On August 11, 2015, the Indy Star reported that Jim Brainard, mayor of Carmel, Indiana, constructed a new anti-discrimination law for his city. It was reported that this “ordinance would protect residents from discrimination based on gender identity or expression and sexual orientation as well as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, family or marital status, ancestry, age and veteran status.” The law would apply to all people involved in the fields of business, housing, education, employment, contracts, programs, public accommodations and services and amenities in the Carmel city limits. Furthermore, this ordinance is inapplicable to religious worship or clergy engaged in religious activities, private residences and nonprofit private clubs exclusively for fraternal or religious purposes. The fine for breaking this ordinance would be $500, daily. This means that in the best circumstances, LBGT+ people will not be discriminated against and strictly religious organizations will not be forced to act outside of their beliefs.

On September 17, 2015, the Indy Star also reported that the Carmel City Council meeting considered the ordinance, listening for three hours to public testimony for and against the law. Earlier, compromises were suggested that the wording of the ordinance be changed so that religious florists and bakers would be allowed to turn away homosexual couples. During this meeting, Brainard made it clear that he would not be accepting these specific amendments, stating that, “I don’t believe that one should be able to discriminate, period. These would allow discrimination in certain cases.”

A later article stated that the ordinance has again been delayed. Councilwoman Luci Snyder is one who believes that the anti-discrimination law needs work. She is quoted saying, “When you make a law, you have to make sure the words are what we want them to be.” Apparently, there are words that are not legally defined enough for those who are against the legislation. Another article reveals that these terms include gender identity and sexual orientation. While it is understandable to want clearly terms, the oppositions to this delaying tactic claim that there is no need for such changes in the ordinance as the terms are already defined in a dictionary. Going further, the definitions Snyder wants could actually allow for discrimination. Legal definitions have a habit of leaving things out. For example, one can be in a long term committed relationship, cohabitate and have children with a person but still be considered legally single. This pertains to sexuality and gender issues as well. One of the above articles contains Marion County’s definition of sexual orientation as “an individual's actual or perceived identity or practice as a lesbian woman, gay male, bisexual person or heterosexual person.” This definition is actually quite exclusive. It only covers three sexual orientations. That means, with this definition, all who fall into the “+” category of LGBT+ (i. e. people who define themselves as pansexual, asexual, queersexual etc.) can still be legally discriminated against. A more vague definition actually protects more queer citizens and evolving awareness.

Carmel Councilman at large Kevin Rider questions whether this protection is even necessary. Throughout the press surrounding this delayed legal action, people claim that there is no discrimination in Carmel. However, a lack of reports does not mean the absence of prejudice. The comments section on the articles about this Carmel legislation shows Carmel citizens on both sides of the issue spewing insults at each other. That is expected, but comments that call straight people “normal” and homosexuals “abnormal” and “the real bigots,” from a city that is supposedly discrimination-free contradict the argument that there is no discrimination in Carmel. There are also those who claim that the queer community does not deserve “special rights,” despite the fact that LGBT+ people are not a legally protected classes in Carmel or the state of Indiana. There was even an entire op-ed piece in which Pete Heck sarcastically refers to genders such as intersex, non-binary and Two-Spirit as “gems.” He even goes calls people who identify as androgynous “self-absorbed.” This is not to say these commentaries are indicative of the entire city of Carmel’s beliefs, but it does put into question the assumed lack of discrimination in Carmel.

Regardless, people’s rights are not something to play around with, and the fact that LGBT+ people are not a protected class is ridiculous in and of itself. People are waiting for evidence of discrimination before siding with this law, but in situations that pertain to people’s rights and lives, safe is usually better than sorry.