POCATELLO — The Pocatello City Council approved an ordinance protecting members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community from discrimination last June, but just shy of a year later, the controversial ordinance is once again up for vote.
This time Pocatello residents will determine whether the ordinance should stay in effect or be repealed.
They will vote on Proposition One during the Primary Election on Tuesday. A “Yes” vote will lead to the ordinance’s undoing, while a “No” vote will keep it in place.
Brenda Stanley, co-chair of the Fair Pocatello campaign — www.fairpocatello.com — which supports the nondiscrimination ordinance, is urging people to vote “No” on Proposition One.
She says the law protects members of the LGBT community from the possibility of losing their job or being evicted from their home simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and it encourages people to treat others fairly and with respect.
“The whole concept is treat others the way you want to be treated,” she said. “That’s what this does.”
But those who oppose the ordinance say it goes too far. While it may protect the rights of the LGBT community, they say it tramps on others’ rights and personal convictions.
Those behind Vote Yes Pocatello, a citizens’ group that wants to see the ordinance repealed, have shared their views on the website www.VoteYESPocatello.com, and they directed the Idaho State Journal to the site when contacted for comment.
“Like most people, we think that people should be treated equally and with respect. Many of us have family and friends who identify (themselves) as gay and we love and care about them. However, laws like Pocatello's city ordinance have been sweeping the country and the consequences have been disturbing,” according to their website, which adds that such laws have been used to take away rights from others.
They say Pocatello’s nondiscrimination ordinance forces business owners to choose between their personal convictions and their profession, and threatens people with fines and jail time for following their personal beliefs.
Vote Yes Pocatello also feels that the ordinance violates people’s right to make decisions about their private property and jeopardizes their ability to sustain their family’s values. And they say it also “blurs the lines of gender by introducing subjective, ambiguous language, resulting in the abuse of privacy rights of women and children,” according to their website.
But Stanley disagrees with concerns about the ordinance, and she feels they are mostly about fearmongering.
“These are necessary things (that need to be) put in place,” she said, adding that people likely feared new laws would cause them to lose their rights during the Civil Rights Movement, too.
Those behind Fair Pocatello believe the ordinance protects rather than hinders basic freedoms.
“This gives rights to people who deserve them. It doesn’t take away rights from anyone,” Stanley said.
She feels the ordinance is important because it protects people from discrimination and sends a message about the community, which could help with economic development.
“It’s important to show that Pocatello is an accepting community and a welcoming community — one where people want to move their businesses to,” she said.
The Bannock County Primary Election sample ballot on Proposition One reads:
Should the City repeal Ordinance No. 2921, which prohibits discrimination against a person in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations, based upon that person’s sexual orientation and gender identity/expression?
A “Yes” vote would mean you want the City to repeal the ordinance.
A “No” vote would mean you want the City to keep the ordinance in effect.
To view the sample ballot, visit www.co.bannock.id.us/elections.
(15) comments
77lance, thieves, murderers, and child molesters are all harming someone else. People within the LGBT community aren't harming anyone simply by the fact that they are members of the LGBT community.
This really isn't a matter of "gay rights" it's about everyone being treated the same. There is no special right being given to anyone, just making everyone have the same rights. I've never understood why being gay suddenly makes someone lesser.
So, according to Ms. Bailey, it should have been accepted that those CEOs etc. can say and do discriminatory things, but when other people find out and do something about it, i.e. boycotts, then the latter is at fault? That is idiotic. Apparently you should only be allowed to do what you want if you are the discriminator.
This is a pointless waste of time and money. I was never strongly in favor of this ordinance in the first place, but seeing the reasoning behind those who are very strongly against it, I have changed my mind.
When you have rants like what 77lance just wrote you understand why a NO vote is needed in Pocatello. It always shocks me to know that we have people like this filled with so much hate. I am not a church going person but I sure hope if I send up a little prayer for this poor soul someone will listen.
Go get 'em, people of Pocatello! Vote "yes" and tell the world that you won't tolerate this garbage. There is little question that some unjust federal judge is going to try to force the homosexual "value system" on everyone eventually, but for now you have the chance to prove that this is NOT what Idahoans want. You have the chance to show that you won't be bullied by a few perverts who go griping to the City Council - a council that you probably did not elect for the purpose of telling you what you should believe; a council that you probably didn't elect for the purpose of making laws that would condemn you to JAIL just for refusing to cater to "gay rights."
Truth be told, you ought to pass this measure and then run every last one of the "LGBT" residents out of town in short order. Then you should remove from office every last council member that voted for the ordinance in the first place.
Look at what this bunch is doing to Idaho's cities, the state, and the nation: they are trying to bully everyone into saying that wrong is right. Would you accept an ordinance that protected the "civil rights" of thieves? Of murderers? Of child molesters? Let's hope not.
Vote "yes" and let it stand as a testimony that it was never what you wanted to begin with - that your City Council misrepresented you. Stand up to bullying!
Rochelle Lillig, since you have posted 10 out of the 11 comments on this age, I will address my comments to you and the "Vote Yes" group:
The LIES you have told on your fliers and on your commercial regarding transgender people and students are egregious. The particular case in Colorado of a trans student supposedly harassing girls in the bathroom has been disproven time and time again.
You and your ilk constantly spout your Christian values but i always thought that "Thou shalt not bear false witness" was one of the 10 Commandments? How then can you reconcile to your God when you have consistently and constantly lied to the people of Pocatello?
Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I am Rochelle Lillig, treasurer for Vote Yes Pocatello.
The VOTE YES POCATELLO statement issued to KPVI, Channel 6 for their Friday, 05/09 segment on Prop 1.
"VOTE YES POCATELLO is a group of local people working diligently to assure passage of Prop 1 to repeal Ordinance 2921. This unnecessary law was created to solve a problem for which there is little, to no, supporting evidence. The law fails to ensure ALL citizens are treated fairly and equally and instead expands special protections to a small group. Rather than being used as a protective measure, these laws are being used around the country as a weapon against individuals and businesses to infringe upon their freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and property rights, forcing them to facilitate or participate in activities that contradict their values. Ordinance 2921 threatens Pocatello citizens with criminal investigation, a criminal record, up to six months in jail and up to $1000 fine just for following their personal convictions.
"Equally, disturbing is the removal of a barrier of protection that has always existed to shield females from predatory acts like voyeurism, sexual assault, and indecent exposure – in areas presumed to be safe spaces such as locker rooms and changing rooms.
"The core issue is about your loss of constitutionally-protected rights of conscience and property to government control. The ordinance violates your First and Fourth Amendment rights: Faith, Family, Freedom, and Property.
Ordinance 2921 is simply bad public policy and needs to be repealed by voting YES on Prop 1."
See the news of a women finding a naked man in the ladies changing room:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3128879091001
Nothing but conservative bigotry. I'm voting "NO" because I don't believe you should possess liberties other Americans should not. Esoteric fear is all this is about. Religious self righteousness does not trump the supreme law of the land!
The VOTE YES POCATELLO statement issued to KPVI, Channel 6 for their Friday, 05/09 segment on Prop 1.
"VOTE YES POCATELLO is a group of local people working diligently to assure passage of Prop 1 to repeal Ordinance 2921. This unnecessary law was created to solve a problem for which there is little, to no, supporting evidence. The law fails to ensure ALL citizens are treated fairly and equally and instead expands special protections to a small group. Rather than being used as a protective measure, these laws are being used around the country as a weapon against individuals and businesses to infringe upon their freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and property rights, forcing them to facilitate or participate in activities that contradict their values. Ordinance 2921 threatens Pocatello citizens with criminal investigation, a criminal record, up to six months in jail and up to $1000 fine just for following their personal convictions.
"Equally, disturbing is the removal of a barrier of protection that has always existed to shield females from predatory acts like voyeurism, sexual assault, and indecent exposure – in areas presumed to be safe spaces such as locker rooms and changing rooms.
"The core issue is about your loss of constitutionally-protected rights of conscience and property to government control. The ordinance violates your First and Fourth Amendment rights: Faith, Family, Freedom, and Property.
Ordinance 2921 is simply bad public policy and needs to be repealed by voting YES on Prop 1."
DID YOU KNOW . . . ???
A Catholic High School in Sammamish, Washington is being sued for firing a Vice-Principal for violating Catholic Church teaching in December 2013
"According to The Seattle Times, Zmuda's lawyers argue their client, as the vice principal at the school, served an administrative role that was not affiliated with the school's Catholic doctrine. This argument, as the local newspaper notes, works with a recent state Supreme Court ruling that says religious nonprofits cannot fire an employee based on religious beliefs if the employee's job was unrelated to religion.
The school has already filed a motion for the King County Superior Court to dismiss Zmuda's lawsuit, arguing that the teacher knew full well he was violating Catholic Church teaching by engaging in a same-sex marriage. The school said in its argument that the court has no jurisdiction over the case because the school, as a religious nonprofit, is protected by the First Amendment. The school added in their motion that the lawsuit "would impermissibly entangle the Court in Catholic doctrine."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/vice-principal-sues-catholic-school-archdiocese-for-firing-after-gay-marriage-115822/
How is it determined if a job is "unrelated" to religion? Who gets to determine that? Shouldn't the church who is operating the school have the right to determine what does and doesn't violate their teaching? Shouldn't all employees be required as a condition of employment to adhere to those teachings if they choose to work there? It's called an "employment contract." What right does the government have to intervene in these employment contracts between two private entities? NONE! Where is the outrage from all the "Separation of Church and State" people???
Here's the message . . . if you're a church and your brazen enough to run a PRIVATE school and REQUIRE your employees to adhere to set of beliefs that we, the government (the enlightened, progressive, evolved ones) don't agree with, we're going to sue you, and inflict significant financial harm on you in order to compel you to follow our way of thinking.
So much for being tolerant! So much for freedom in American! How's that for being fair?!!!
If Ordinance 2921 is only about Employment and Housing, why are similar laws being used to infringe upon the property rights of citizens like the owner's of the Wild Flower Inn in Vermont?
The Vermont, bed and breakfast owners of the Wild Flower Inn, Jim and Mary O'Reilly, are devout Catholics. As an established business practice approved in 2005 by the Vermont Human Rights Commission, when requested to host a same-sex wedding ceremony, the couple would share their personal beliefs with the potential customer since they felt honesty was important. In 2011, the ACLU joined with the Vt. Human Rights Commission and filed a lawsuit against them for their "expression" of their beliefs even though the couple had never denied any same-sex couple services. In order to save their business, the couple agreed to a settlement in which they paid a $10,000 civil penalty to the Vermont Human Rights Commission and a $20,000 to a charitable trust designated by the plaintiffs. They no longer host weddings or receptions.
Is that fair?
Too bad our laws and regulations governing false or deceptive advertising don't apply to the "sales pitches" in favor of these laws. The gross misrepresentation of nondiscrimination laws being told and sold to our community members is beyond deceptive.
Vote Yes Pocatello believes all its citizens deserve to have ALL the facts, not just the sugar-coated ones, in order to make a well-informed decision on May 20th.
HELP US! Share what you are learning or have learned from this page and webpage with ALL your family, friends, and neighbors.
There are still a lot of poorly informed people in our community and people who are confused about the wording of the ballot question.
VOTE YES on Prop 1 to GET RID OF THE LAW.
The "YES" is to answer the question, "Should the City Repeal the Ordinance 2921 . . .?" The obvious answer is YES.
DID YOU KNOW . . . ???
In Idaho State Statutes, Title 69, Chapter 59, (Commission on Human Rights), under definitions: "Employer means a person, wherever situated, who hires five (5) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year whose services are to be partially or wholly performed in the state of Idaho, except for domestic servants hired to work in and about the person's household."
BUT, in Pocatello's law, there's no definition of employer and there's no exemptions for employers, so the law applies to every employer no matter the number of employees.
This means the LGBT protected class has EXPANDED coverage beyond what the State of Idaho offers to federally protected classes like race, color, religion, sex or national origin, disability, or age in employment.
Is that fair?
VOTE YES ON PROP 1 to restore EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL, not SPECIAL RIGHTS for a small group.
Still think these NDO's are just about housing and employment?
Betty and Richard, a Mennonite couple, personally own and operate the Görtz Haus Gallery, a 77-year-old-church-building-turned-art gallery. After declining a request to plan, facilitate, and host a ceremony that ran counter to their beliefs, they faced punitive action before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.
The Becket Fund filed a lawsuit in the Iowa state court, seeking protection for Betty and Richard, from being forced to facilitate a religious ceremony against their religious convictions.
Learn more about their case here: www.becketfund.org/odgaard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcDHVmMLJTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcDHVmMLJTU
A powerful Letter to Editor was published in today's ISJ (05/14/14)
LGBT ORDINANCE
Pocatello citizens are considering the repeal of a nondiscrimination ordinance, part of which is designed to protect the LGBT community from discrimination in situations of employment. However, it seems those who need protection from employment discrimination are heterosexual individuals who simply want to exercise their Constitutional freedom of speech and rights of conscience.
Examples: Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, who was forced to “resign” after LGBT activists obtained a list of those who contributed to California’s Prop 8 campaign and discovered that Eich had donated $1,000. Add to the “you’re fired” list: Fox Sports Newscaster Craig James, Olympian Peter Vidmar, Dr. Angela McCaskill of Gallaudet University, and Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame.
All these individuals’ employment was compromised because they expressed a viewpoint contrary to the prevailing, politically-correct, orthodoxy on same-sex behavior. In Pocatello, I heard the police chief testify that there were no complaints of LGBT discrimination before the ordinance was instituted. On top of that, there was said to be a list of anonymous grievances collected by the LGBT controlled Human Rights Committee for the city. I requested a copy of the “so-called” list, and you guessed it, it was never recorded with the city. Out of the three accounts that were actually provided to the city council, only one involved employment and could have been prosecuted under pre-existing law. Interestingly enough, none of the accounts included public accommodations (i.e. business dealings) which is one of the three sections of the law. Since the passage of the law, there have been no complaints of LGBT discrimination in Pocatello, and that has been the pattern across Idaho and other states. So who needs protection from employment discrimination? Looks to me like it’s the individuals across the U.S. who are losing their employment and their First Amendment rights because they’ve run crosswise of the powerful LGBT lobby. How about we treat all citizens of Pocatello equally and not cater to a select few? Repeal Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance by voting “Yes” on Prop 1.
Ben Baker,
Pocatello
If you are one of those folks who has bought into the argument that you have a right to worship ONLY as long as you do it inside your house or inside a church building (freedom of worship), then you could be OK with Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance.
But if you believe that your religious and personal beliefs are a part of your very being and that you carry them with you in every aspect of your life; that you have an obligation to, and that integrity requires that you reflect them in every facet of your life, (freedom of religion) then Pocatello’s ordinance is definitely a threat to your religious freedom.
In response to Pesti-Strobel’s question in Sunday’s editorial: “Is anyone telling you what to believe?” Absolutely! The government is telling me that I must believe:
• That gender is “fluid” and you can get up one morning and think you’re a female, the next morning a male.
• That it’s OK to have a biological male standing next to my daughter in the girl’s locker-room shower.
• That I have no choice in who I hire at my business and that I don’t control what services I offer to my customers.
• That same-sex behavior is just as normal and healthy to society as heterosexual behavior — or be labeled a “hater.”
• That my religious convictions must be kept to myself and can’t go with me to school, to work, to the public square, and heaven forbid if I mention them, uphold them, or live by them outside of my home or church building.
And, if I have the audacity to live by my religious convictions, then government gets to send me to jail for six months. That, Mr. Pesti-Strobel, makes Pocatello’s nondiscrimination ordinance a threat to my religious freedom.
Ann Bailey,
Pocatello
Those opposed to the “Vote Yes Pocatello” effort to repeal the ordinance are unable to counter our message or discredit our arguments, and instead must resort to creating distractions and attempts to discredit the messenger. It’s not unexpected as this predictably happens wherever people attempt to stand against the LGBT lobby.
The law’s divisiveness is a result of the special rights being afforded to a specific, self-identified group within the community which takes away the rights of others. This law uses the force of law to compel business owners to participate in (or facilitate activities) which violate their conscience at the risk of incurring steep fines, jail time (or both) and a criminal record. It also serves as a sexual –predator- protection law, by allowing biological men the legal right to enter traditionally gender segregated areas thus removing a protective barrier for women and children.
This week, one lone activist-magistrate judge has seen fit to overturn Idaho’s Constitutional Marriage Amendment, disregarding the voice of 63 percent of Idaho voters who approved the measure. Although a temporary stay was granted today, Idaho is still at risk of same sex marriage becoming legal in the near future, heightening the need to repeal the nondiscrimination ordinance -- as the likelihood of conflict will be magnified.
Our message is solid and is backed by abundant evidence. The door hanger distributed to 8000 homes over the last few days contains quotes obtained directly from a publicly attended Regular Study Session. Any citizen can pay a fee at Channel 12 and obtain a copy of the video recording of any of the meetings and listen for themselves. The City posts video online of the regular City Council meetings. Our use of quotes from public record is completely legal. We have attributed no position on the referendum to the Mayor or to Councilmen Jim Johnston or Craig Cooper. All three cast votes AGAINST the first ordinance on April 18, 2013. Public record indicates the ordinance approved in the early morning hours of June 7, 2013 was only voted upon by the six council members and only passed by four members (with Councilman Steve Brown acting as the deciding vote). The Mayor was not needed as the tie-breaker.
The record also shows that the Ordinance voted down on April 18, 2013 and the Ordinance approved the early morning hours of June 7, 2013 were identical with the exception of two additions of language that did not address any of the original concerns and in fact, added a tax burden to our citizens to pay for the first $250 of mediation expenses.
Over 2,000 signatures were provided for the referendum which surpassed the required 20 percent of those who voted in the last City of Pocatello general election. This sizable group of citizens joined our efforts in assuring that every Pocatello citizen has a voice in the matter.
We want all of Pocatello to have a voice and make an informed decision. Visit Vote Yes Pocatello.com to learn the facts about how these laws have very negative and long-term impacts upon our faith, families, freedoms and property.
April 18, 2013 version of the Ordinance: http://www.pocatello.us/agendas/cc/2013/041813/agenda_item20_file.pdf
Existing/approved Ordinance #2921: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?chapter_id=82768
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In