A disappointing result, but there is encouragement in its narrow margin:
From LGBTQ Nation:
An LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance passed by the Springfield, Mo., city council last October, was overturned by voters on Tuesday.
With more than 97 percent of the votes tallied, 51.4 percent of voters opted to repeal the ordinance, while 48.5 percent voted to retain the measure.
The vote comes following months of campaigning by advocates and opponents of the measure, which added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The city council approved the ordinance by a 6-3 vote on October 13.
But any celebration was short-lived when, in November, an opposition group submitted more than 2,600 signatures to repeal the expansion through a ballot referendum known as Question 1.
While we'll see right-wingers celebrate this in the coming days, the result is not as favourable to them as they would like to think. Here's why:
The ordinance would have banned two types of discrimination that are controversial, and that many do not think should be banned: denial of service for a gay wedding, and allowing transgender people to use their proper bathrooms. So, even in a conservative state, and even with the ordinance covering two types of discrimination that many people think should be legal, they could only get 51.5% of people to oppose it. How many people would support anti-discrimination protections if these were excluded and it was not confined to a conservative area? Many more. This doesn't hold well for their idea that a majority of Americans support being able to discriminate against LGBT people. (I'm not saying that allowing the two types of discrimination I've mentioned is good, but I do think we would be more successful if they weren't covered.)
Still, it's disappointing. (Should we boycott Springfield? It only seems fair to Indiana. And this enabling also has the support of the citizens, not just the legislators.)