A couple of well intended Boise City Councilors are about to propose a gay rights ordinance which “would not apply to churches, religious schools, groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, and local, state and federal governments. Existing law limits how the city can regulate those organizations,” according to the DAILY PAPER.
In Sandpoint they passed a similar law and there have been no cases brought to court.
If City Councilors want the gay vote, pass a resolution opposing discrimination, but don’t make another toothless law with provisions for “sensitivity training” which applies to a narrow part of society. They are trying to sell the idea on the basis of “public safety and economic development,” claiming such an ordinance would encourage businesses to relocate in Boise. The Chamber of Commerce is already on board.
The GUARDIAN suggests laws should apply to all persons and note that discrimination is simply wrong. Why don’t these counselors concern themselves with discrimination of heterosexuals as well? Would a landlord be guilty of discrimination for turning away a sexually active hetero white man with multiple partners? Keep government out of the bedroom!
It sounds nice to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, but similar laws are already on the books. Next move will be one of those infamous $24,500 surveys.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Nov 9, 2012, 1:08 pm
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?
Nov 9, 2012, 8:13 pm
The effort is both needed and admirable; but, I think the Guardian is correct that it is more “clutter”. As a statement of principle, and an affirmation of the inclusion of gays, lesbian, transgender and alternative gendered individuals it is as excellent reminder of the inclusion of such people with all other classes and individuals. I’d love to see this both as a memorial to the legislature, and perhaps to the Association of Idaho Cities as an official policy to be adopted by that body.
Nov 9, 2012, 9:57 pm
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.
Nov 10, 2012, 6:31 am
I am part of what is becoming a minority–married–Please add a few more words
Nov 10, 2012, 8:46 am
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.
Nov 10, 2012, 10:10 am
Dave, one more point. You mention “sexually active” people as your reasoning for why this is not needed — that is, you should be able to turn away as a renter, or fire from a job, someone whose ACTIONS are ones you to be inappropriate. Agreed. Whether gay or straight would not be the issue. Also agreed. But the law as it now stands means you can fire/turn away someone just for BEING of a certain sexual persuasion. Nothing to do with DOING anything you might deem offensive. And therein lies the rub.
Nov 10, 2012, 1:13 pm
to my two cents,
name me ONE law the dictates the rights and security from discrimination for the white hetero male.
Nov 10, 2012, 1:22 pm
My two cents,
If the entire American infrastructure specifically protects the white hetero male, then prove it; show me a law or a significant court ruling that dictates such a thing. I know that you may think that you have a valid argument, however if you are unable to prove that the world is designed by law to support the American white hetero male, then your argument is flawed and you need to retract your statement. This world is striving for equality, I am in support of equality, however obtaining equality is not possible by socially excluding an entire group, be it LGBT or white hetero male. Freedom for all means freedom for ALL.
Nov 10, 2012, 3:26 pm
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.
Nov 10, 2012, 6:19 pm
Ronin: I think there are benefits that accrue to white heterosexual males in this society, because the society we live in was built on and is based in racism and sexism and has been hierarchical/layered in that regard. In other words, racism and sexism and antigay sentiment are not ONLY about bad thoughts; they are based on a real system of privilege, albeit much of which is unacknowledged by members of that dominant culture. When those who have been UNempowered begin to gain some real power, that does not mean the dominant group (whites for instance) are now oppressed. It simply means maybe some equality is heading our way. I retract nothing. But I certainly respect your right to disagree.
Nov 10, 2012, 10:24 pm
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.
Nov 12, 2012, 3:09 pm
Look no further than the marriage laws and state-Constitutional(re)definitions of marriage (and who can marry) for further institutional protection of the establishment (which typically means: white, heterosexual Christian male).
There are any number of resources out there that list the key differences in legal rights, protections and benefits granted to man/woman marriages vs. same-sex marriages or unions.
While your point about explicit legal protections for the white male may be sound, it’s also a straw man and its missing the point – institutional discrimination beyond laws.
Nov 12, 2012, 6:43 pm
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.
Nov 13, 2012, 8:22 am
When you give “Special protection” using law for a particular “group” of people (homosexuals in this case), you are VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION where it says “EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW”.
Hate crime laws and similar all violate that because it increases the penalty for a crime IF the so called “victim” falls under one of the groups for “special protection”.
i.e. If a person assaults a n elderly person he would be charged as such.
However if he assaults a person who claims it was a homosexual, an additional “hate crime” charge would be applied and the offender would receive a greater sentence.
And deep down all these laws, rules and ordinance is really about SILENCING CHRISTIANS or anyone else who dares to reject and/or expose Sodomy in their society.
Nov 13, 2012, 2:38 pm
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)
Really, you sound pathetic.
Nov 13, 2012, 2:44 pm
To follow up, I acknowledge that in lily white Idaho, that this idea of class privilege is a little difficult to ascertain, since we drive our gays out, and keep the Hispanics close to the farm, this guy does an excellent job of explaining white privilege by analogizing to a video game.
Nov 13, 2012, 5:29 pm
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.
Nov 30, 2012, 3:14 pm
“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.”
Really? Then please explain this:
Charlie Rogers, a lesbian in Nebraska, staged a hate crime in her home and on her person. She spray-painted words in the unfinished basement and cut herself, then claimed 3 men broke into her home and it was a “hate crime.”
The FBI was there to investigate within 24 hours. The FBI. Tell me, if I called the police and claimed homosexuals broke into my home and assaulted me would the FBI be there the next day to investigate?
The police came out a few days later and admitted it looked like a hoax.
“Poor, oppressed minorities” have more rights than anyone now. And the rights are unearned, in the sense that these “minorities” have never built a country like America and never could.