A.G. Gancarski
On Thursday evening, the second of three “Community Conversations” on the expansion of Jacksonville’s Human Rights Ordinance was held, around the theme of religious freedoms and implications for HRO expansion.
Spoiler alert: it was no more conclusive than the first community conversation, showing a city with divisions on the issue that run deep, and leaving open the same question as was opened in 2012: will leaders lead, or wait for some magical consensus to emerge?
Housed in an old-school, overheated gymnasium at Edward Waters College, opponents and proponents of expansion sat side by side, completely filling one side of the gym, with overflow on the other side.
The crowd was a mixed bag, and demonstrative throughout the evening despite the best efforts of the moderator to keep them quiet. Many pro-HRO types with Jacksonville Coalition for Equality stickers, mixed in with some older folks, with No to HRO cards and Protect First Liberties stickers on their chests.
This one featured three local ministers: Rabbi Joshua Lief; Baptist Pastors Torin Dailey and Ronnie Edwards.
As well, a gentleman visiting from Longwood, Florida, Roger Gannam of the Liberty Counsel, reprised his previous role as the voice of opposition, purportedly because of a dearth of local opponents willing to participate in the event.
Mayor Lenny Curry kicked off the event with some brief remarks.
“Democracy works best when citizens participate in honest, thoughtful, and civil dialogue,” he said, thanking the panelists and the crowd, and generally walking the middle ground.
Curry noted that “since we last met, some have sought to disrupt this dialogue,” and added that “the actions of many of these groups and their representatives” are not consistent with local values, a seeming reference to the actions of extremists in the time since the first Community Conversation and this one.
The local faith leaders were intended to discuss how HRO expansion might affect their congregation; Gannam, meanwhile, was expected to recycle his quasi-cautionary shtick from the previous Community Conversation.
The first question to the ministers: how might LGBT inclusion in the HRO affect these ministers and their congregations?
Lief noted that “the idea that someone could be made to feel unwelcome” in public accomodations makes him feel like his “freedom may be at risk.”
To protect those rights, “everyone” must be equal, he said to applause.
Then another pastor, Ronnie Edwards, followed up, saying that the bill would “go against the standards of the word of God” and would “trump” Constitutional law and civil liberties.
More applause.
Torin Dailey was up next, insisting that the “autonomy of local congregations” would not be abridged by such legislation, saying that such contentions constitute a “false argument” and an abrogation to the “equitable treatment of all people, period.”
“I’ve done a whole lot of jacked up stuff over the course of my own life, and I should be the last person,” Dailey said, to discriminate according to the “choices” others made in their lives.
His choice, he said: to love as Jesus did.
Then, Gannum spoke up, noting the “divergence of views on what scripture” says, before noting that the 2012 legislation had “religious exemptions that are fraught with exemptions themselves.”
“They become converted into public accommodations through laws like this,” Gannum said, adding that the ultimate goal of activists is to convert “any church that accepted one penny of public funding” into a “public accommodation,” including churches with VPK programs.
Lief noted, in response to Gannum, that “I don’t have to marry everyone who wants to get married in my temple,” adding that in his Temple, gay, straight, and otherwise, people are welcome.
“Everyone’s welcome to practice their faith as they see fir,” Lief said, and “should be.”
Edwards, proclaiming his “love for everyone,” noted that he loves them enough to tell them what they do is wrong.
Some cheers; some boos.
Then Dailey spoke up, about having “homophobic ideas” when he was younger, before he learned from his father that was wrong.
“Why would I spend any of my time hating people that God loves so much?”
Dailey said that “I ought to be open minded enough to embrace people that I wouldn’t endorse,” adding that “this is where my congregation has been for some time.”
Edwards isn’t there, he retorted, and neither is his congregation.
Lief, pointing back to the Torah, noted that the Old Testament equated eating non-Kosher food and homosexuality as “abominations,” not sins.
“To the Christians in the crowd, you have a different scripture than I do,” adding that the Jewish faith is one that evolves, adding that it is incumbent on him in his religious tradition to “love the stranger” and accept differences for what they are.
Of course, it was left to Gannum, the lawyer and not a theologian, to explain “what scripture means” to the churches he represents, decrying a “fluid” interpretation of scripture.
“When we’re talking about churches that have embraced homosexual conduct as … not a sin, that’s a relatively new development,” Gannum added.
Reverend Dailey then spoke, saying that this is not an issue of what constitutes “sinful behavior” but one of accepting differences.
“Are we going to be a community that practices love and equitable treatment of God’s people? Will we treat people in a way that is humane?”
Rabbi Lief then “challenged” Gannum’s “knowledge of Judaism,” schooling him on the Torah and the “prophetic writings” in the Bible, citing that early Christians were “awfully progressive” in their interpretation of faith.
Reverend Edwards then moved the discussion, saying that “my Bible says that God does not change” and that it is inconceivable to him that “homosexuality is not a sin.”
“I will not embrace it, and I think, borne out of love, we tell them that they’re wrong,” Edwards said.
Gannum, meanwhile, noted his belief that the definition of sexual orientation is fluid, and not actionable in the way that race is, calling orientation and expression “undefinable terms.”
“The language of these laws always matters,” Gannum said.
Lief noted that the language of the dead bill of 2012 was a “moot issue,” and said that it’s the mayor’s responsibility to define the new language in a new bill.
Dailey, meanwhile, spotlighted the “danger of not updating the HRO” as being “hypocritical.”
Though he doesn’t personally endorse homosexuality, he also doesn’t believe restaurants and such should be able to “pick and choose” its clientele.
“None of us would endorse someone who is a domestic abuser,” he said, but no one is thrown out of a restaurant for being a “domestic abuser” or any other of a “litany of sins.”
“I believe that we’ve become quite hypocritical when we take those kinds of positions.” Dailey added.
“This is a learning moment for you,” Dailey said to the mayor, saying that there is an opportunity for the mayor to “take a scalpel” to the language, and draw a middle ground between religious needs and the need to protect all of Jacksonville’s citizens.
The question, of course, is one of whether the law can remedy such issues.
The conversation continued, with comments from the public.
A woman who described herself as a “bisexual” and an activist wanted to know who would deny her employment based on categorization.
Gannum decried such discrimination, while saying that as an employer, he could discriminate on various grounds, including political party and looks, and as reprehensible as such might be, a law against it was not the answer.
“I don’t think Jacksonville has a hiring problem for LGBT persons,” Gannum said. “The data simply doesn’t support it.”
Then a gentleman from the crowd quoted Revelations in a cautionary manner, always a centrist ploy.
“We know how arguments have been taken to justify outcomes,” he said, adding that Roe V Wade was used to “justify abortions,” getting a groan from the crowd as the moderator pressed him to ask a question.
Eventually, he did.
“How can we guarantee the rights of Christians to practice their faith?”
Rabbi Lief then schooled the gentleman, saying the passage of Revelations he cited alluded to a Torah proscription against “sex in public,” and cited his opposition to such.
More saliently, Lief said, “people should not be allowed to discriminate in public accommodations settings,” even as people in religious settings should have the right to free expression.
Lief, who supported the HRO in 2012, was asked if he supported it because he was gay.
That surprised him, as he is not gay and is in fact married.
“The image of God question… to be Godlike,” Lief said, compelled us to “be brave enough to stand for other people’s freedom.”
After a question relating the civil rights movement to homosexuality, Pastor Edwards said that while “God created me black and I’m proud of it,” that “homosexuality is a choice.”
The crowd roared. Some in approval, but the loudest voices in opprobrium.
Edwards stood his ground, saying that laws against discrimination are in effect now, a surprise to those in the crowd seeking to expand the HRO.
Gannum also rejected the comparison of the LGBT rights movement to the civil rights movement, saying that the “plight” of today’s LGBT is not “in the same universe” as Jim Crow laws and other codified discrimination.
While “none of us chooses our attractions or impulses,” we do “choose our conduct,” Gannum added.
Another community conversation on the HRO has come and gone. A lot of talking. Not much listening. And a need for political leadership on this issue remains.
Whether one agrees with Rabbi Lief that “any discrimination is too much,” or with Gannum, who argued that there is in fact an actionable threshold of discrimination that quantifiably hasn’t been met, and that proponents seek a statutory assurance of “human dignity” and “passing a law like this is bad policy” because it has “Jacksonville picking a side in this debate,” what is clear is that lawmakers, many of them risk averse even on the picayune issues of the day, are going to have to take a stand.
In doing so, they will reveal, much more than they did in their cookie cutter campaign mailers, who they are and where they stand.
A commenter, toward the end, noted that in 2012 this law did not pass, and asked the audience how many would have been affected if the law had passed.
Dozens stood up in affirmation.
Ultimately, the question is this.
Do #AllLivesMatter?
At the end of the program, a questioner asked Gannum about the Southern Poverty Law Center deeming the Liberty Counsel a hate group.
His answer, which included copious stammers, was instructive as he tried to deflect the charge, attempting to discredit the SPLC and saying that “hate crimes are on the decline.”
Dailey came back, pointing out that the atrocity in Charleston at the Emanuel Church delineated that hate crimes are real. And this discussion, and a way forward, are necessary.
“I thank you for allowing us to have this civil discourse,” Dailey said to the mayor, “because it is the missing link.”
