Abraham Clarifies Ordinance Introduced Last Week

City Commissioner and mayoral candidate Richard Abraham has clarified an ordinance he introduced at last Tuesday's meeting - at city hall and before the voters.

At the May 14 meeting, Abraham and Mayor Brandi Harless both introduced amendments chapter 58 of the Paducah Code of Ordinances, which deals with discrimination.

In January 2018, after vigorous debate, the ordinance was changed to include age, gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes of people. At that time, Abraham offered an amendment to protect those with deeply held religious beliefs, but the amendment failed. The added language was passed by an identical vote margin.

The May 14 commission meeting included the first reading of the ordinances from Abraham and Harless, but in reviewing documents included in that meeting, Abraham realized his amendment was not his final version as discussed. Since he felt both ordinances needed to be heard and reviewed side-by-side, a special called meeting will be held Tuesday at 5:30 pm to table the incorrect version and introduce the proper one. This would ensure that the Harless and Abraham amendments will both be discussed and receive a vote at the May 28 meeting. 

In a statement released to West Kentucky Star on Monday, Abraham sought to explain his amendment and how it differs from the one offered by Mayor Harless. Here is that statement in its entirety:

Because of the questions I have been receiving, regarding the upcoming proposal of an amendment to our Human Rights Ordinance, this statement is to explain the proposed amendment, originally brought last year, and my concerns with the mayor’s substitute amendment.  Both will come for a vote on May 28, 2019

First let me quantify that I do not wish for any to be treated badly or discriminated against. We are all God’s Creation. 1 Timothy 2:4

May 21st, will be the first reading of the full amendment I am bringing for proposed adoption. May 21st is a called meeting to accomplish this purpose, so that both amendments, the one I am bringing and the mayor’s substitute amendment will both be eligible for vote on May 28.

This is the wording of the amendment I am bringing.

“A private business owner, individual, or non-profit shall not be forced to violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.”  

The ordinance that was read on Tuesday did NOT contain the proper final wording. Since the final form, did not get a first reading, last Tuesday, a first reading still needed to occur (giving it the same integrity as the ordinance). There were two groups not included in what was read on Tuesday (the 14th). That omission  completely change the ‘groups protected,” making the concept broader.  

The amendment, which the mayor brought, for the first time on last Tuesday, reads as follows:  

“The State Legislation prohibits government from “burdening a person’s freedom of religion, unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act, and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.” 

In my opinion, the statement, even though it exists now on the state level, is full of ambiguous terms and references that can be twisted to fit whomever is dominant in the government, at the time. It leaves too much power and interpretation in the hands of the government.  

In many citizen’s opinions, it is not the government’s job to decide whether a sincerely held religious belief is ‘sincere enough’ for the government to honor those beliefs when laid alongside the government’s needs. (Sounds almost like imminent domain wording, to me).

This issue should be between individuals (as are the court cases that have been brought for Justice, in this Faith matter) and not about an individual who has different religious beliefs from the government, as the Mayor’s proposal stresses.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  

The Mayor stated that she was assured that “all citizens” were protected from governmental overreach, regarding this issue, by the amendment she is proposing and there was no need for my amendment, since the state had one in existence already.  And that is what the Mayor wants to adopt to our local ordinance.

Let us step to the side, a moment here, and remember that in regards to the original repeal and replace LGBTQ addition, there seemed to be a greater ‘need’ to bypass these very words, last year, that already indeed existed within our state government.  The Mayor stressed that it was important at “that” time for a new local wording to be added to the replacing ordinance to protect a special group. The protection of individuals provided by the United States Constitution and The Constitution of KY  were not enough.

Make no mistake, the way our new ordinance read (last year) was different from the state and it “did” add “local wording” because at the time of its passing, we were in the process of restructuring  our Human Rights Division (at the city) because of some previous improper activity.  We had decided to refer any complaints of discrimination to Louisville Human Rights (the state level) to handle.  However, because of the new wording of one of the protected groups (locally) put into our replacing ordinance we ‘Had” to keep our local Human Rights open ‘just to handle any LGBTQ complaints” because the state does not recognize them as a group in need of ‘extra’ protection (above the citizen protection available to us all).

So yes, “new local wording’ was added. But now I am told that my ‘new local wording is not proper or needed. Interesting. I suggest I would have probably never considered bringing this amendment wording if there were not new local wording added that might potentially challenge local ‘sincerely held religious beliefs”.

I was then told that the wording I am bringing is subject to too much interpretation and was controversial. I disagree. It is a clear and simple statement and is not subject, in my opinion, to as much interpretation as the one the Mayor is bringing for consideration.  

“A private business owner, individual, or non-profit shall not be forced to violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs”, offers an individual, private business owner, or non profit, grounds to defend themselves in a court of law if necessary, rather than be drug to a court of law by being accused of violating someone else’s rights. I am willing to fight for that wording.

There was a reference, in the quotes the Mayor read, on Tuesday last, stating that we should not enact something that would go against an advancing government interest. I state that the Advancing Government Interest should be the interest of the people, who the government is under, not over.  Remember?  By the people, for the people.

Mayor Harless finished with, “If our goal, in the city commission, is to truly protect our citizens, I can’t think of a better way to do it than through this amendment.”   

While we agree that all of our citizens need to be protected, I believe, with all my heart, that my proposed amendment is all that is needed to address these concerns. "A private business owner, individual, or non-profit shall not be forced to violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs." 

1 Chronicles 19:13 
Be strong, and let us fight bravely for our people and the cities of our God. The Lord will do what is good in his sight."

Commissioner Richard Abraham