Dozens of people Tuesday night passionately pleaded for and against the addition of sexual orientation language to Goshen’s Community Relations Commission ordinance.

After more than two hours of listening to members of a crowd that filled the Council chambers, the foyer and extended down the steps to the street, the council voted to add the wording.

The council vote was 4-3 in favor of the amendment. But the tally won’t be the last one taken. The council passed the amendment on first reading only, meaning the issue will come before the council again Sept. 1.

If the council’s vote stands in September, what will be added to the ordinance will be words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The words will be inserted after the rundown on other reasons discrimination cannot be conducted in Goshen, which include race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry.

Eric Kanagy, who served on a task force that talked about the issue of discrimination against homosexuals for two months and then proposed the ordinance amendment, said some people have the perception that the amendment would force Christian organizations, including churches, to hire gays.

“That’s not true,” Kanagy said.

He said religious organizations have been given federal exemption from such requirements.

“In the end we are talking about discrimination,” he said. “...this is not a controversial issue in my mind.”

Kanagy said 43 employers in Goshen have similar anti-discrimination policies in place and six other Indiana cities have similar ordinances.

Michelle Marquis, also a member of the task force, said many members of Goshen’s homosexual community have found it hard to talk about discrimination against them.

“It’s been quiet not because there is no discrimination in Goshen,” she said, “just that there is no protection.”

She said the task force heard from many people, some of who don’t support homosexuality for religious reasons.

“(But) it’s has been affirming to know,” she added, “that many draw the line at discrimination.”

Others questioned the effectiveness of the ordinance because it has no enforcement provision.

Glen Null, a member of the Goshen Community Relations Commission, asked if someone thinks they have been discriminated against and talks to the CRC, who the case is turned over to?

“The reality is you can pass all the laws you want,” Null said, “but if there is no mechanism to enforce it, it is a waste of time.”

City Attorney Larry Barkes admitted there are enforcement problems with the ordinance.

He said he envisions the ordinance as a “community statement,” that will tell people where the community stands on the issue.

Barkes said he believes state agencies would turn down any case brought under the ordinance because it does not meet state standards.

Some local business owners said they believe the intent of the ordinance is to force them to hire homosexuals, even if they have a moral stand against the lifestyle.

Phil Bright, who said he operates a photography business, claimed he will go out of business because he fears someone might sue him for refusing to do business with them if they are homosexuals.

He argued that if churches are given exemptions under the law for such hiring, then individual members of churches should also enjoy that protection.

“What about my rights?” he asked. “I think this is about those taking my right away to say ‘no,’”

Businessman Glenn Stutsman said he was not aware of any documented cases of discrimination from members of the crowd.

“I haven’t heard one yet,” he said. “... the assumption is that employers in this community discriminate.”

Stutsman said he would like to have business owners in Goshen be able to hire who they want. He added that hiring practices are already governed by state and federal agencies and laws.

He said he hired a member of the task force in the past and he sees no need for the ordinance.

“Passing something like this only puts another arrow in the quiver of someone who wants to file a lawsuit,” he said.

Council member Jeremy Stutsman, who co-sponsored the amendment with council member Chic Lantz, said there have been instances of discrimination against homosexuals in Goshen, but the victims may not feel comfortable bringing it up.

He estimated that roughly 95 of Goshen employers do not discriminate.

Renee Williams asked Mayor Allan Kauffman if there were any particular instances of discrimination that prompted the change in the ordinance.

Kauffman said there weren’t, but it was the fear of that happening, that led to the wording change.

Many people in the crowd spoke in favor of the ordinance, saying minority groups in the United States have to be protected from discrimination. Quite a few of the pro-ordinance people likened the struggle for protection for homosexuals to the civil rights struggle for rights for black Americans.

Brad Miller said he did not believe the “fear” of losing a job or an apartment is enough to pass the ordinance because government cannot pass a law to protect people from all their fears. He said during the Civil Rights Era there was actual discrimination.

“I don’t think you can ever legislate enough to eliminate fear,” he said.

Kimber Beachy said she thinks the issue is different than in the 1960s, when people could not hide their skin color.

“It’s not out in the public because of that fear,” she said of homosexuality.

Several homosexuals spoke and said they would like to be more open about their lives, but can’t because they have to worry about using the proper pronoun at work when referring to their partner.

“Many (instances of discrimination) don’t get mentioned,” said Nick Miller Kauffman, “because there is no real recourse if they are discriminated against based on your gender or sexual orientation.”

When asked how the Goshen Chamber of Commerce stood on the issue, Mayor Kauffman said the Chamber’s policy committee voted Tuesday morning to support the amendment but the overall Chamber has not taken a stand.