The LuLac Edition #5, 749, August 26th, 2026
WRITE ON WEDNESDAY
Our “Write on Wednesday” logo
This week we are running an editorial by the Citizens’ Voice newspaper on the big fight against the anti-discrimination ordinance which opposition to it is ridiculous on its face value. Lies are being told by MAGA Republicans. But this is all they do. They only have two tools in their box, LIES and FEAR.
THE CITIZEN'S VOICE THINKS THE COUNTY'S ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE IS A GOOD IDEA.
When members of the Luzerne County Council voted to pass a much talked-about non-discrimination ordinance on Tuesday, they showed no small amount of political courage.
After all, the arguments against taking these steps were always going to be obvious ones for detractors to make. They were going to call them unnecessary, a waste of time and taxpayer money, nothing more than a blatant virtue signal.
We believe taking on this issue, and those criticisms, not only addressed potential issues in Luzerne County, but that doing so should embolden county governments around the region to explore ways to protect citizens both underserved and overlooked by current laws.
Luzerne County’s ordinance, passed by a 7-4 majority, establishes comprehensive non-discrimination requirements for employment, housing, education, health care and public accommodations throughout Northeast Pennsylvania’s largest county. It lists a slew of specific protected classes: Actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, creed, national origin or citizenship status, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, genetic information, marital status, familial status, GED rather than high school diploma, physical or mental disability, relationship or association with a disabled person, source of income, age, height, weight, veteran status, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, or domestic or sexual violence victim status.
A human relations commission — the composition and responsibilities of which will be determined by the county council at a future meeting — will rule on discrimination complaints once the ordinance takes effect in 90 days.
Around 70 residents spoke on both sides of the issue during recent hearings. Arguments against the ordinance centered on it being somehow superfluous, given non-discrimination laws that were approved in the past in Washington, D.C., and at the state Capitol in Harrisburg.
We don’t believe those counters pass muster for several reasons.
Federal civil rights and non-discrimination protections have been weakened or gutted altogether in recent years as a matter of policy by the Trump administration through agency rollbacks and executive orders. At the very least, the administration’s policy seems bent on deprioritizing the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws that remain. A string of recent Supreme Court rulings — the Louisiana v. Callais decision in April effectively rendered the Voting Rights Act toothless — have done little to buck the trend.
State laws on the matter are holding a bit stronger, but they were meant more as a baseline. They clearly were never intended to prevent any communities that wanted to take further action from doing so.
Pennsylvania law expressly authorizes human relations commissions through the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which grants any legislative body that oversees a county, city, borough or township authority to establish, fund, and operate one locally through the passage of an ordinance or resolution. They are meant to work alongside the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which was established to enforce anti-discrimination laws established by the commonwealth.
We believe this to be an encouragement to expand the law when necessary to protect citizens from discriminatory action in those specific avenues where all Americans deserve a fair shot to build as happy and safe a life as they can.
Non-discrimination ordinances are hardly made redundant by federal and state statute. They fill real-world, community-specific gaps in policy that often haven’t been addressed or updated in decades.
For example, in most cases, neither federal nor state law bars an employer from casting someone out of a job pool because they have a GED, not a high school diploma. Also, neither protect renters seeking housing with a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. Source of income and GED are not protected classes at the state level, but they are now in Luzerne County, which is doing its diligence when it comes to protecting vulnerable, working-class citizens.
Other counties and municipalities around the region should follow suit, recognize these gaps, and accept that no small percentage of their own citizens are likely falling into them. For too many who can be slotted into one of these protected class classifications, federal and state law isn’t always as supportive as it could be.
Luzerne County did the right thing, paving the way for it to be very different in all of Northeast Pennsylvania.

.webp)
.webp)

.jpg)



.jpg)

.png)