For Immediate Release: June 29, 2010
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078 or 1.814.437.5355
Lancaster County Homosexual Special Rights Ordinance Would be a Mistake
(Harrisburg) – The Lancaster County Commissioners are under pressure from homosexual activists to add ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to the county’s human relations ordinance. Today the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide traditional values group, faxed the commissioners a letter with reasons why such a change would not be wise. The letter also commended their effort to trim the budget by rescinding Ordinance 30 which created the county human relations commission.
“Seeing that a statewide effort to add sexual orientation and gender identity or expression to the PA Human Relations Act is on the verge of failing once again, homosexual activists and their allies in state government are pressuring local municipalities to pass these ordinances designed to further normalize the homosexual and transgender lifestyles. It is always a mistake to pass such dangerous ordinances,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
Examples that the fax included:
1.) The Philadelphia Boy Scout case is a perfect example of why NOT to add sexual orientation to so-called ‘anti-discrimination’ ordinances. Because the Scouts ban homosexual leaders and members they were targeted by the City to either pay $200,000 annual rent or vacate the headquarters the Scouts built and maintained since 1929.
2.) In May 2008 — a man who believes he is a woman demanded to use the women’s fitting room in a KMart in Philadelphia.
3.) In July 2008 — a man who thinks he is a woman demands to use the women’s locker room at the Cleveland, Ohio city pool. He does not understand why women are upset by this idea!
4.) Under Minnesota’s sexual orientation law, a transgendered person filed suit after West Publishing requested the man stop using the women’s restroom after female employees complained that the man, who dressed like a woman, used the women’s bathroom. After several years of litigation, the employer “won” the legal case, but in the end had to pay significant amounts of money to defend themselves in court.
“Those pushing these ordinances usually pull the victim card saying they have been discriminated against and need protection. Yet none have faced real discrimination like being forced to sit in the back of the bus, forbidden to vote or considered less than human. Those pushing these ordinances simply want to use the force of law to normalize their lifestyle choices. The majority of Lancaster County residents do not want these changes,” Gramley further stated.
# # #