Tuesday's defeat of the Fayetteville civil rights ordinance wasn't decisive. If you're for the ordinance, it's not dead yet. If you're against it, likewise.
The City Council passed a law forbidding businesses from discriminating against someone because of that person's gender or sexual orientation, among other characteristics. Voters opted to repeal that.
That vote isn't the last word because ordinance supporters made a strong showing. Sure, the powerful alliance of conservative churches and many businesses made a bigger showing. Fifty-two percent to 48 percent is a good, solid win in anybody's book.
But name some other group that could get 93.6 percent as many votes as the strongest coalition in town. Add to that how every advantage was on the side of repeal. The timing, the fact this was a one-issue special election, voter fatigue, the holidays, flaws in the ordinance and an attitude among business owners of "enough is enough" on city regulation: All these things dampened ordinance support. Yet supporters stayed within four percentage points.
When some group is 94 percent as strong on its own as churches and the chamber are together, it's a force to be reckoned with.
That doesn't mean voters are ready to turn right around and vote for a cleaner ordinance. Oh goodness no. This election year can't end soon enough. All I want for Christmas is to be spared from another campaign on anything any time soon.
The vote result also doesn't mean the ordinance would win simply by putting it into a higher-turnout election, such as the next general election in 2016. Voting on LGBT rights is still something new for most voters. Nobody yet knows how this would play out in a general election. What we do know from this special election is that the bases of support for the opposing sides in Fayetteville are something that resembles equal. This fight isn't over.
So, what's each side to do? Well, ordinance opponents need to beware of making martyrs. Not that I think anyone will interpret this vote as a license to go discriminate. After all, one of the repeal campaign's greatest strengths is its claim that this ordinance was a solution in search of a problem -- a claim that's easy to make when most voters aren't in the class seeking protection.
But suppose I'm wrong. If one flagrant discrimination case does arise, watch out.
Much of the winners' support came from a business community that -- to a large but unknown degree -- is simply fed up with city regulation. Their issue isn't so much the goal of this ordinance as the addition of anything else. If those businesses can be mollified, opponents will risk losing a lot of their support.
Now, on the other side: The pro-ordinance crowd's first priority should be -- duh -- to mollify business opposition. That won't come cheaply. Revising the ordinance to address concerns won't be enough, especially if you don't want to end up with an ordinance that is just a glorified resolution with no teeth.
Supporters of this measure on the City Council may have to loosen other city regulations to get this one through an election. Look at the situation as a sort of "no net gain" rule on further regulation. To get a new one, you may have to give up some old ones.
I have no concrete suggestions on what such a trade-off could be in this case, but I'll bet the business community could come up with one. This is politics. The prospect of getting something without giving up something is nil. Council members may have to decide how much they really want this ordinance. Passing it and keeping it will cost them something.
Also, any ordinance the City Council passes is destined for a repeal vote. That's obvious. So since we're headed to an election anyway, supporters might as well ask the council to submit its next ordinance for voter approval. A council-only measure might have worked and was worth a try. Now we know better. Supporters might as well choose the timing for the next election rather than let their opponents pick the date.
Finally, the core of supporters on each side need to tell their most extreme members to get a grip. Ordinance sponsor Matthew Petty set the right tone: ""We believe that we were on the right side of history. And if we're going to win the hearts and minds of people on the other side of this issue, we need to remember that and remember that they're brothers and sisters of Fayetteville, too."
DOUG THOMPSON IS A POLITICAL REPORTER AND COLUMNIST FOR NWA MEDIA.
Commentary on 12/14/2014