PRELUDE–We oppose discrimination at all levels and believe in EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION for all. Singling out a specific group for protection and exempting specific groups from compliance would seem an exercise in social engineering at best.
Forgotten amidst the fanfare of the newly passed anti-discrimination ordinance passed by the Boise City Council is the EXCEPTIONS section.
While private employers and landlords face a $1,000 criminal fine for discriminating against gay people, the county, state, and federal governments, Scouts, and religions get a pass as shown in the excerpt of the ordinance:
This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
2. An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this
chapter would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive
association under Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
3. The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any
corporation wholly owned by it; or the state of Idaho or any of its departments,
agencies, or political subdivisions, except the City of Boise.
Here is the absurdity of the law. Tattooed people are not protected. Read on and share your comments.
Boise police for example can discriminate against tattooed coppers. The policy states that no more than one-third of the exposed skin on an arm can be tattooed. Discrimination? Certainly, but bending to the sensitivities of society, it is official policy. Look for the issue of tats to come up during union negotiations with firemen in the coming year as well.
Employers at restaurants, hospitals, etc. could theoretically have similar policies since older patrons may be offended by tattooed ladies (or men). It is also likely many landlords would have second thoughts about renting to someone who shows up with tats on their neck, face, and arms–regardless of their gender, credit rating or level of education.
Those with tattoos will likely relate they have been discriminated against. Does this mean we need a special law?
When it comes to tats, one would be hard pressed to find men or women under the age of thirty WITHOUT body ink these days.
Our point: discrimination is wrong regardless of the prejudice. Selective laws will never alter broad minds or small minds.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.