It's the apparant misuse of the term "civil rights" for a law that unquestionably limited the rights of a significant number of people based on race. Where did the term "civil rights" that you added come from? Not the ordinance. The links to the Constitution? That was written after the ordinance. Since the primary source doesn't say it, then you need a secondary source. Your interpretation, "The parallels between the language in the ordinance and the bill of rights are, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. V policy asks for 

::This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." 

The problem: no one knows where these cliams come fro. Finkelman, Onuf etc were the major articles published in recent times. They do not say what you say. Please remove the term "civil rights" or add a source that supports this claim.