to be here by invitation from community members who live and work in
Chillicothe and support this proposed ordinance.
People unfamiliar with the law are usually shocked to learn that in Ohio, it is generally legal to
discriminate against LGBTQ people. Ohio does not have a law that protects LGBTQ people
from discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations. This is true, even
though nearly eight in ten Ohioans and two-thirds of Ohio small business owners favor such a
law.
Lacking a statewide law, many local cities have taken action to correct this and provide equal
opportunities for LGBTQ people. Fifteen cities in Ohio have done so to date. Even though the
list of 15 cities includes the three Cs of Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus, only about 18%
of Ohioans live in areas with nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.
Thats because Ohio is predominantly populated by small towns like Chillicothe.
Nobody should have to move to a big city just because of who they are or whom they love. And
yet, the story of moving away out of fear of not being accepted, being fired from their job, being
kicked out of their apartment, or being denied service at a business is a common story for
LGBTQ Ohioans, young and old.
As the county seat, Chillicothe has an opportunity to pave the way for fairness in Ross County.
Other county seats that have enacted the same protections include Athens and Bowling Green.
We applaud the effort by the city to discuss equal protections for LGBTQ people in Chillicothe,
and we stand by the people in Chillicothe who are working for this change.
Alex Shanks
Project and Field Director
Attached: Ohio Small Businesses Support Workplace Nondiscrimination Policies (Small

Business Majority)
118 East Main Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215 P 614-224-0400 F 614-224-4421 info@equalityohio.org
Opinion Poll
Ohio Small Businesses Support Workplace Nondiscrimination Policies
June 4, 2013
Small Business Majority

1101 14th Street, NW, Suite 1001
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 828-8357
www.smallbusinessmajority.org
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3
Main Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Vast Majority of Entrepreneurs Support Protecting Gay, Transgender
People from Employment Discrimination............................................................................................... 6
Many Entrepreneurs Have a Nondiscrimination Policy and Agree it
Benefits Business, Costs Next to Nothing................................................................................................ 8
Majorities Say Various Federal Benefits for Heterosexual Employees
Should Also Apply to Gay and Lesbian Employees ................................................................................. 9
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Poll Toplines ............................................................................................................................................12
2013 Small Business Majority
Executive Summary
Small business owners nationwide and in Ohio are doing all they can to strengthen their businesses and
put the Great Recessions effects behind them. Now more than ever, its critical they have the help of
smart employment laws allowing them to attract and retain the best talent. Scientific opinion polling
shows the vast majority of Ohio small business owners believe were long overdue for federal and state
policies protecting all workers from discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Its
good for business, it helps companies attract and retain talent and its the right thing to do, according to
our leading job creators.
A Ohio poll conducted April 8-17 for Small Business Majority by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
reveals 66% of the states entrepreneurs believe federal law should prohibit employment discrimination
against gay and transgender people. Furthermore, 70% of owners believe Ohio should have a state law
prohibiting this type of discrimination.
In fact, the vast majority of small business owners already thought such laws existed. A whopping 84% of
entrepreneurs didn't realize its currently legal under federal law to fire or refuse to hire someone because
they are gay, lesbian or transgender. A mere 5% knew it is legal. In terms of state law, 79% of
entrepreneurs were unaware it is legal in Ohio to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation or
gender identity. Small employers also strongly believe that an employer should not be able to fire or refuse
to hire someone who is gay, lesbian or transgender based on their (the employers) religious beliefs. More
than half of small employers in the Buckeye State agree this should not be permitted to occur, whether or
not working with a gay or transgender employee conflicts with an employers religious beliefs.
The majority of Ohio small business owners oppose the current federal law allowing employers to deny
married same-sex couples the family benefits they offer to heterosexual couples, and another two-thirds
oppose employees with a same-sex partner or spouse being taxed for their dependents health benefits
while employees who have heterosexual partners or spouses arent. Sixty-three percent oppose the federal
law prohibiting lesbian and gay workers spouses from being provided with the Social Security benefits
that are extended to heterosexual spouses, even though gay and lesbian employees, as well as their
employers, contribute to the Social Security system. Seven in 10 Ohio small business owners say
businesses are hurt by the federal lawknown as the Defense of Marriage Act that requires them to
treat married same-sex couples as unmarried for benefit and payroll purposes. More than half also oppose
laws prohibiting gay or lesbian people from sponsoring their partners for immigration purposes.
Considering the widespread small business support for protecting gay and transgender people from
employment discrimination, it makes sense that 57% of small business owners believe laws that protect
against discrimination can improve their bottom line. Entrepreneurs agree these kinds of laws help
employers attract the best and brightest employees, regardless of whether an employee is gay or
transgender. Additionally, entrepreneurs strongly believe implementing a nondiscrimination policy is the
right thing to do. Of employers who have a nondiscrimination policy, 83% say its because they believe all
employees should be treated fairly and equally, and 70% say they have it because its the right thing to do.
Many Ohio small businesses already have their own formal or informal policies protecting gay and
transgender workers from employment discrimination. Forty percent of survey respondents have such a
policy already. Among the reasons employers with nondiscrimination policies have them, nearly half say
their policy improves their ability to attract and retain talented employees. Of employers who offer family
benefits, nearly 6 in 10 either already offer benefits to same-sex spouses and partners of their employees,
or would do so if they had a gay or lesbian employee.
Its also important to note Ohio small business owners see little to no cost associated with having this kind
of policy in place. Of those who have adopted their own nondiscrimination policy to protect gay and
transgender workers from discrimination, 75% report the policy cost them nothing or next to nothing.
There are a number of federal laws that provide different types of protections for employees. Poll results
revealed that entrepreneurs strongly believe gay, lesbian and transgender employees should be afforded
those same employment protections.
With regard to political affiliation, 49% of small business owners identified as Republican, 23% as
Democrat and 18% as independent.
Main Findings
n Vast majority of Ohio business owners favor federal and state laws protecting gay and
transgender people from discrimination in employment:
The majority of entrepreneurs (66%) believe federal law should prohibit employment discrimination
against gay and transgender people. Seventy percent also agree Ohio should have a law prohibiting this
type of discrimination.
n The vast majority of small business owners didn't know it is legal under federal and/or
state law to fire or refuse to hire someone because they are gay or lesbian:
When asked if, to the best of their knowledge, it is legal or illegal under federal law to fire or refuse to
hire someone because they are gay or transgender, a striking 84% of small business owners said it is
illegal. Merely 5% knew it is legal. In terms of state law, 79% of entrepreneurs were unaware that it is
legal in Ohio to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
n More than half of respondents believe an employer should not be able to fire or refuse to
hire someone who is gay or transgender based on their (the employer's) religious
beliefs:
A 54% majority believes an employer should not be able to fire or refuse to hire someone who is gay or
transgender if working with a gay or transgender employee conflicts with their (the employers)
religious beliefs. Whats more, 70% believe a business should not be legally allowed to refuse services
to some customers but not others based on religious beliefs.
n Nearly six in 10 entrepreneurs agree laws protecting employees from discrimination
help boost bottom lines because they enable employers to attract the best and the
brightest:
Fifty-seven percent of small business owners believe laws that protect against discrimination improve
the businesss bottom line by attracting the best and brightest employees, regardless of whether an
employee is gay or transgender.
n Many businesses have their own policy protecting gay and transgender people from
discrimination; nearly the same number say having the policy helps them attract talent:
Forty percent of small businesses surveyed have a policy protecting gay and transgender employees.
Among the reasons employers with nondiscrimination policies have them, 47% say their policy
improves their ability to attract and retain talented employees. Additionally, entrepreneurs strongly
believe implementing a nondiscrimination policy is the right thing to do. Of employers who have a
nondiscrimination policy, 83% say its because they believe all employees should be treated fairly and
equally, and 70% say they have it because its the right thing to do.
n Nearly six in 10 employers that offer family benefits already provide or would provide
family health benefits to same-sex partners and spouses of their employees:
Forty percent of owners offer family benefits. Nearly one in 10 of these employers already provide
benefits to same-sex partners or spouses of their employees, and an additional 49% say they would do
so if they had a gay or lesbian employee.
n Policies protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination have nearly no
business cost associated with them, according to the vast majority of owners that have a
policy:
A strong 75% of small business owners who have adopted their own nondiscrimination policy to
protect gay and transgender people from discrimination report the policy has a cost of nothing or next
to nothing. Merely 2% say it had a small but significant cost, and none say it had a substantial cost.
n The majority of respondents oppose the current federal law allowing employers to deny
married same-sex couples the benefits they offer to heterosexual couples; two-thirds
oppose same-sex couples being taxed for family benefits while heterosexual couples
arent:
Fifty-four percent of small employers oppose the current federal law permitting employers to offer
family benefits to married heterosexual couples while denying those benefits to married same-sex
couples. Sixty-six percent oppose the fact that if a small business elects to provide benefits to a samesex couple, the employee must pay income taxes on their spouses/partners benefits and the employer
must pay the additional payroll taxeswhile businesses and their employees do not have to pay such
taxes for health benefits provided for heterosexual employees spouses.
n Almost two-thirds of Ohio owners oppose the federal law prohibiting lesbian and gay
workers spouses from being provided with the Social Security benefits that are
extended to heterosexual spouses:
Under federal law, lesbian and gay workers, as well as their employers, contribute to the Social
Security system, but these workers' spouses are not provided with the Social Security benefits extended
to heterosexual spouses. Sixty-three percent of entrepreneurs oppose this law.
n More than half of respondents believe the federal Family and Medical Leave Act should
provide unpaid leave for gay and lesbian employees, like it does for heterosexual
workers:
Currently, businesses covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act are required to provide
unpaid leave when a heterosexual employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse, but not when a
gay or lesbian employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse or partner. A 54% majority of
entrepreneurs believe this law should be adjusted to include gay and lesbian employees.
n Seven in 10 employers say businesses are hurt by the federal law requiring them to treat
married same-sex couples as unmarried for benefit and payroll purposes, and by laws
prohibiting gay and lesbian people from sponsoring their partners for immigration
purposes:
The federal Defense of Marriage Act requires employers to treat married same-sex couples as
unmarried for benefit and payroll purposes. Seventy percent of those surveyed agree that this law
hurts businesses by requiring them to treat their employees differently and to administer two systems
of benefits. Furthermore, 53% believe immigration laws prohibiting gay or lesbian people from
sponsoring their partners can hurt businessesparticularly those competing internationally.
n Respondents were politically diverse:
Forty-nine percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican or independent-leaning
Republican, 23% as Democrat or independent-leaning Democrat and 18% as independent.
Vast Majority of Entrepreneurs Support Protecting Gay,

Transgender People from Employment Discrimination
Scientific opinion polling reveals small business owners of all industries and political affiliations believe
gay and transgender individuals should have equal workplace discrimination protections.
Sixty-six percent of entrepreneurs believe federal law should prohibit employment discrimination against
gay and transgender people. Seventy percent of owners in Ohio also believe their state should have a law
prohibiting this type of discrimination.
Figure 1: Strong majority of owners believe federal law and Ohio law should
prohibit employment discrimination against gay and transgender people
As you may know, federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sex, age, race, and
color. However, federal law does NOT protect gay and transgender people from discrimination in
employment. Would you favor or oppose such a federal law?
In addition state law does NOT protect gay and transgender people from discrimination in
Strongly favor
Somewhat favor
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
66%
34%
Would you favor or oppose a FEDERAL law

protecting gay and transgender people from
discrimination in employment?
Would you favor or oppose a STATE law
protecting gay and transgender people from
discrimination in employment?
70%
0%
20%
30%
40%
60%
80%
100%
We also asked small business owners if it is legal or illegal, to the best of their knowledge, to fire or refuse
to hire someone because they are gay or lesbian under federal law. A striking 84% of small business
owners incorrectly believed it is illegal, while merely 5% correctly believed it is legal. In terms of state law,
79% of entrepreneurs were unaware that it is legal in Ohio to refuse to hire someone based on sexual
preference or gender identity.
Figure 2: Vast majority of small employers didnt know it is legal to fire or
refuse to hire someone because they are gay or lesbian
To the best of your knowledge, is it legal or illegal under state or federal law to fire or refuse to hire
someone because they are gay or lesbian?
Legal
Illegal
Don't know
To the best of your knowledge, is it legal or

illegal under federal law to fire or refuse to hire 5%
84%
And to the best of your knowledge, is it legal or

illegal under state law to fire or refuse to hire 7%
79%
0%
20%
40%
11%
14%
60%
80%
100%
A 54% majority believes an employer should not be able to fire or refuse to hire someone who is gay or
transgender, regardless of whether working with a gay or transgender employee conflicts with their (the
employers) religious beliefs. Whats more, 70% believe a business should not be legally allowed to refuse
services to some customers but not others based on religious beliefs.
Figure 3: Majority agrees an employer shouldnt be able to fire or refuse to
hire someone who is gay or transgender, based on their religious beliefs
Do you believe that an employer should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone who is gay or
transgender if working with a gay or transgender employee conflicts with the employer's religious
beliefs?
Strongly
No
33%
Yes
54%
21%
22%
0%
Not strongly
46%
24%
20%
40%
60%
A strong majority of entrepreneurs (57%) agree laws protecting employees from discrimination help boost
bottom lines because they enable employers to attract the best and the brightest workers.
Figure 4: Majority of entrepreneurs believe laws protecting gay and
transgender employees from discrimination boost the business bottom line
Please indicate which of these statements comes closer to your point of view, even if neither one is
exactly right.
Strong
Laws that protect against discrimination improve
the business bottom line by attracting the best
and brightest employees, regardless of whether
the employee is gay or transgender.
26%
Laws that require employers to hire gay and

transgender people may be well intended, but the
legal and implementation costs end up hurting
businesses and their bottom line.
* Numbers do not add up due to rounding

Not Strong
30%
22%
0%
21%
20%
*57
%
43%
40%
60%
Many Entrepreneurs Have a Nondiscrimination Policy and Agree it

Benefits Business, Costs Next to Nothing
Four in 10 businesses have their own policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination.
Among the reasons employers with nondiscrimination policies have them, 47% report the policy improves
their ability to attract and retain talented employees. This is the third most cited reason, next to
entrepreneurs belief that all employees should be treated fairly and equally (83%), and that having this
kind of policy is the right thing to do (70%).
Figure 5: Reasons why employers have adopted policies protecting gay and
transgender employees from workplace discrimination
Which of the following best describes the reasons your company adopted a policy protecting gay
and transgender people from discrimination in hiring and promotion? You may mark as many
responses as you want.
All employees should be treated fairly and

equally
83%
It is the right thing to do
70%
Improves our ability to attract and retain talented

employees
47%
Good for business
38%
Even if it is not a law now, it will be soon
29%
Avoid lawsuits
41%
Required to under state or local law
20%
Employees asked for it
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall, 40% of owners offer family benefits. Of that group, 57% say they either provide or would provide
family health benefits to same-sex partners and same-sex spouses of their employees: 8% already provide
benefits to same-sex partners and spouses of their employees, and an additional 49% say they would do so
if they had a gay or lesbian employee. The 43% minority says they would not.
According to the vast majority of owners who have policies protecting gay and transgender employees
from discrimination, these policies have a business cost that is nothing or next to nothing.
Of business owners who do not have a formal policy, 36% estimated the cost of creating a policy
protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination to be nothing or next to nothing. Twenty-nine
percent estimated a small but insignificant cost. Twenty-one percent estimated a small but significant
cost, and 12% estimated a substantial cost.
However, according to business owners who actually have a policy, the cost of creating the policy is nearly
non-existent. A strong 75% of small business owners that have adopted their own nondiscrimination
policy to protect gay and transgender people from discrimination report the policy has a cost of nothing or
next to nothing. Twenty-three percent report it being a small, insignificant cost and only 2% say its a
small, but significant cost. None report it being a substantial cost.
Figure 6: Nearly four in 10 owners estimate that a nondiscrimination policy

costs little to nothing; three-quarters who have them report that to be true
Which of the following best describes how much you estimate it would cost your business to create
a policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination? (Asked of those who dont
have a policy)
Thinking back, which of the following best describes how much it cost your business to adopt a
non-discrimination policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination? (Asked of
those with policy)
36%
Nothing or next to nothing
75%
29%
A small, insignificant cost
23%
21%
A small, but significant cost
Doesn't have policy
2%
Has policy
14%
A substantial cost
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Majorities Say Various Federal Benefits for Heterosexual

Employees Should Also Apply to Gay and Lesbian Employees
There are a number of federal laws that provide different types of protections for employees. Poll results
revealed that entrepreneurs strongly believe gay, lesbian and transgender employees should be afforded
the same employment protections.
Specifically, 54% of small employers oppose the current federal law permitting employers to offer family
benefits to married heterosexual couples while denying those benefits to married same-sex couples. And,
66% oppose the federal law requiring that when a small business elects to provide benefits to a same-sex
couple, the employee must pay income taxes on their spouses/partners benefits and the employer must
pay the additional payroll taxeswhile businesses and their employees do not have to pay such taxes for
health benefits provided for heterosexual employees spouses.
Figure 7: Two-thirds of owners believe same-sex couples and their employers
should not have to pay extra taxes for family benefits
Do you favor or oppose this different taxation of health benefits for same-sex couples?
8%
Favor
10%
Oppose
Strongly
18%
37%
0%
10%
20%
Somewhat
66%
29%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
In addition, under current federal law, lesbian and gay workers, as well as their employers, contribute to
the Social Security systembut these workers' spouses are not provided with the Social Security benefits
extended to heterosexual workers spouses. Sixty-three percent of entrepreneurs oppose this law.
Figure 8: Nearly two-thirds of owners oppose gay and transgender employees
spouses not being extended the Social Security benefits extended to
heterosexual workers spouses
Under federal law, lesbian and gay workers, as well as their employers, contribute to the Social
Security system, but these workers' spouses are not provided with the Social Security benefits
extended to heterosexual spouses. Do you favor or oppose this current federal law?
Strongly
Favor
15%
12%
27%
30%
Oppose
0%
10%
Somewhat
63%
33%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Furthermore, businesses covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act are required to provide
unpaid leave when a heterosexual employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse, but not when a gay
or lesbian employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse or partner. A 54% majority of entrepreneurs
favor adjusting this law to include gay and lesbian employees.
Federal law also requires employers to treat married same-sex couples as unmarried for benefit and
payroll purposes. Seventy percent of those surveyed agree this hurts businesses by requiring them to treat
their employees differently and to administer two systems of benefits. On the other hand, only 30% agree
this law helps businesses by allowing them to offer benefits to heterosexual couples but avoid offering
benefits to same-sex couples.
Figure 9: Owners agree current federal law hurts employers by making them
treat married same-sex couples as unmarried for benefit and payroll purposes
Currently, federal law requires employers to treat married same-sex couples as unmarried for
benefit and payroll purposes. Some businesses have argued that this law hurts businesses by
requiring them to treat their employees differently and to administer two systems of benefits and
payroll--one for heterosexual couples and another for same-sex couples. Other businesses have
argued this law helps businesses by allowing them to offer benefits to heterosexual couples but
avoid offering benefits to same-sex couples. Which comes closer to your opinion?
30%
This federal law hurts businesses
This federal law helps businesses
70%
10
Turning to another topic, current law prohibits gay or lesbian people from sponsoring their partners for
the purpose of immigration. Fifty-three percent agree this can hurt businessesparticularly those that
compete internationallyby making it harder to attract and retain workers, and therefore oppose the law
prohibiting gay or lesbian people from sponsoring their partners for the purpose of immigration.
Conclusion
Small business owners views clearly underscore the need to for improved employment laws that protect
all American workers from discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Entrepreneurs in Ohio resoundingly favor federal and state laws protecting gay and transgender people
from discrimination in employment. In fact, the vast majority was under the impression that such laws
already existed. This shows our employment laws are lagging much too far behind common perceptions
and expectations people have about employment.
Many small businesses voluntarily provide protections to gay, lesbian and transgender employees and
report positive outcomes of implementing these policies. This shows why they want these laws officially
on the books. Protecting all employees from workplace discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation
and gender identity, helps small business owners attract and retain the best talentand it costs virtually
nothing. Entrepreneurs opinions make it evident: its time for our employment laws to reflect the modern
day workplace and the views of the people who shape it.
Methodology
This poll reflects a national Internet survey of 508 small business owners with oversamples of 100
respondents each in Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, creating a combined
data set of 1,008 small business owners. This report reflects the data from a combined database where the
state oversamples were weighted down to reflect their proportion of the target population. The sample
was drawn from Research Now and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Small Business
Majority. The survey was conducted from April 8-17, 2013. The overall margin of error is +/- 3.1%. The
margin of error for state-level data is +/- 9.8%.
11
Poll Toplines
April 8-17, 2013
100 Small Business Owners with 100 or fewer employees
Q.1 Do you own your own business?
OH
Yes .................................................................... 100
No ........................................................................Not sure ...............................................................(ref:SBOSCR)
Q.2 How many people are directly employed by your business or company, including yourself?
OH
1 ...........................................................................2-5 ..................................................................... 65
6-10 ................................................................... 16
11-25 .................................................................. 15
26-50 .................................................................. 3
51-100 ................................................................. 1
More than 100 ....................................................(TERMINATE IF NOT ANSWERED) ................(ref:NUMEMPLY)
Q.3 Which ONE of the following categories best describes your business? OH
Retail (such as a shop or store) ........................ 10
Service industry ................................................ 12
Finance and insurance ....................................... 6
Real estate .......................................................... 8
Construction ...................................................... 4
Information technology ..................................... 7
Manufacturing ................................................... 6
Whole sale trade ................................................ 1
Arts, entertainment and recreation ................... 6
Retail services (such as car repair, home
repair, landscaping) ........................................... 1
Restaurant.......................................................... 4
Scientific and technical services ........................ 3
Administrative support and accounting ........... 2
Agriculture ..........................................................Legal ................................................................... 1
Medical or dental ............................................... 3
Other ................................................................. 25
(Prefer not to say) ...............................................(ref:BUSTYPE)
Q.4 Now we're going to ask you some questions about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers. To
the best of your knowledge, is it legal or illegal under federal law to fire or refuse to hire someone because
they are gay or lesbian?
OH
Legal ................................................................... 5
Illegal ................................................................ 84
Don't know ......................................................... 11
(ref:KNOWFED)
Q.5 And to the best of your knowledge, is it legal or illegal under state law to fire or refuse to hire someone
12
because they are gay or lesbian?

OH
Legal ................................................................... 7
Illegal ................................................................ 79
Don't know ........................................................ 14
(ref:KNOWST)
Q.6 As you may know, federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sex, age, race, and
color. However, federal law does NOT protect gay and transgender people from discrimination in
OH
Strongly favor ................................................... 39
Somewhat favor ................................................ 27
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 16
Strongly oppose ................................................ 18
(Don't know/refuse) ...........................................Total Favor ........................................... 66
Total Oppose ........................................ 34
Favor-Oppose ....................................... 32
(ref:SUPENDA1)
Q.7 (SKIP IN ENDA STATES) In addition (STATE) state law does NOT protect gay and transgender
people from discrimination in employment. Would you favor or oppose a STATE law protecting gay and
transgender people from discrimination in employment?
OH
Strongly favor ................................................... 44
Somewhat favor ................................................ 25
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 14
Strongly oppose ................................................ 16
(Don't know/refuse) .......................................... .Total Favor ........................................... 70
Total Oppose ........................................ 30
Favor-Oppose ....................................... 39
(ref:SUPENDA2)
Q.8 Do you believe that an employer should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone who is gay or
transgender if working with a gay or transgender employee conflicts with the employer's religious beliefs?
OH
Yes, strongly ...................................................... 22
Yes, not strongly ............................................... 24
No, not strongly ................................................ 21
No, strongly....................................................... 33
(Don't know/refuse) ...........................................Total Yes .............................................. 46
Total No ............................................... 54
Yes-No .................................................. -8
(ref:SUPENDA3)
13
Q.9 Please indicate which of these statements comes closer to your point of view, even if neither one is
exactly right.
1st
1st 2nd 2nd
Total Total 1st
Stmt Not Not Stmt DK/ 1st 2nd
Strng Strng Strng Strng Ref Stmt Stmt 2nd
Laws that protect against discrimination
improve the business bottom line by
attracting the best and brightest
employees, regardless of whether the
employee is gay or transgender.
OR
Laws that require employers to hire gay
and transgender people may be well
intended, but the legal and implementation
costs end up hurting businesses and their
bottom line.
OH ........................................................ 26
(ref:PAIRS2)
30
21
22
57
43
13
Q.10 Does your business have a policy, formal or informal, protecting gay and transgender people from
discrimination?
OH
Yes ..................................................................... 40
No ...................................................................... 48
(Don't know/refused) ....................................... 12
(ref:POLICY4)
Q.11 (IF YES ON POLICY4, ASK) Which of the following best describes this policy?
OH
This policy is a formal, written nondiscrimination or Equal Employment
Opportunity policy. ........................................... 36
This policy is an informal policy that is not
written down. .................................................... 64
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:POLICY5)
Q.12 (IF YES ON POLICY4, ASK) Which of the following best describes the reasons your company
adopted a policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination in hiring and promotion?
You may mark as many responses as you want.
OH
All employees should be treated fairly and
equally ............................................................... 83
It is the right thing to do ................................... 70
Improves our ability to attract and retain
talented employees ........................................... 47
Good for business ............................................. 38
Even if it is not a law now, it will be soon ........ 29
Avoid lawsuits ................................................... 41
Required to under state or local law ................ 20
Employees asked for it ....................................... 3
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:REASON1)
14
Q.13 (IF NO ON POLICY4) Which of the following best describes how much you estimate it would cost
your business to create a policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination?
OH
Nothing or next to nothing ............................... 36
A small, insignificant cost ................................. 29
A small, but significant cost.............................. 21
A substantial cost .............................................. 14
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:COST3)
Q.14 (IF YES ON POLICY4) Thinking back, which of the following best describes how much it cost your
business to adopt a non-discrimination policy protecting gay and transgender people from
discrimination?
OH
Nothing or next to nothing ............................... 75
A small, insignificant cost ................................. 23
A small, but significant cost............................... 2
A substantial cost ................................................(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:COST4)
Q.15 (IF NO ON POLICY4, ASK) Which of the following best describes the reasons your company has not
adopted a policy protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination?
OH
Never came up .................................................. 50
Business is too small to worry about things
like this .............................................................. 58
Do not have gay or transgender employees ..... 37
Moral or religious objections ............................ 13
Will cost too much ..............................................(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:REASON2)
Q.16 Does your company provide FAMILY health benefits to your employees?
OH
Yes ..................................................................... 40
No ...................................................................... 60
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:BNFITS1)
Q.17 (IF YES ON BNFITS1) Does your company provide family health benefits to the same-sex partners or
same-sex spouses of your employees?
OH
Yes ...................................................................... 8
I would if I had a gay or lesbian employee ....... 49
No ...................................................................... 43
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:BNFITS2)
15
Q.18 Currently, federal law allows employers who offer family benefits to married heterosexual couples to
deny those family benefits to married same-sex couples. Do you favor or oppose the current federal law?
OH
Strongly favor ....................................................17
Somewhat favor ................................................ 21
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 24
Strongly oppose ................................................ 30
(Don't know/refused) ........................................ 7
Total Favor ........................................... 39
Total Oppose ........................................ 54
Favor-Oppose ....................................... -15
(ref:BENFIT3)
Q.19 Under the same federal law, when an employer does provide health benefits for a same-sex spouse or
partner of one of their employees, the employee is required to pay income taxes on the value of this
benefit, and the employer is required to pay the additional payroll taxes. Businesses and their employees
do not have to pay such taxes when a business provides health benefits to an employees heterosexual
spouse. Do you favor or oppose this different taxation of health benefits for same-sex couples?
OH
Strongly favor .................................................... 8
Somewhat favor ................................................ 10
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 29
Strongly oppose ................................................ 37
Total Favor ............................................ 18
Total Oppose ........................................ 66
Favor-Oppose ....................................... -49
(ref:BENFIT4)
Q.20 Under federal law, lesbian and gay workers, as well as their employers, contribute to the Social
Security system, but these workers' spouses are not provided with the Social Security benefits extended to
heterosexual spouses. Do you favor or oppose this current federal law?
OH
Strongly favor ................................................... 15
Somewhat favor ................................................ 12
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 33
Strongly oppose ................................................ 30
Total Favor ............................................27
Total Oppose ........................................ 63
Favor-Oppose ....................................... -36
(ref:SOCSEC)
16
Q.21 Businesses covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act ARE required to provide unpaid
leave when a heterosexual employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse, but not when a gay or
lesbian employee needs to care for a sick or injured spouse or partner. Regardless of whether your
business is covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, do you favor or oppose changing the act
to require businesses to provide equal leave for same-sex couples?
OH
Strongly favor ................................................... 27
Somewhat favor ................................................ 27
Somewhat oppose ..............................................17
Strongly oppose ................................................ 18
Total Favor ........................................... 54
Total Oppose ........................................ 35
Favor-Oppose ........................................ 19
(ref:FMLA)
Q.22 Currently, federal law requires employers to treat married same-sex couples as unmarried for
benefit and payroll purposes. Some businesses have argued that this law hurts businesses by requiring
them to treat their employees differently and to administer two systems of benefits and payroll--one for
heterosexual couples and another for same-sex couples. Other businesses have argued this law helps
businesses by allowing them to offer benefits to heterosexual couples but avoid offering benefits to samesex couples. Which comes closer to your opinion?
OH
This federal law hurts businesses ..................... 70
This federal law helps businesses ..................... 30
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:DOMA1)
Q.23 Unlike married heterosexual couples, current law prohibits gay or lesbian people from sponsoring
their partners for the purpose of immigration. Some have argued this hurts businesses, particularly those
that compete internationally, by making it harder to attract and retain workers. Do you favor or oppose
the law prohibiting gay or lesbian people from sponsoring their partners for the purpose of immigration?
OH
Strongly favor ................................................... 18
Somewhat favor ................................................ 28
Somewhat oppose ............................................. 31
Strongly oppose ................................................ 22
Total Favor ........................................... 46
Total Oppose ........................................ 53
Favor-Oppose ........................................ -7
(ref:IMMIG)
17
Q.24 Which one or two of these is the best reason to support laws protecting gay and transgender people
from discrimination?
OH
Gay and transgender people should be
judged on their work performance alone ......... 57
It is the right thing to do ................................... 37
It can attract and retain the most talented
employees ......................................................... 20
It is good for business ........................................ 3
Small businesses can better compete with
bigger companies ................................................None of these .................................................... 21
(Don't know/refused) .........................................(ref:LIST)
Q.25 Should a business owner be legally allowed to refuse to provide services to some customers but not
others based on religious beliefs?
OH
Yes, strongly ...................................................... 13
Yes, not strongly ................................................17
No, not strongly ................................................ 21
No, strongly....................................................... 49
(Don't know/refused) .........................................Total Yes .............................................. 30
Total No ............................................... 70
Yes-No ................................................. -41
(ref:ALLOW1)
Q.26 In what year were you born?
OH
18 - 24..................................................................25 - 29 ................................................................ 1
30 - 34 ............................................................... 12
35 - 39 ............................................................... 10
40 - 44 ................................................................ 9
45 - 49 ............................................................... 27
50 - 54 ................................................................ 2
55 - 59................................................................. 9
60 - 64 ................................................................ 7
65 and over ....................................................... 14
(No answer) ....................................................... 8
(ref:AGE)
Q.27 Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or
something else?
OH
Democrat .......................................................... 16
Independent-lean Democrat ............................. 7
Independent ...................................................... 18
Independent-lean Republican .......................... 15
Republican ........................................................ 34
Other .................................................................. 5
Don't know/Refused .......................................... 4
(ref:PTYID1)
18
Q.28 For statistical purposes only, which of these categories best describes the gross revenue of your
business in 2012?
OH
Less than $100,000 .......................................... 29
$100,000 to under $250,000 .......................... 23
$250,000 to under $500,000 .......................... 12
$500,000 to under $1 million .......................... 13
$1 million to under $2 million .......................... 5
$2 million or under $5 million .......................... 2
$5 million or more ............................................. 4
Don't know ......................................................... 1
Prefer not to say ................................................. 11
(ref:INCOME)
Q.29 For statistical purposes only, which of these categories best describes your family's personal incomeincluding any pass through income from your business- in 2011?
OH
Less than $50,000 ............................................. 11
$50,000-$99,999 ............................................. 36
$100,000-$249,999 ......................................... 34
$250,000-$999,999 .......................................... 2
Over $1 million .................................................. 1
Don't know ......................................................... 4
Prefer not to say ................................................ 12
(ref:PERSINC)
Q.30 Do you currently have or have you had anyone in the past working for you that you know to be
gay,lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
OH
Yes ..................................................................... 27
No ...................................................................... 49
Not sure ............................................................. 24
(ref:KNOWGAY5)
Q.31 For statistical reasons only, do you consider yourself to be heterosexual or straight, gay, lesbian,
bisexual or transgender?
OH
Straight or heterosexual ................................... 97
Gay ......................................................................Lesbian ................................................................Bisexual ...............................................................Transgender ....................................................... 1
(ref:LGBT)
Q.32 What is your religion?
OH
Protestant .......................................................... 22
Catholic ............................................................. 21
Other Christian ................................................. 24
Not affiliated or nothing in particular .............. 21
Jewish ................................................................ 2
Mormon ..............................................................Other non-Christian religion ............................. 2
Muslim/Islam .................................................... 4
(ref:RELIGTFN)
19
Q.33 How often do you attend church or other religious services?

OH
Every week ........................................................ 29
Once or twice a month ....................................... 11
Several times a year ...........................................17
Hardly ever ....................................................... 23
(Never) ...............................................................17
(ref:RELIGB)
Q.34 What is your race?
OH
White ................................................................. 77
African American or Black ............................... 15
Hispanic or Latino ..............................................Asian or Pacific Islander .................................... 2
American Indian or Native American ................Other .................................................................. 2
Biracial or multiracial ........................................ 1
Prefer not to say ................................................. 3
(ref:RACE)
Q.35 What is your gender?
OH
Male................................................................... 63
Female ............................................................... 37
(ref:GENDER)
20

Community Affairs Meeting Minutes

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Community Affairs Meeting Minutes

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Welcome and Introductions

Committee Assignment and Process

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

the language was an attempt to engineer a broad-brush solution to a non-existent

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Concluding Committee Discussion

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Welcome and Introductions

The Community Affairs Committee is a 3-member committee of Chillicothe City

There is no ordinance currently before the entire City Council.

The Community Affairs Committee is examining a legislative request as to what a

Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7pm Public Hearing on Nondiscrimination Ordinance

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ORDINANCE NO. __________

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TABLED ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

FILED WITH THE MAYOR

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Jenifer Circle Potter

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

We must continue to be a gathering place in southern Ohio. To do that we must be willing to

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

"would be an official government declaration that homosexual behavior is the equivalent of

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

8. Statement of Leslye Coles

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

Community Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016

To: Chillicothe City Council Members

Attached: Ohio Small Businesses Support Workplace Nondiscrimination Policies (Small

Small Business Majority

2013 Small Business Majority

2013 Small Business Majority