Hatboro provides all people with anti-discrimination rights

Consider this: a puzzling electrical issue at home leaves you without power. You contact professionals for help, but none are available until this problem is studied more. It could be a long wait. Your handyman neighbor, however, says he’s seen this before and can remedy the situation. Would you wait until the pros are ready or go now with the guy next door?

That is not unlike the circumstances surrounding passage of a Hatboro ordinance extending discrimination rights to the LGBTQ community. Pennsylvania and the feds have done nothing to provide protection, so it was up to local government to act. About 40 municipalities statewide have done so.

Borough council recently passed the extension ordinance, 4-3, leaving me thrilled with the result yet summarily baffled by opposition to a core American principle: freedom of choice.

The ordinance makes it unlawful in Hatboro to discriminate against a person in matters of employment, housing, commercial property acquisition and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

“What about existing law?” you’re thinking. A state Human Relations Act already in place makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, nationality, sex and disability but does not include an area now covered by the borough law: protection for actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. Now you’re thinking this: what a bunch of baloney ’cause the present act is adequate in that it covers it all; no one ever will need the extra protection provided in the borough ordinance. Traditional family values and Christian teachings are damaged by the new borough law, plus, you think, the ordinance will lead to some legal complaints and be costly to businesses.

Three Hatboro council members (George Forgeng, David Rich and Robert Hegele) voted against the ordinance, and some residents at the council meeting expressed opposition to it. Saying no discrimination complaints have been filed, one resident said, “Why does the borough need to introduce this ordinance other than to support the LGBTQ social agenda that will infringe upon my in-