Revised measure on tonight’s council agenda
POCATELLO — City elected officials will hold another hearing on an amended ordinance that prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents when it comes to employment, housing and public accommodations tonight at City Hall.
The regular Pocatello City Council meeting begins at 6 p.m. and the hearing is slated as agenda item 21.
There are several changes in the wording of the ordinance compared with the one that failed to win passage in April. After a 3-3 split vote by the council to approve the original ordinance, Mayor Brian Blad cast the deciding vote to kill it. However, Blad promised the council would develop an ordinance that could win approval.
Among those changes is the addition of the words “willfully committed,” when it comes to acts of discrimination.
The new proposed ordinance also includes the following addition: “This ordinance shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Act, Idaho Code 73-401 et seq.”
The previous ordinance had already exempted “employment of those who perform functional, administrative, and/or ministerial duties for organizations whose primary purpose and function is religious.”
Another added section calls for gender identification based on state driver’s licenses or official IDs when it comes bathrooms or locker rooms.
“Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Ordinance, the gender identity contained on any person’s State issued driver’s license or identification card shall determine the bathroom, locker room or like facilities that are to be used by such person,” the added section states.
When it comes to discrimination against members of the LGBT community, the new ordinance exempts anyone who “employs fewer than five employees for each working day in 32 or more calendar weeks in the previous 12 month period, whose services are to be partially or wholly performed in the city of Pocatello, and further excepting therefrom domestic servants hired to work in and about a person’s household.”
The new ordinance does maintain that violations of the ordinance will be a criminal offense. But the maximum penalty is a fine of not more than $1,000 and six months in the county jail.
The prosecutor may reduce the violation to an infraction, payable by a $100 fine, if the defendant engages in corrective actions.
Before any legal action is taken, the ordinance states: “If, upon the completion of an investigation of a complaint made pursuant to the terms of this Chapter, the City Attorney finds that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, the City Attorney shall notify the Complainant and the Defendant of their right to engage in a mediation and attempt to resolve the dispute prior to the filing of a criminal complaint.”
The ordinance, which failed in April, was modeled after ordinances that were passed in Boise and Sandpoint.
Two hearings were held on the initial ordinance and they drew huge crowds to City Hall. The majority of those testifying at those hearings were in favor of passage, however the Journal has received numerous emails and published opinion columns on both sides of the issue.
(5) comments
Yikes. I had not heard that so thanks to Stand Up. I can guarantee that if I go into a ladies room and there is a 'gent' in there, I'm leaving!
At it's Tuesday night meeting, the Coeur d Alene city council voted 5 to 1 to approve their new anti-discrimination ordinance. This makes them the fifth city in Idaho to do so. It's unfortunate that the Journal didn't find this newsworthy. Considering the number of letters to the editor, editorials, and public interest in this subject, I would have thought this would be a front page story.
As I understand it, a person can not change the gender designation on their drivers license unless there has been a surgical reassignment. Therefore, just because someone identifies as female, if there is male genitalia, then the drivers license says male and the men's room is where they have to go. Therefore, Stand Up Pocatello is incorrect in saying women and children would be victimized seeing male genitalia. Unless she's going into the men's room that is.
In April of this year, due to pressure from the ACLU, the Idaho Department of Transportation changed their rules and they do NOT require SRS (s*x reassignment surgery) or a surgeon's note. They now require a court order or an affidavit/note from a doctor that a person has chosen to change their gender identity - No SRS is required. You may confirm this through googling "Idaho Department of Transportation relaxes rules on transgender driver's license." There are a number of articles about the policy change and you can confirm it with the Idaho Department of Transportation, too.
This revised Ordinance fails to accomplish what the Mayor asked. The ID Card provision is an honest sincere attempt at addressing some of the problems and it is better with it than without it, but it ultimately creates a catch 22 for some business owners. In addition to some faith based business owners becoming victims of these types of laws, some women and children will also be victims. This unintended outcome has not been discussed in any real depth by our City Leaders and has been dismissed repeatedly by the City Attorney as being a fabricated issue. The evidence reveals it is a valid and real concern. Nor have the leaders of the Nondiscrimination Ordinance answered as to why they advocate for allowing women and children to be victimized and when pressed on the issue, they are willing to dismiss incidents like the one at Evergreen College and the one pending at the Los Angeles Charter School as "not being common" and that the “protection” of the transgender to “go to the bathroom” is far more important than woman and children who might be exposed to "private male body parts" and are victimized in the process.
Pocatello, what of the 1 of 6 of every American women who have been a victim of either an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime? What of survivors of incest and survivors of child abuse? The LGBT community callously disregards the fact that the mere exposure to a view of a man’s s*x organs is a serious and traumatic experience for women and children who have been previously victimized and suffer from PTSD. A law that seeks to protect one group of people SHOULD NOT in turn victimize another group of people. The members of our City Council not only have a duty to protect religious liberty, but they need to ensure they are creating laws that protect ALL citizens, including women and children and most especially those in our community who have already been victims of rape, s*xual assault, child abuse or incest. This outcome whether common or not, is unacceptable!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In