Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc., Et Al v.

City of Cincinnati United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1765; 75 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1763 (Civil Suit) -Appellants: City of Cincinnati -Intervening Appellants: Equal Rights not Special Rights, Et Al -Plaintiffs: Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati Inc. Facts of the Case: The Plaintiff wants to establish that equal rights are not granted to gay citizens (classified as non-suspect citizens) under the acceptance of amendment 2 adopted for the state of Colorado and equally adopted by the city of Cincinnati. It is the courts opinion however that, cities are laboratories for political experiments in public participation. Cincinnatis Issue 3 only shows that kind of social and political experimentation associated with city government. State government is different because it would be a violation of state civil rights laws to discriminate against gays in accepting amendment 2 from Romer. Since the city is not the same as the state the state civil rights laws would not be violated in accepting this amendment.

Procedural History: Issue 3 was the issue presented before the court the first time, which was a proposed ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians when searching for housing. Amendment 2 prevents, any city, town, or county, in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian individuals as a protected class. Protected class is a characteristic of a person who cannot be targeted for discrimination. Colorado wanted to prevent the LGBT community from being seen as a class of people to whom special privileges were given.

Judgment: The petition for rehearing (raised by the plaintiff, in this case the Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati) was denied.

Issues: Should people of the LGBT community (classified as non-suspect citizens) be seen as a protected class? Should amendment 2 be considered unconstitutional for cities to adopt if it were to be in violation of Civil Rights Laws? Should cities be treated as laboratories for social experimentation so that the state and federal government has an idea of what works and what doesnt work as far as legislation in smaller cities?

Holding: The LGBT community should not be seen as a protected class as this would be unfair to other people of the community who are not given the special privileges the protected class would be given. Amendment 2 should be considered constitutional as the amendment was adopted for the city of Cincinnati and amendment 2 would be considered unconstitutional in light of state civil rights laws, since Cincinnati is a city this ruling would not apply. Cities are to be treated as social laboratories as they are the only places it is considered constitutional to do such experimentation. .

Rationale Amendment 2 is constitutional because it is not in violation of state civil rights laws as Cincinnati is not a state. No special rights should be given to the LGBT community already classified as a nonsuspect class. Cities are to be seen as laboratories for social experimentation because it would be highly unconstitutional for the state and federal courts to document such social experimentation