Comments on: Gay Rights Ordinance Is Merely A “Political Statement”

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:28:32 +0000

Yes, we need this special law to reinforce and add specificity to existing laws. The same way we need The Boise Guardian to reinforce and add specificity to local media. Sometimes, the default coverage just doesn’t go far enough.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:55:04 +0000

Slimeballs some’s it up!

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:49:59 +0000

Amen Rod, amen

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:26:11 +0000

Does anyone think people with tattoos need protection against discrimination?

The ordinance is about fairness and human rights. But, then, we live in in Idaho, and our two US Senators voted against human rights and rights for people with disabilities just the other day. I need to put a permanent yard sign out front to advertize what slimeballs Risch and Crapo are.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:11:35 +0000

Only Tatoos? What about lifestyle discrimination in employment? Obese, smokers and adventure seekers all have the potential to cause employers more money.

By: rabula

rabula — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:02:26 +0000

“…Ordinance Is Merely A ‘Political Statement’”

Well, duh!! Of course all ordinances, laws, regulations, etc. are “merely” political statements, i.e. they are statements of public policy.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:37:24 +0000

Seems that the point of your article is that we should never pass laws against discrimination until we can make it complete enough to eliminate all discrimination? Unfortunately the exceptions had to be written in there to get it passed in the first place.

Personally I didn’t think the law goes far enough in protecting LGBT rights, but it’s a major step in the right direction.

Not sure what tattoo discrimination has to do with the issue, if you’re against tattoo discrimination then lobby to get laws passed to protect people with tattoos.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:58:13 +0000

Sorry I feel this way but I’ll walk out of a restaurant or a place of business when I see the employees covered in ink. Guess it makes me a racists. Just reminds me of prison or gang affiliations.

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:00:31 +0000

Guardian, I like your point about ink on the skin. while I am WAY TOO OLD to forget that tattoos used to represent a tiny extreme minority and were considered by “polite society” as too outrageous to be tolerated, I will say that in my life I have come to admire some of these artistic displays. I am still bothered by facial tats, but that’s MY problem. No one forces me to comment upon such displays, no one should have a “right” to discriminate against such displays. I agree with the Guardian’s position that all discrimination is wrong, and go further in saying that the chief regulator of this is to first and foremost, recognize my own prejudice(s) and act to be above and beyond them. This extends to any and all, sexual, religious, political, piercings, tattoos, anything that I consider willful and self-imposed “disfigurement”. My problem, my duty to find a resolution which does not involve any penalty towards the so-called offender.

By: Ronin

Ronin — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:57:08 +0000

to BG about other post, I suppose so,
To those who are claiming sexual freedom with this law, you fail to see that the act of “fornication” is still illegal in this state. It is considered a sex crime punishable with no less than 300 dollar fine, up to six months jail, and oh yes you guessed it, sex offender registration. This law encompasses ALL premarital sex, consensual or not, of age or not, all those who commit this are technically breaking the law. So yes to Bike boy, anyone can be removed from their place of residence or employment due to criminal behavior.