Wichita City Council members explain why they voted to table anti-discrimination ordinance

Wichita City Council member Becky Tuttle, who successfully motioned last week to table the city’s proposed anti-discrimination ordinance for 90 days, says the conversation around the proposal has been too divisive and misinformed.

The proposed ordinance would ban discrimination in employment and housing within city limits on the basis of “age, color, disability, familial status, gender identity, genetic information, national origin or ancestry, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status or any other factor protected by law.”

It would provide an exemption to religious organizations for the employment of workers “connected with the carrying on of the organization’s religious teaching, ministry, religious duties or practices, advancement of religion, or other religious activities.”

“Sometimes, when things are moving quickly and there’s lots of misinformation, the best thing that you can do is pause and make sure that you have everybody on the same page,” Tuttle said Thursday.

But Vice Mayor Brandon Johnson, one of just two votes against tabling the ordinance, said history has shown that waiting around for a consensus on civil rights is futile.

“Ninety days or 90 years, there are going to be people who are concerned with this because it is offering protection to groups who are discriminated against,” Johnson said at last Tuesday’s meeting.

Dozens of public speakers filled the last two council meetings, many arguing that the ordinance would infringe on the religious freedom of business owners with deeply held convictions about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Tuttle said she considers herself to be a strong ally of the LGBTQIA+ community. During her stint at the Sedgwick County Health Department, she led the department that oversaw HIV and STD testing and prevention, which did routine outreach to the community.

“I have been involved with the LGBT community. I have actually helped to formulate an LGBT health coalition that is still in existence,” Tuttle said.

“For anyone to question my beliefs, it’s almost unconscionable if you look at my 25-year career of serving everyone and treating everyone with respect and dignity.”

Council member Cindy Claycomb, who joined Tuttle in her vote to table the ordinance, said she also considers herself to be an ally.

“Yes, I mean, I think that I have voted to support them, even though I guess some of them don’t think so on my Tuesday vote, but that’s their interpretation,” Claycomb said Thursday. “I am standing strong that we need a non-discrimination ordinance.”

Council member Jared Cerullo, a married gay man who also voted to table the ordinance, said that within the past week, he received at least 1,000 emails from constituents about the proposal.

“I would say 90% of all contacts that I received were in favor of at least, you know, stalling this so we can bring people to the table, figure out how we can move forward and make everyone a little more accepting of this non-discrimination ordinance,” Cerullo said Friday.

“I do believe there is a certain segment out there that wanted this stalled with the goal of getting it stopped completely, and frankly, that’s not going to happen.”

Cerullo said the purpose of a city ordinance isn’t to regulate people’s personal beliefs about sexual orientation, gender identity or any other protected class.

“People will have to realize that this ordinance does not change the fact, or does not force them to change what they believe,” Cerullo said. “After this ordinance is passed, churches and people and everyone will still be able to believe the way they believe.”

Claycomb said there’s still abounding confusion about the purview of the ordinance and how it would be enforced.

“I think it’s important to pass a non-discrimination ordinance, but I think it’s just as important that it leaves no questions about what it does and doesn’t do,” Claycomb said.

Tuttle said those misconceptions could be cleared up with direct language on specific issues that have been raised.

“For example, there’s lots and lots of questions about bathrooms and what this means and what it doesn’t, and I think having some more conversations, perhaps putting some direct language in this ordinance, could help clear up some of those misconceptions,” Tuttle said.

The council, including Tuttle and Claycomb, first approved an anti-discrimination ordinance on June 15, but it was widely panned by advocates who said it was unenforceable and largely symbolic. The ordinance was re-introduced with new language modeled after similar ordinances on the books in a number of Johnson County cities. Both times, council members Bryan Frye and Jeff Blubaugh voted against it.

In addition to getting input from the nascent Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights Advisory Board and the Kansas Human Rights Commission, Tuttle said she wants to ask people from other cities with similar anti-discrimination ordinances for “any lessons learned or anything that we may be omitting or any unintended consequences that they found that maybe we can avoid.”

Cerullo said no ultimate version of the ordinance will strip sexual orientation or gender identity from its protected classes.

“Sexual orientation and gender identity will not be removed from this ordinance,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen. We have 20 other cities in this very state that have figured out a way to move forward with sexual orientation and gender identity in their NDOs, and everything is operating just fine.”

Tuttle acknowledged that even a more deliberate process for crafting such an ordinance will likely be polarizing.

“We’re never going to make everyone happy with this,” she said. “I am truly hopeful that more common ground can be found.”

Claycomb and Cerullo are both up for re-election in November. The ordinance would tentatively come before the council again on Oct. 12, in the closing weeks of the general election.

“I’m not thinking about politics when I’m making this decision,” Cerullo said. “It just simply has not entered my mind.”

At the last meeting, Mayor Brandon Whipple accused Claycomb of deferring the ordinance to avoid a politically charged vote, an accusation Claycomb flatly denied.

“I don’t do this for political reasons,” she said. “That’s not why I’m in this business. I know other people are, but I am not.”

This story was originally published July 19, 2021 at 4:17 AM.