A win for local LGBTQ+, Chambersburg Borough Council adopts non-discrimination ordinance

In a 7-3 vote, the Chambersburg Borough Council approved the adoption of a non-discrimination ordinance to bridge a protection gap in Pennsylvania law for the local LGBTQ+ community.

Council chambers were packed to capacity Monday evening, with full overflow seating in the hallway totaling nearly 100 people. An additional 140 people participated virtually. 

Public comment and council deliberations stretched on for almost four hours, with over 50 residents - from inside and outside of the borough - who addressed the council in either support or disapproval of the adoption of such an ordinance. 

The non-discrimination agreement was modeled after Gettysburg's ordinance, which passed with unanimous council support last December.

In late April, the Chambersburg Borough Council approved the creation of an Exploratory Committee to research similar ordinances in communities across the state, speak with experts on the matter and address concerns from the community. A petition of 350 signatures was presented to the council in support of an ordinance.

Kathy Leedy, Third Ward, Michael Herbert, Second Ward, and Heath Talhelm, Fifth Ward, were chosen by Council President Alice Elia to chair the committee and address the council and public of their findings.

The report presented Monday evening explained that Pennsylvania is the only state in the Northeast that does not have explicit statewide LGBTQ+ non-discrimination protections by law. However, 69 communities, covering 35% of the state's population, have adopted local ordinances to bridge the gap.

A local ordinance would make it illegal to discriminate in housing, employment and public accommodations (including stores, restaurants, theatres, hotels).

"In our view, it is not an extreme position to have an ordinance that requires residents, businesses and organizations to treat everyone in the community equally in matters of housing, employment and public accommodation," the report read.

If a person files a discrimination complaint with the borough, that individual would also be encouraged to dual file with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, a state agency that is tasked with the investigation of alleged discrimination. 

The case would first go to nonbinding, confidential mediation, where a local Human Relations Commission of trained volunteers, potentially including pastors, counselors, attorneys, etc., would hear from both sides. Volunteers would be offered free training from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

If the local commission is unable to resolve the matter, the state Human Relations Commission would continue the case at no cost to the complainant or the Borough.

Read the full report here: 

While some residents have expressed concerns about costs to taxpayers, the committee has remained steadfast in its report that there would be little cost associated with such an ordinance.

Many community members expressed a number of additional concerns, including the unintended consequences, liability to business owners, the impact on religious freedoms and creating an opportunity for sexual predators. 

Danny Thrush, of Chambersburg, said he doesn't believe discrimination exists in Chambersburg.

"I firmly believe that the push for this ordinance is not based on truth or fact, but it is based on a very dangerous ideology that has spread across our country and is trying to infiltrate our community now," he said.

Thomas Hofekker, a Chambersburg small business owner, is concerned about liability.

"In this day, when feelings are so fragile, as a very small business owner, I will be forced to decide whether I can - and whether I will - continue to conduct business in Chambersburg," he said. "In a day of frivolous lawsuits, the legal ramifications of passing this ordinance would not only be financially devastating to my business, but the harm done to my reputation as a Christian businessman could have untold consequences."

Brenda Honn, of Mercersburg, said she was a concerned citizen taking a stand.

"People are so sensitive about everything these days - people are looking for discrimination, even when it's not there," she said. "What has this world come to when we can't look at someone without being accused of racism or gender, sexual orientation discrimination. People were already defensive and things like Critical Race Theory and Cancel Culture hasn't helped."

Ron Gipe, of Chambersburg, said he has been in charge of human relations departments for almost 50 years for three major employers in Franklin County.

"I think there is a gap in Pennsylvania, related to housing, I'll give that," he said. "But let's talk about employment. Employment has absolutely been secured. There is discrimination but there is that there is a remedy for anybody who's discriminated by any employer in Franklin County who has 15 or more employees. That's Civil Rights Act, Section 7, 1964."

Kimberly Wertz, of Chambersburg, said that people opposed to the ordinance haven't been discriminated against. 

"Well, guess what, here I am," Wertz said. "I have been discriminated against, and I have had my life threatened. I am trans."

Matt McBride, a former educator in Chambersburg, expressed criticism of those who opposed the ordinance.

"The thread I've seen through those who stand up at this podium is that they're against discrimination as long as nothing is asked of them, there's no chance that their lives would ever be changed and as long as it's on their terms," he said. 

Melissa Matison challenged those who said they haven't seen discrimination in Chambersburg.

“I am in support of this ordinance because discrimination does happen. When my son was born seven years ago, we had trouble finding a daycare center that would take him because he had two moms. It was an issue for a lot of daycare centers around here … this will give me peace of mind that I have someplace to go if need be.”

Brendon Bittle, of Chambersburg, was exasperated by those who challenged the Exploratory Committee's report.

"I'm amazed at the number of people that didn't bother to listen to Council member Leedy, when she got up and spoke about the definition of all this," he said. "These people aren't protected, so the fact that there's a number of people coming up here saying that these people are protected without listening to the logic and the reasoning and the facts is remarkable."

He was one of several speakers who noted a recent publication, "Out in Central PA" by William Burton and Barry Loveland.

"It came out in 2020 and it has a litany of information about serious accusations and things that have gone down in the past," he said.

Additionally, three religious leaders within the community - Christopher Frye, pastor at St. Luke's Evangelical Church, Scott Bowerman, pastor at Central Presbyterian Church and Renatta Harper, reverend at St. James A.M.E. Church - expressed their support of the non-discrimination ordinance.

"My faith walk is as a believer in Jesus Christ and he said that they'll know that we are Christians by our love," Harper said. "I don't know what all the answers are. I might see you all one day on the other side and then he'll make it all plain. But until then, I know that my job is to treat everyone and give everyone else the opportunity to live in a place where they feel free, and where they are not judged based on the way they identify. "

More:Locals support LQBTQ+, urges Chambersburg Borough Council for non-discrimination ordinance

More:Chambersburg Borough Council approves exploratory committee for non-discrimination

More:Chambersburg council reprimands member for violating new non-discrimination policy

Following public comment, Herbert made a motion to adopt a non-discrimination ordinance, seconded by Telhalm.

Council member Allan Coffman, who was reprimanded for discrimination this year, criticized the council's handling of the matter.

"This protection already exists state level and federal level," he said. "The committee has recommended this to us. Thanks to the committee for their good work that they did but you have to remember that this committee was hand-chosen, hand-picked by the council president. There were no members of that group that were against this. It was a stacked deck. That's the way I feel about it."

Coffman and council member Bill Everly said the ordinance approval was being rushed through.

"My question to everyone in this room is, what is the big hurry," Everly said. "Why is this being forced tonight? Why isn't there more discussion, as both sides have made productive comments tonight? Why isn't there going to be more dialogue about this? Why is this being forced down counsel's throat tonight?"

Council member Sharon Bigler, who works as a therapist, addressed some of the concerns from the community.

"I keep hearing about sex offenders, and I keep hearing about sex in the bathroom, and oh my god, you know there's gonna be sex here and sex there," she said. "I want to tell you something. Take this home with you and think about it. The predators in your life - most of them are not the people who are in the restroom, waiting for your child to walk in. Your predators are your next-door neighbors or your teacher, Uncle Bobby."

She expressed her support of the ordinance.

"This is the nature of the game," she said. "This is the nature of being human. You're all here tonight because you believed in something, and because you had concerns for something, and you look at this council. We're not perfect, but I would ask that, if we can just at least show some compassion and some acceptance and some understanding."

Herbert, Leedy, Talhelm, Dennis Schmaltz, Barbara Beattie, Bigler and Elia voted to adopt the ordinance.

John Huber, Everly and Coffman voted against it.

Carley Bonk is a Watchdog Reporter for the USA Today Network - Pennsylvania. Her coverage spans across the southcentral region of Pennsylvania. She can be reached at cbonk@publicopinionnews.com or on Twitter at @carls_marie.