Protections bill advances

The House Local Government Committee voted Monday to approve a bill banning local governments from maintaining ordinances, resolutions and other policies to promote anti-discrimination. For about a dozen Idaho cities with these protections, it would mean the removal of policies protecting individuals of varying sexual orientations and gender identities.  

House Bill 557 — written by the Idaho Family Policy Center and sponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa — seeks to bar local governments from enacting anti-discrimination policies that go beyond protections in place at the state level. If adopted, it would preempt cities, counties and other municipalities from modifying or expanding upon this existing statute.

According to the bill’s text, the intention is to both provide businesses and organizations “consistent and uniform requirements” while also not subjecting these same entities from choosing between their sincerely held beliefs or leaving the market altogether. Joel Fischer, public policy director for the Idaho Family Policy Center, maintained this was the intention during the Monday hearing. 

“The last thing that anybody wants (is) more red tape for business owners that ties their hands when they’re just trying to do right by their customers and their employees,” Fischer said, adding that businesses would still not be allowed to discriminate in ways that are already barred under state law. 

The Idaho Human Rights Act expressly prohibits discrimination based upon the qualities of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age or mental or physical disability. It does not, however, have protections in place for individuals of varying sexual orientations or gender identities — the key source of contention for those both in favor and against the bill. 

Donald Knapp, the owner of the Hitching Post wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, spoke of being “unfairly targeted” by the city’s anti-discrimination policy, which Knapp said would have led the chapel to face fines of $1,000 per day for not offering its business to LGBTQ+ couples.

Though the city did not enforce these penalties due to the Hitching Post's religious affiliation, as was reported in 2016 by The Spokesman-Review, Knapp said his fear at the time was he would lose his business and livelihood for adhering to his religious beliefs.

Ashley Mujagic, a precinct committeeman in District 21 and youth chair for the Ada County GOP, expressed support for the bill, citing similar concerns raised by business owners whose religious beliefs have conflicts with potential clients. 

Regardless of whether potential lawsuits go in favor of businesses, the bill aims to protect business owners from having to “either violate their own conscience or risking ruin of their business to defend it.”

Sandpoint Mayor Jeremy Grimm said his support for the bill stemmed from concerns that local governments lacked the resources to have an in-house civil rights specialist and other resources needed by municipalities in the event of litigation over a specific ordinance.

In the case of Sandpoint, its 2012 non-discrimination ordinance created locally defined protected classes and public accommodations beyond what was established by state and federal law and established an enforcement framework with legal consequences.

That ordinance became the subject of controversy last fall after a transgender woman allegedly used a women’s locker room at a local YMCA, use that prompted an objection from a female employee, Grimm said. When the ordinance was invoked, it forced the city to adjudicate a dispute “it had no capacity or authority to resolve,” a roadblock that led it to be overturned and replaced with an ordinance mirroring state and federal standards.

“That decision was not about withdrawing protections, it was about restoring clarity, consistency and defensibility to our local code,” Grimm said.

For several who opposed the bill, their concerns were centered around the legislation’s preemption of local governments in the area of anti-discrimination, meaning that state law would in all cases supersede whatever ordinances or resolution were enacted locally on the issue.

“Preemption should be used sparingly and with clear justification as it frequently overrides the wishes of the community,” Jonathan Wheatley, deputy director of the Association of Idaho Cities, said. "Preempting local decision-making reduces flexibility, making cities unable to respond to evolving local conditions, stakeholder concerns and economic realities.”

Others spoke to fears that the legislation, if enacted, would impact the safety of LGBTQ+ individuals in the state.

Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, regional political and Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, characterized the bill as putting the interests of Idaho businesses ahead of the safety of Idaho citizens. 

Though proponents of the bill argued that having uniformity in discrimination policies across the state would create less conflicts for businesses and patrons, DelliCarpini-Tolman said “uniformity should not come as a sweeping denial of basic human rights.”

In doing so, the bill sends “a dangerous message that the Legislature would prefer to strip it citizens of protections, rather than to expand them,” she said.

Kathy Griesmyer, director of government affairs at the city of Boise, said prior to Boise enacting its anti-discrimination ordinance in 2012, the city was faced with fears from LGBTQ+ residents regarding reporting crimes to police as they feared being outed to their employer and landowner if such reports were made public, jeopardizing both “their ability to remain employed or to maintain housing.” 

 A year after the city’s ordinance was adopted, the Boise Police Department saw a significant increase in the number of crimes reported by LGBTQ+ individuals, Griesmyer said. 

After a limited deliberation period on the public testimony, the committee voted 13-3 to send the bill to the House floor, with Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, Rep. Berch, D-Boise, and Rep. Monica Church, D-Boise, voting against.