Koch’s Order Banning Gay Bias in Social Agencies Held Illegal

Mayor Edward I. Koch cannot prohibit the Archdiocese of New York or other groups holding city social services contracts from discriminating against homosexuals in hiring, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

“Because of the separation of powers delineated in the City Charter, the mayor has no authority to initiate such a policy,” the state’s highest court ruled in a 6-1 decision that overturned a lower court decision.

The court said the City Council does have authority to require a clause banning discrimination against homosexuals in city contracts. But the council has for 14 years failed to pass such a law.

“No matter how well-intentioned his actions may be, the mayor may not unlawfully infringe upon the legislative powers reserved to the City Council,” the court said.

Groups Identified

The groups involved--the Roman Catholic Archdiocese, the Jewish Orthodox Agudath Israel and the Salvation Army--receive nearly $90 million a year from the city to provide social services for children, the elderly, homeless and disabled.

Though they denied they discriminate against anyone, the groups threatened to give up the contracts rather than sign an agreement to that effect because the stipulation would go against religious beliefs that practicing homosexuality is a sin.

The mayor’s order that all groups receiving city social services contracts sign a non-discrimination agreement had been in existence since 1980, but became controversial last year when Roman Catholic Cardinal John J. O’Connor took over the archdiocese and balked at signing it.

Koch and O’Connor agreed to let a court decide whether the order was legal.

‘Gained Immeasurably’

“The city’s children, homeless, senior citizens and the handicapped have gained immeasurably by the court’s holding,” said O’Connor, whose archdiocese is paid $82 million by the city to run about 50 social programs.

“It’s a loss for justice,” Koch said. “It is surely time that we recognize in this city that nobody should suffer in employment or housing or otherwise because of private sexuality involving consenting adults.”

But O’Connor said his argument against the order was “regrettably distorted and vastly misunderstood.” The question, he said, is: “Who is going to run religiously sponsored agencies, the government or the church?”