City of Springfield Sexual Orientation and Transgender Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Veto Referendum, Question 1 (April 2015)

Voting on LGBT Issues
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local LGBT County responses to Obergefell v. Hodges

A Sexual Orientation and Transgender Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Repeal ballot question was on the ballot for voters in the city of Springfield in Greene County, Missouri, on April 7, 2015. It was approved.

This question was put on the ballot through a successful referendum petition by opponents of the city's Ordinance No. 6141, which included sexual orientation and gender identity under the city's non-discrimination policy with regard to housing, employment and public accommodations. The referendum petition was designed to either force the council to rescind its bill or allow voters to make the final decision on the issue. As the council members were unwilling to rescind the ordinance, the law went before voters on April 7, 2015.

The question on the ballot asked voters if they wished to repeal the council's bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, a yes vote on Question 1 repealed the anti-discrimination ordinance, and a no vote on Question 1 would have upheld the council's ordinance.

Supporters argued that Ordinance 6141 violated religious freedom, allowed manipulation and false claims to hurt businesses, and could be abused to protect sexual misconduct, such as spying on people in bathrooms.

Opponents argued that the ordinance simply provided equal rights that should be "a given for anyone living in a democracy." Critics of the Question 1 veto referendum also said that the outspoken opposition to Ordinance 6141 showed its necessity.

Election results

Springfield, Missouri, Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		15,364	51.43%
No		14,510	48.57%

Election results from Greene County Elections Office

Responses

Supporters

The group Christians Uniting for Political Action (CUPA), which supported Question 1, posted a statement on its website congratulating Springfield voters for overturning Ordinance 6141, lamenting the divisive effect the ordinance had on the city and criticizing the city council members that voted for the ordinance in the first place. An excerpt of the response is below:

“	Springfield you are a good people, and I salute you. The first thing that I want to say is that this victory is bitter/sweet. We are elated that we won, but we were all damaged in the process. What certain members of the city council did to Springfield was a dis-service to everyone, and may God help us find our way out of the chaos that was previously foreign to us. [...] This is a good day for all those who love freedom, for those who respect the Constitution, for those who are people of faith. History was made in Springfield on April 7, 2015. It was said that Springfield is the tipping point. Maybe the tipping point will tip towards more repeals. Maybe with God’s help other cities can be encouraged to follow suit. [...] You are blessed to have preserved property rights for the businesses of Springfield. You have preserved privacy in gender specific bathrooms, and you have preserved religious liberty for Springfield’s largest demographic. You not only preserved liberty for yourselves, but for others; even those who don’t understand it. The next time someone proposes something that pits the citizens against one another, start the recall petitions immediately. Let your elected officials know that you elected them to manage the business of the city, not to social engineer you. This is a great city and I love it because of you.	”
—Christians Uniting for Political Action

Opponents

A.J. Bockelman, executive of PROMO, a statewide LGBT advocacy group that campaigned for No Repeal, responded to the election results by saying, “While we are disappointed in tonight’s vote, we know Springfield is a better community because of this campaign, and were proud to be a part it. We are grateful to all of the individuals, families, businesses, and faith leaders who spoke up throughout this campaign. We are still here for each other, and we will still work together to continue to make Springfield a welcoming place for ALL people. Tomorrow, just as today, we continue working to achieve equality.”

Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokeswoman for the No Repeal campaign, said, “We are very disappointed that we didn’t have the exact outcome that we wanted, but we are encouraged that the vote was so very close."

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall the City of Springfield, Missouri, repeal General Ordinance No. 6141, adopted by City Council on the October 13, 2014 that amended Chapter 2, Administration, Article IV, Boards, Commissions and Committees, Division 4, Mayor's Commission on Human Rights and Community Relations, Section 2-223; and Chapter 62, Human Rights, to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories of persons protected from discrimination, to consolidate the Commission's investigative process into a single division of the Code, and to clarify the Commission's powers in light of recent court decisions; and readopt the City's prior Code of Ordinances regulating Chapter 2, Administration, Article IV, Boards, Commissions, and Committees, Division 4, Mayor's Commission on Human Rights and Community Relations; and Chapter 62, Human Rights?

”

Full text

The full text of the ordinance that Question 1 was designed to repeal upon approval is available here.

Support

Note: Those who opposed the city's anti-discrimination ordinance and supported the referendum question to overturn it are referred to as supporters in this article.

Supporters

Yes on Question 1 logo

Springfield Citizens United was behind the referendum petition challenging the ordinance and the support campaign for Question 1.

A Yes on Question 1 campaign was started to urge voters to reject the anti-discrimination ordinance on April 7, 2015.

Springfield Citizens United and the Yes on Question 1 campaign were assisted by a group called Christians Uniting for Political Action (CUPA).

Dick Hardy, one of the chief activists that worked to put the ordinance before voters and urge voters to approve Question 1, organized efforts to collect signatures for the referendum petition. Concerning the signatures his group turned in, he said, "These all came from churches all across the city."

Council members

The following council members voted against the ordinance targeted by Question 1 and provided a brief explanation of their vote:

Note: A vote against the ordinance does not necessarily mean the council member endorsed a "yes" vote on Question 1, the veto referendum effort to overturn the ordinance.

• Bob Stephens
• Craig Fishel
• Jerry Compton

Stephens, who sponsored a less strongly worded ordinance that was voted on after Ordinance 6141 was decided, did not actually express opposition to the ordinance. Rather, he simply said, "I'm in the awkward position of having sponsored the substitute bill, so I will vote against this one just in case the substitute bill is still there to be voted on."

Fishel said that he "found no hard evidence that there is discrimination" and that there was widespread opposition to the ordinance from all of the major churches in his district. He said, "I feel like I was elected to represent the people of Zone 4."

Compton said, "I believe there's insufficient evidence about a lack of existing remedy for these verifiable cases. Federal and state laws guard against abuse. I do believe there are inadequate safeguards to protect against wrongful use of the proposed ordinance."

Arguments in favor

YesQuestionOne Springfield, "Yes On Question 1 for Bathroom Privacy & Freedom -- Repeal Springfield 6141," March 5, 2015

Hardy said that he was motivated to overturn the ordinance by voting "yes" on Question 1 because it came down to "a religious freedom issue." He argued that the council didn't think about the bill long enough or consider some of the concerns of the community. Springfield Citizens United argued that the targeted law could "open the door for biological males, including heterosexual sexual predators, to legally use women's restrooms." The opponents also argued that it didn't "allow private citizens to exercise their First Amendment right in their business practices." Other opponents also questioned the necessity of the ordinance, expressing doubt that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity actually occurred in the city.

The Yes on Question 1 website argued that leaving the ordinance intact would have the following repercussions:

• The violation of religious freedom for businesses, churches and schools
• The manipulation and misuse of the ordinance, harming businesses by making false claims of discrimination
• The persecution of those who refuse goods and services according to their beliefs; The following examples were given:

• An attorney who wishes to assist in adoptions for traditionally married couples only
• A business person wishing to avoid providing services for a same-sex ceremony
• A counselor who does not wish to provide services regarding same sex relationships

• The abuse of the ordinance's provisions concerning gender identity to take advantage of people in public restrooms and locker rooms

The website went on to give several examples of past cases in which men dressed as women to gain access to women's bathrooms or showers for their own sexual gratification.

As the council prepared to make a final vote on Ordinance 6141, Springfield Citizens United published a press release arguing against the ordinance and expressing the intention to conduct this referendum petition campaign upon its approval. An excerpt of the press release is below:

“	If this Ordinance is passed it will have a detrimental effect on the Springfield community and its economy. Because of extremist political agendas from outside Springfield, this law will require wedding photographers and others in the wedding services industry to participate in and promote same sex ceremonies, even when doing so violates their conscience and religious convictions. It will place senior citizens who rent rooms in their homes at risk of losing them if they follow their religious convictions and decline to rent to people ‘living together.’ Non-compliance can result in thousand dollar fines and six months in jail simply for trying to live consistently with one’s faith. Further, this law will open the door for biological males, including heterosexual sexual predators, to legally use women’s restrooms in restaurants, grocery stores, and shopping outlets inside the City of Springfield. This proposed Ordinance tramples freedom, discriminates against people of faith, and places women and girls at risk. Springfield Citizens United strongly encourages Springfield City Council to vote no on Council Bill 2014-189, and tell the extremists promoting agendas against Springfield values that our community will not allow our safety and rights to be trumped in exchange for radical ideals. Any vote to pass this Ordinance will be met with staunch opposition, and the citizens of this community will repeal this Ordinance through a referendum petition and a vote of the people.	”
—Springfield Citizens United

Opposition

Note: Those who supported the city's anti-discrimination ordinance and opposed Question 1, the referendum to overturn it, are referred to as opponents in this article.

Opponents

No Repeal SGF logo

A No Repeal Springfield campaign was formed to urge voters to reject Question 1.

A group called One Springfield helped organize the anti-Question 1 campaign.

Stephanie Perkins, deputy director for PROMO, a statewide LGBT advocacy group, told reporters she had hoped to see the city's gay, lesbian and transgender community fully utilize the ordinance to reduce discrimination, insisting that such discrimination did, in fact, occur. Speaking of the council's original decision to enact the stronger of two proposed ordinances, she said, "It could have gone either way and we're just really, really happy that they saw the value in taking these full comprehensive protection steps." Perkins also said that PROMO would back a strong campaign in support of the ordinance and in opposition to Question 1.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which describes itself as "the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans," actively supported Ordinance 6141 and opposed Question 1.

Businesses

The No Repeal website listed the following businesses as opponents of Question 1:

• 417bizbroker, LLC
• 417 Pet Sitting
• 40Digits
• Aaron J. Scott
• Absolute Dreams Maltese
• Acree Law Firm, LLC
• Acupuncture and Herbal Solutions of Springfield
• ADSmith Marketing and Advertising
• Alchemy...a Salon
• Amy Cakes Bakery
• ART Salon and Spa
• Arts and Letters
• Askinosie Chocolate
• Associates in Sign Language LLC
• Aviary
• Eye Candy Boutique
• Bambino’s
• Bookmarx
• Brass Knuckle Beard Oil
• Brick and Mortar
• BridgeBlue Sourcing Partners, LLC
• (BYOP) Build Your Own Pizza
• Buzbee Dental
• Carmichael Services LLC
• Casper's
• City Butcher
• Clinvest
• Conco Companies
• Cosmic Fish
• Coyote's Adobe Cafe
• A Cricket in the House
• CrowdIt, LLC
• Culture Flock Clothing
• The Cutting Edge Salon
• Cycles Unlimited
• Dance With Me
• Dapper Barbershop
• Demi Creative
• Douglas A. Carter, P.C.
• Downtown Artists Collective
• Dr. D's
• Easter Law Firm, LLC
• Ellecor
• Elle’s Patisserie
• Envy
• Finnegan’s
• Five Pound Apparel LLC
• Foster and Associates
• Frolic Vintage
• Furr Babies Grooming
• Gilardi's Ristorante
• Grad School
• Green Circle Projects/Farmers Park
• Grove Pharmacy
• Grove Spa
• Happy Tails Doggie Daycare & Boarding
• Headache Care Center
• Healing Center
• Heather Freeman Design Co.
• Historic Walnut Street Development
• Ginger Holczer PsyD
• Homegrown Food
• Hotel Vandivort
• Hurt’s Donuts
• ID Salon
• J Howard Fisk Limousines, Inc.
• Jimm's Steakhouse
• J.O.B.
• Jax & Gabes Pizzeria
• Josh Mitchell Art Gallery
• Julie Blackmon Photography
• June's Cakery
• J-WO Designs
• Kaleidoscope
• Kate Quinn LMT
• KatieMade
• Keen Creative
• Kelly's VIP Auto Center
• Ken Schwab - Wilhoit Properties Commercial Real Estate
• Kira Kira Fine Jewelry and Body Piercing
• Southgate Center, LLC
• National Holiday, LLC
• Blackshine, LLC
• Ladies IM PRO V
• Lavare Spa
• Law Offices of Kristoffer Barefield, LLC
• London Calling Pasty Company
• Mama Jean’s Natural Market
• Marianne Jones Interior Design
• Martha’s Vineyard
• Maschino's
• MASO Kitchen/Bar
• McSalty's Pizza
• Meridian Title Company
• Miller Commerce
• Minuteman Press
• Mix Ultralounge
• Modern Craftsman
• Mojo Pie
• Mosaic Junction
• Mostly Serious
• Mother’s Brewing
• Mudhouse
• Mudlounge
• Munzinger & Company, Inc
• Nate Luke Photography
• Neally Law, LLC
• Nexus Heights
• Nicolas Restaurant
• Nonna’s Cafe
• Obelisk Home
• One of a Kind
• Ophelia's
• Other Mothers
• Ozark Treasures
• PaPPo's Pizzeria & Pub
• Patton Alley Pub
• Phantasmagoria
• Pickwick Underground Framing
• Plaster's Garage
• Queen City Windows
• Quickdraw, LLC
• Raw Marketing
• Red Top Oven
• Renes Grooming and Smelly Good Wax
• Ridge Runner Sports
• Riverbend Hardwoods
• Salon Ba'Dazz
• Savoy Ballroom
• Scotch and Soda
• Sequiota Bike Shop
• Shape Shifter's Pilates
• SimplyACT Tutoring Company
• Spring Valley Herbs & Natural Foods
• Springfield Contemporary Theatre
• Springfield Hot Glass
• Springfield Massage Therapy Group
• SSLYBY LLC
• Stick it in Your Ear
• Studio MRO
• Sunnyland Travel Center
• Sweat & Love Fitness
• Sweere Law Office
• Tea Bar and Bites
• The 1906 Gents
• The Brick Slice House
• The Coffee Ethic
• The Copy Shoppe Printing & Graphics
• The Creative Foundry
• The Mystery Hour
• The Old Glass Place
• This Much Empire Publishing LLC
• This-N-That Flea Market
• Tin Man Tin Toys, LLC
• Trader’s Printing & Design
• Travis Marler Photography
• Tresformers Hair and Nails
• Touche'
• Tranquil Waters Counseling and Wellness
• Unleashed Life
• Urban Roots Farm
• Vecino Group
• The Vapor Vendor
• Westward Alliance, LLC
• Whisler’s
• Wilhoit Properties, Inc.
• Z Buyer
• Zen 3 Spa and Bodyworks

Council members

The following council members voted in favor of the ordinance targeted by this veto referendum:

• Jeff Seifried
• Mike Carroll
• Jan Fisk
• Cindy Rushefsky
• Craig Hosmer
• Doug Burlison

Fisk said, "I believe this issue is about respect, dignity and fairness to our fellow citizens that are members of the LGBT community." He added, "We cannot build Springfield's future by holding on to discrimination from Springfield's past."

AmericanUnityFund, "Pastor Brian and Kelly Jenkins - We are all God's children," March 27, 2015

Rushefsky said, "It makes a simple statement of equality that should be a given for anyone who lives in a democracy. It's a shame that we have had to struggle for so long to really establish that principle in our daily lives."

Burlison said, "The amount of opposition to this bill ... is a clear indication of the need for this bill."

Arguments against

Supporters of the protections asserted that discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender citizens did occur and that the expansion of protections allowed by Ordinance 6141 was simply a matter of giving equal rights to all. Explaining her vote last month, Council Member Fisk said the protections were needed to make the city desirable for young professionals and large corporations. Councilwoman Rushefsky called the protections a "simple statement of equality that should be a given for anyone who lives in a democracy."

The No Repeal website posted the following statement:

“	The No Repeal Campaign exists to defend Springfield’s updated nondiscrimination ordinance against a repeal on the April 7, 2015 Springfield ballot. All hard working people – including those who are gay and transgender – should be treated fairly and equally by the laws of our city, and should have the opportunity to earn a living to provide for themselves and their families. Nobody should have to live in fear of being legally fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance. Therefore, the No Repeal Campaing will work to fight this repeal and defend these protections for all Springfieldians, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Vote NO to protect gay and transgender people from discrimination!	”
—No Repeal

Other opinions

Dr. Kevin Pybas, an expert in constitutional law at Missouri State University, said that its "hard to know in the abstract" how this ordinance would have limited religious freedom and free speech. He said, "We like to think that rights never clash, that things are black and white. Things we view as good to ourselves could never come into conflict with someone else." He insisted, however, that this simply isn't how the world is.

He did say that it's reasonable for the LGBT community to want protection. Pybas continued, "What's unfortunate in this debate is that both sides should have more understanding for each other. Gays and lesbians have been oppressed. They want to experience liberty heterosexuals have experienced. Society has told them they are fundamentally wrong, and how they understand themselves is mistaken, that they're not entitled to live in a way that gives meaning to their lives." He also said that some religious citizens and conservatives are similarly being "told not to live according to their self-understanding" by laws such as the ordinance targeted by Question 1.

Pybas concluded, "I think that the interest of both sides can be accommodated better than this ordinance does, but that probably requires a broad shift in political culture. It requires empathy from both sides and requires a lot more carefulness."

Background

In 1994, a veto referendum question was on the ballot targeting an ordinance that included gays under the city's anti-hate crime laws. In that case, the referendum question was approved by the voters, repealing the proposed ordinance.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Missouri

The city council voted six against three on October 13, 2014, to approve the stronger of two proposed LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. Immediately after the approval of the ordinance, the group Springfield Citizens United began collecting signatures for a veto referendum petition to put the ordinance before voters, hoping they would overturn it. The group needed to collect 1,144 valid signatures — a number equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the last general city election — within 30 days of the council's vote. On November 5, 2014, the group turned in a batch of petition sheets containing 2,658 signatures, which, after investigation by the city clerk, proved more than adequate to qualify the referendum for the next city election.

See also

• Local LGBT issues on the ballot
• Greene County, Missouri ballot measures
• April 7, 2015 ballot measures in Missouri

Articles

• Ballot Law Update: 2015 could feature big changes in ballot law
• Race for LGBT ordinance in Springfield, Missouri, ends with votes in favor of repeal a nose ahead

External links

Suggest a link

• Greene County Clerk's Office website
• Springfield City Clerk's Office website

Support

• Yes on Question 1 website & Facebook page
• Christians United for Political Action website

Opposition

• No Repeal Springfield website & One Springfield Facebook page
• Human Rights Campaign website, "Organizing to Protect Springfield’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance," January 21, 2015

Additional reading

• KSMU, "Dozens of Springfield Businesses Against Repeal of Non-discrimination Ordinance," March 5, 2015
• KSMU, "Christian Group Calls for Non-discrimination Law to be Upheld," March 26, 2015
• KSPR News, "Ballot 'Question 1' on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity," March 8, 2015
• Equality Federation, "Opinion: Vote to Keep Springfield, Missouri’s Nondiscrimination Ordinance," February 8, 2015
• KY3 News, "Opponents vow repeal effort after gay rights law passes in Springfield," October 14, 2014