The Guardian forgot to mention that it still looks like they are not going to expand Medicaid and are going to let all that Idaho taxpayer money go to some other state.

It also looks like thay are not going to add the words. To them, religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate and be bigots.

What they are doing is making Idaho a laughing stock, like Mississippi.

Is there more to the story on the Idaho State Treasurer accepting the full loss on the mortgage backed securities instead of letting the individual cities take the losses?

Did the Treasurer feel that the million plus citizens of the state were in a better position to suffer a loss instead of small cities?

A loss was going to happen on the investments. We all learned this after the Great Recession took trillions of dollars due to faulty mortgage backed securities. Exactly who could best weather the loss was apparently the decision of the Treasurer.

Guardian, I think your perception of the “free to discriminate” bill in a bit off kilter. The bill would NOT allow people to not follow the law if it was for religious reasons.

Rather it creates a law where there is no law currently.

A baker could refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple if they so choose- without the threat of a lawsuit. There is no current law that says you have to bake a cake for anyone.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

“Add the words” and you have:
No shirt, no gays, no shoes, no service.

Just saying… doesn’t make anything right. This bill is just as dumb as the Add the Words bill, IMO.
Certainly not gonna pass, but the bill is just equally chaotic as the Add the Words bill… so does that mean those two bills have “equal rights”? Ha!

With respect Guardian, a list of foolishness of the Legislature is really a nearly impossible task. An admirable start of the high points, certainly, but, really, no where and no way is it possible to be truly comprehensive at this still early stage of the errr, game.

EDITOR NOTE–I was laying the ground work for the explanation for my continuing bad attitude, even though the inversion has lifted. Tahiti is next stop for me!

Re the guns on campus issue: Does that mean that GPAS would mean “Guns Pointed At Students”?

For got to mention the idea that the federal government should turn over all public land to the state. Get in line for the biggest land grab ever! We’ll need a large mop bucket for the drool from the well healed and connected.

EDITOR NOTE–Today one of those short sighted, @#$%^& legislators proposed to do away with the federal EPA so miners could dredge the Salmon River!

Easterner,

You’re way off on your interpretation of the RFRA Amendment. WAY OFF.

There’s a reason over 500 people came to testify in opposition. There’s a reason the City of Boise, a number of local religious leaders and churches, NNU, Idaho Education Association, the ACLU, local Christians, a number of local attorneys, and dozens of other local groups and individuals DID NOT support this bill.

There’s a reason the AG’s office said that both bills are likely unconstitutional.

There’s a reason that the bill sponsor, Luker, decided to change the wording in the bill after testimony (even though that didn’t really change the discrimination aspect of the bill).

But hey, you go on believing your mistaken interpretation of this bill.

Teej, thanks for your helpful insight.

Well as to the individual suggesting weapons should be brought on campus…….either the 2nd amendment applies or it doesn’t apply. Why are there specific areas that seem to be exempt from the policies instituted by the United States Constitution. For any ONE individual to suggest that only certain “types” of people should be allied to carry a weapon, I humbly suggest that no one human being should have the power to decide that issue. The current debate is a no brainer. This is a right given allowed us by the framers of the Constitution. This country is being forced to abide by the policies of the liberal progressives who seem to have found their way in to all areas of politics and law enforcement despite the obvious disgust that the average citizen or police officer may have for their “spokesman”. Politicians are paid to represent the people…not force their own personal views down the citizens throats. as for police administrators that seem to think they put their pants on a little differently than the common man: your arrogance is appalling. You are paid to enforce the law. PERIOD. Keep your personal opinions to yourself and do your stinking job. And i do mean stinking. Double standards may fly at the 7/11 counter but I pay your salary and pension. Remember that the next tinge you think your opinion matters.

Rick,
Your right, in part. There are too many laws on the books, and there in lies the problem. Our country’s laws sound like the bad side effects listed from any T.V. commercial drug add. We have become a nation that is so full of laws, that it is impossible to live past the age of 25 without breaking at least one.
There are many of us Vets who are disgusted with the way this country, (and state) are circling the drain morally, and legally. Someday, maybe not within the decade, but soon in comparison to the age of the country, we will have a revolution. And freedom, TRUE freedom will once again be given to everyone, and not just those who can buy it. (but as history has shown us, that too won’t last).

Second Amendment:

Well said, and I second your sentiments!!!!

Zippo:

It was bonds, not stocks. You are referring to stock market recovery.