Um Dave. What “similar laws” are you talking about? Gays and transgendered have no such protection in Idaho, except for Sandpoint.

EDITOR NOTE–You are correct counselor. I was trying to make a point that “other laws” can apply. Are you saying it is legal to fire someone today who is gay? Also if governments are exempt, are they able to discriminate even if an ordinance is passed?

well then to include all people, we must then start writing laws that protect the white heterosexual male, as currently there is no such law in existence, and with this slippery slope argument provided by the government, it is only a matter of time that they too are discriminated against.

Dear Dave: Well everyone is an at will employee in our fair state, so frankly, people can be fired for no reason at all. The key is, however, that it cannot be discriminatory. I.e., you cannot fire someone simply because you do not like their race. So to answer your question, Yes, it is legal to fire someone simply because he or she is of a particular sexual preference or gender identity. It is also legal to kick the person out of their apartment/house if it is a rental. And that is wrong. Hence, I support the ordinance wholeheartedly. Provisions against discrimination should include sexual preference/gender identity. That way people have some legal recourse should they need it. And to Ronin, may I point out that the entire infrastructure of America protects the while heterosexual male, so I think you can stop worrying.

EDITOR NOTE–Points well made and acknowledged. This appears to be a political move on the part of these Boise Councilors, using their positions to do something that more appropriately belongs in the legislature or congress. It could easily end up as just more “judging” be the Boise PD. In short, we oppose ALL discrimination . The big issue which caught our attention was not applying the proposed law to local, state, and federal governments or religious organizations.

to my two cents,

name me ONE law the dictates the rights and security from discrimination for the white hetero male.
just one…

Let me attack this subject from another direction. A person must be honest with no ulterior motives, neat, pays their bills and not egaged in any criminal activity or schemes using other folks money. Beyond that who cares what their sexual preferences are as long it does not include children.
Folks that have to announce they are concerned about homosexuality or transgendered really do not have much to think about and quit judging yourself about your choises.

MTC- As I would expect, you failed to show any proof that there is a law or court order dictating that the white hetero male is freer than anyone else. You also fail to realize that maybe we both support the same thing, the only difference is that I understand that there is plenty of evidence in the world to show that the old 1960’s style of protest and social angst is outdated and no longer necessary, as with every election we are implementing more and more diversity and cultural understanding into our government, (just look at the president and at least half of his cabinet, or is that too easy to forget because it doesn’t suit your desire to argue a moot point). But I also understand, (as you may not) that this change is something that does not occur over night, it is going to take time and effort, and logical intellectual planning, and not the old 60’s banter that rallies behind a banner of old worn out clichés of social discrimination without the substance of proof to back up the claim. Essentially you are watering your lawn in the rain… just wasting resources to prove a point that is in no need of proving.

True, to some extent. The inference the marriage laws are specifically for whites and Christians is flawed, although I do admit that they are designed to support the concept of one man and one woman. To look at other states that border Idaho( with the understanding that Idaho is an extremely conservative state that lacks any forethought in legislating laws), we can see that the legal right to marry is being amended to encompass all people, and in time these laws may be introduced into this state, (among others). The point of the law in question is to deter discrimination be it for employment and housing. This law is specific to those who are not hetero, or are of any ethnicity other than white. This begs the question, why support a law against discrimination, while discriminating against a specific group. Thus the identification of the hetero white males is NOT a straw man.

LMAO. Permission to speak freely. Whenever I hear old white guys ramble on about how they’re discriminated against, or somehow victimized by laws offering protection in housing or the workplace to people who have suffered actual discrimination, I honestly wonder what rock they’ve been living under. We are the single most privileged class on the planet today. Whether you’re aware of it or not, society has favored white males for millenia. We’re not the victims, we’re the problem. The following video by Louis CK illustrates the point. (NSFW)

http://youtu.be/TG4f9zR5yzY

Really, you sound pathetic.

4G and Ronin, this proposed law actually doesn’t create any special rights, but protects ANYONE from being discriminated against for sexual orientation, even heteros. Also, while there are laws that protect us from being discriminated against for reasons of religion, this law expressly does not apply to any religious based employer. They’re free to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity all they want.

In addition you seem to be under a misapprehension of “hate crimes”. All crimes punish based upon what the defendant intended. That’s why we punish a cold hearted murder more severely than voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. As a society we have deemed that if someone kills or harms another based upon the motive against someone’s skin color or ethnicity, that this should also be punished more severely. Unfortunately it’s rarely charged because it’s hard to prove since it has an extra element which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope this clarifies things.