Because such laws don't exist in Pennsylvania, at least covering members of the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court ruled that gender identity and sexual preference were included under "sex" in the Equal Employment Clause of the Civil Rights Act, so that protection exists for now, but since it isn't explicitly stated in the law, that ruling could potentially be overturned. And since the ruling was written narrowly, it does not extend those same protections to housing or public accommodations.
The complaints by the city councilman in the article ring a bit hollow. You could make somewhat of an argument that the employment protection is redundant because of the above, but as I already pointed out, the law as written does not currently afford any explicit protection to the LGBTQ community. And the rest is clearly not redundant as no Pennsylvania or federal laws prohibit housing or public accommodation discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity. He says that it should be a state law - that's fine. But it isn't a state law yet. Should it become state law, then it would make sense for Chambersburg to repeal their local ordinance, but there's no reason to do so before that point. He says that it lacks any teeth - that's fine. So then why get rid of it rather than giving it teeth?