Anti-discrimination ordinance approved - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Anti-discrimination ordinance approved

Comments continue late into the night

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:00 am

COEUR d’ALENE — The Coeur d’Alene City Council approved an anti-discrimination ordinance Tuesday, putting the Lake City alongside four other Idaho cities that have adopted rules to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The City Council passed the ordinance 5 to 1 after taking in four hours of testimony on the polarizing topic that’s been the center of attention since it was proposed last week.

The majority of the council said it felt compelled to protect all of its citizens and that by adopting the ordinance, it would ensure people who otherwise aren’t protected by state or federal laws would be protected inside the city.

“This is a huge victory,” said Tony Stewart, the Human Rights Task Force on Human Relations member who proposed the ordinance to the city, after the vote came in shortly before midnight Tuesday. “I’m absolutely elated this evening because the Coeur d’Alene City Council did what we’ve been doing for 30 years now — standing up against discrimination.”

Stewart accepted congratulations and handshakes from several people after the decision.

“We’re still a model tonight,” he said.

Before the meeting began at 6 p.m., nearly 400 people packed inside the Community Room of the Coeur d’Alene Library. Several people waited outside the library holding signs in support or against the ordinance.

“Coeur d’Alene loves its gay community,” one sign read.

“The unrighteous will not inherit the earth,” read another.

The proposed ordinance is aimed at protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT) in areas of employment and public accommodations, such as restaurants and housing, by preventing people from discriminating against them solely based on “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.”

That means, for example, under the new ordinance an employer can’t fire someone solely because of the person’s sexuality. Or refuse them service in a restaurant for the same reason. Proponents of the rule said different races, creeds and colors are protected by laws for that, so the new rule is bridging a gap that hasn’t been covered.

“It’s the sense your community will stand up for you,” said Susan Moss, a lesbian who spoke in favor.

But opponents said the rule will do the opposite of what it’s reportedly supposed to do. It will discriminate against those with religious beliefs, especially in the business world, by forcing them to go against their conscience for the benefit of a select few.

“You are releasing Pandora’s Box,” said Sam Cole, who said the ordinance is going against the “vast majority” of the population by putting “any business owner with a conscience” in an unfair position.

“You are changing the environment,” Cole added.

The majority of the dozens of people who testified opposed the rule, though testimony was divided.

Some who opposed the ordinance said it wasn’t accurate to compare it to protecting different races because homosexuality is a choice, a learned behavior, whereas people of minority races never had an option to choose.

“This is not a racial issue,” said Paul Van Noy, pastor at Candlelight Christian Fellowship, who has led opposition to the ordinance since it was introduced publicly last week. “A person does have a choice about their behavior.”

Josh Swan disputed that. He said he didn’t have a choice of becoming gay, only to accept it once he learned he was.

“It’s not something we’re given a choice about,” he said.

Opponents also said the rule would create a discomforting situation for families with children who have to share a public bathroom with a transgender person, someone who is actually the opposite sex.

Early in the meeting, when 359 people were counted inside the library room, the double doors were opened so people standing outside on the grass could hear testimony. The doors were closed shortly after because protesters arguing about state sodomy laws interfered with the meeting.

The City Council deliberated for about 45 minutes once testimony closed.

Council members Dan Gookin, Mike Kennedy, Ron Edinger, Woody McEvers and Deanna Goodlander voted in support of it.

“Discrimination in any form is wrong,” said Gookin, adding he wished it was an issue the U.S. Congress would address but that people often can vilify homosexuals if they’ve never met or had one as a part of his or her life. “Once you’ve met them you realize, this is a regular person — this is a somebody.”

He said after his vote he expects political push-back for his vote, but he also directed staff during the meeting to look into providing benefits to same sex city employees.

“If you want to fix the world, you start in your own backyard,” he said at one point.

Kennedy said he thought of his older brother, who is homosexual and living in New York, when voting.

“I would not sooner vote against my brother than any of you would vote against your own children,” he said.

Councilman Steve Adams voted against the ordinance, as he did last week at a sub-committee meeting, on grounds that it was a moral issue that shouldn’t even be at the city’s doorstep anyway.

The new rule will be used “as a sword rather than a shield,” he said, and “obliterate” business owners’ rights.

“What’s the rush?” he said about the city moving on the ordinance.

Edinger voted for it, but proposed removing transgender people from its umbrella. The motion died from a lack of a second. Mayor Sandi Bloem suffered a fall on Friday which kept her home Tuesday, though she listened in on the meeting via teleconference.

Boise, Sandpoint, Ketchum and Moscow adopted similar rules already. The proposed rule would make any violation a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail. The rule does not apply to churches or religious organizations or people who are renting a room in their home or a duplex.

After the vote, people trickled out of library.

 “I thought it was a misrepresentation of what the people wanted. I think the decision was made before we even got here,” said Louis Bevans Jr., after the vote. “Nine out of 10 people were against it. How is that a representation of who we are?”

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

230 comments:

  • Mahiun posted at 9:57 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    This is nothing more than in your face warfare on Christianity.
    You mean as opposed to the centuries-old warfare BY Christianity?!

    You will never rest until you force everyone to live with your choices even if they are offensive to us.
    Do you practice saying this in the mirror every morning, as a battle cry?

    I don't go around flaunting my sexuality in public....
    Yes, you do. Every time you go out in public with your spouse on your arm, you're "flaunting your sexuality". Every time you kiss your spouse, every time you hold hands, every time you hug your spouse, every time you go out together for a candlelight dinner together, every time you mention your husband/wife, every time you put a picture of the two of you on your desk at work --- you're "flaunting your sexuality in public".

    If you want to be prudish, hypocritically self-righteous, and judgmentally Krrrrisschunn, fine --- just do so at your own consequence but don't flaunt it in our faces like some badge or trophy!

     
  • myhome posted at 6:05 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    WOW! Even a straight guy can't catch a break...LOL

    What's a pat on the rump between a client and his attorney for a job well done?
    Judge: "What was that all about"? "Plea denied, that will be 30 days"!
    [chorus] Don't hand me no lies and keep your hands to yourself!

    Lesson: NO touching below the belt. (Not in court and especially NOT in a court room with cameras, the Gays are watching).

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 4:58 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "...ask yourself why all of these G & L want to force us to accept their lifestyle?"

    Been asked to accept the Christian lifestyle many times. Was also told that their leader would light me on fire and that I would burn for eternity if I didn't comply.

    In contrast, accepting gay folks was easy.

     
  • His word posted at 2:33 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    His word Posts: 7

    This is exactly why I left California in the first place, ask yourself why all of these G & L want to force us to accept their lifestyle? It's out of spite! there are many places to live and feel free to express yourselves and live your life who you want, but no you have to come here to our community and force your ideals on us! The rule of law is no long in tack, the rights of the majority are circumvented by the rights and desires of the few. Just like with Prop 8 in CA the will of the majority is being called into question for the complaints of the few. You will never rest until you force everyone to live with your choices even if they are offensive to us. This is nothing more than in your face warfare on Christianity. I don't go around flaunting my sexuality in public and if you didn't either we wouldn't need a law like this. No one would ever know if you were straight or guy, but you feel it necessary to put it on your sleeve so everyone can see. "Look at me I am Guy accept me" if you want to be guy fine just do so at your own consequence but don't flaunt it in our faces like some badge or trophy!

     
  • Rationale posted at 12:33 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    myhome,

    Mission? Really? I'm not on a mission...I am merely defending what is right in the face of people glorifying what is wrong. If defending what is right and true is a mission, then I guess I'm on a mission. However, I'm not the one forcing my way into an organization that I don't believe in...now THAT is a mission!

    Nice deflection from my stance, though. The problem you have with me is that everything I have stated is irrefutable and 100% correct...which is why you are running away now...because you have done nothing to refute the truth...because the truth is always the truth, even when no one believes it...and a lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it.

     
  • myhome posted at 2:59 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Rationale:

    You are a person on a mission, so instead of putting your energy towards people who just want to live their lives (which are bringing no harm to you or others), I thought I might point you to one who has and will.

    You have used Joseph Duncan in several of your past posts so just maybe Albert Brooks will be right up your alley. He assaulted, abducted, raped, etc. etc. etc.

    Before his first conviction, (you'll find he is a serial rapist of area) the CdA Press headlined him as being the "Father of the Neighborhood". Well, last August 2012 he was hoping to be released. At the hearing that took place in Spokane (because his last assault, abduction, rape to a 10 year old was in Spokane) took 5 days of testimony and thankfully he was denied. Here's the rub...he is appealing and hoping for freedom.

    Now here is a cause to sink your teeth into. Mark my words...if he should ever get out, "Killer" will be added to his title. I believe the next time he has a chance, his victim will not live to speak about it. He has had no counseling towards his issues over the years and his defense attorney believes him to be harmless. lol

    You ask, "why weren't the people of CdA informed about this hearing going on"? After all he could have returned to living in the Coeur d'Alene area. My question exactly. I wrote the Editor to inform them of this event and the newspaper chose to stand silent. The Spokesman Review reported on it.

    Albert Brooks is why Idaho has a sex offender registration AND did you know victims didn't have rights until the 1990's?

    Put your energy where it will count. This will be my last posting to you because my energy and time is better spent on issues that make a positive difference. Good day to you.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:45 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Cupcake assassins
    Dead angels and has beens
    The man in the Jacuzzi
    Wants to more than relax
    Quick call the bakery
    No time for the facts
    Sin now in Technicolor
    Jesus Christ Bombs!

    Who sunk my battleship?
    You sunk my battleship!
    Why sink my battleship?
    You sunk my battleship!

    Cupcake assassins
    Dead angels and has beens
    Jesus Christ Bombs!
    Religion hopped up on meth

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:23 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I suppose it's just 'coincidence' that there are multiple gay wedding cake cases springing up across the land!!!???"

    Bakeries have become the den of the devil... Get yourself a better umbrella, it's going to rain frogs soon.

    In the name of Betty Crocker, amen with frosting on stop.

     
  • Rationale posted at 12:21 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    myhome,

    Oh, please! Spare me the "indignant" routine.

    If a student cheats in school, do you simply pat them on the back and tell them it's o.k.? If a person decides to do crystal meth, do you simply smile and congratulate them on their wrong choice?

    If so, you are truly disturbed!

    It is possible to acknowledge when people are making wrong choices without having hate in your heart for that person!

    Oh, wait, you raised your kids without rules and simply let them make bad choices without consequences!

    My comments aren't mean-spirited...they are factual and true. Just because people do not like the truth does not make it "mean-spirited!"

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 1:02 am on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    And I suppose it's just 'coincidence' that there are multiple gay wedding cake cases springing up across the land!!!???

    Hahahaha.

    Disgusting.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 12:46 am on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    The answer is: no one SHOULD be denied their 1st amendment religious freedoms -
    OR OTHER BELIEFS = one man + one woman = marriage, for a gay cake/faux wedding/trumped up ACLU, OFA action. PERIOD.

    The Constitution means something, regardless of whether O and liberals think otherwise.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 12:27 am on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    P.S. The gays want those of religion OR of other opinion to go out of business. Why the F don't you just go to another bakery instead of destroying someone's livelihood to thwart their 1st Amendment rights??????????

    Why should anyone be forced to support gay marriage? PERIOD.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 12:21 am on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    To those still reading/monitoring here.

    Did the gays on this board hear about the new gay marriage/faux outrage cake case in CO?

    But OF COURSE you did.

    Mahiun, you said you knew of gays being kicked out of establishments and denied rentals. Where, specifically? Give names. Give specifics. In Santa Cruz? I'll bet a million bucks it wasn't in CDA.

    Forget freedom for this moment. It's all ACLU, O destruction of freedom and the gay agenda. They work so well together. Soros is proud. Money speaks in the liberal world.

     
  • myhome posted at 6:40 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Rationale:

    Your discernment about being a naysayer amuses me!

    My life's path did not come with a road map, so being a sheep among the flock does not apply. I guess if I had never passed the city limit sign, I might have a different view point. Life's a journey and there have been many stops along the way which I wish were not apart of my history; but a least I don't have hate in my heart for another. You should go back and re-read your past posts and take self stock in how mean spirited your comments are. Just saying....

     
  • Greg81 posted at 4:42 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Greg81 Posts: 68

    Why should I accept this perverse and immoral behavior? I would not want my kids to go into a public restroom and seeing a cross dresser in there. Where is my right to not have my kids subjected to that garbage? For those of you Gay nazis who would call me a bigot? So what. Keep your perversions inside your own house.

     
  • Greg81 posted at 4:39 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Greg81 Posts: 68

    Humanist. We are a Constitutional Republic. Get it right. The founders warned us of the dangers of a Democracy. Try reading up on it.

     
  • Rationale posted at 4:20 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Hey, myhome,

    Naysayer? Really?

    When you have the backbone to actually stand for right instead of cowering like a spineless jellyfish just to seem popular, we'll chat.

    You see, myhome, the truth is the truth, even when no one believes it...and a lie is a lie, even when all mindless sheep like you believe it!

    Bleat on and enjoy being popular and trendy. I'll simply stand for integrity and the truth...and I have no regrets or fear in doing so!

     
  • Rationale posted at 4:14 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Mahiun,

    Your life choice affects humanity. It spreads diseases at a much higher rate. It does not perpetuate the species. That means it curtails others' rights. Denying this fact does not make it less true.

    I have never argued religion...because religion does not drive my perspective. Rationality does. Your choice does NOTHING to help humanity. It is self-serving. Period.

    I have never said you "sinned." I said your choice is "wrong," and it IS! But it is your choice to make.

    But you are also wrong when you demand that simply because I have spoken my peace, I should just go quietly into that good night. I have not lost anything...in fact, the true measure of integrity and honor is fighting for what everyone knows is right, even when it is not the trendy thing to do!

    There is simply not one endearing quality that homosexuality offers the human race...so people who are willing to accept what they know is wrong simply so they can be popular can live with their decision.

    Call me names all you want...insult me all you want. I can fully justify my position without religion. And you can't justify your choice without lies, spin, and the Kirk & Madsen playbook!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Otherwise, according to you, people have no right to judge the actions of Joseph Duncan as wrong.....It is o.k. to call the actions of a murderer, pedophile, rapist, or others wrong! That has nothing to do with the "beams and specks!"
    This argument is preposterous on its face, and I am confident that you are well aware of that. Every example you cite is a clear violation or curtailing of someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And even adultery is prosecutable as a breach of contract, if nothing else. Your argument seems......well, "specious" might be the kindest (if not necessarily most complete) description I could find.

    But the concept extends even into the immediate local arena. If you disapprove of homosexuality because of your religious beliefs (however garbled and internally inconsistent they may be), then.......don't engage in it. Get your own house in order, and don't waste your time and effort trying to run other people's lives for them --- because that is, in effect, tacitly stating that you believe your feces don't stink and that you are somehow much better qualified than anyone else to dictate how their lives should be lived. This makes you exactly what you claim the central figure of your mythology did not want you to be!

    Jesus did not say, nor did he infer, that people have no right defending morality...
    Matthew 7:1
    Matthew 10:14

    Jesus called his followers to speak up and to point out what they believe to be sin. You have done so.
    But he did not instruct them to attempt to prevent others from "sinning" or to take it upon themselves to punish others for their "sins", and Matthew 7:1 should make this clear, even to you. You have fulfilled your duty; you have made your disapproval known. Now, it's time to gracefully acknowledge that this has no proper bearing on secular law, that you have made your religious objections known, that you did not prevail, and that it is time to make a choice: either accept the law as it has been enacted, and comply with it, or "shake the dust from your feet" and find another line of business. It is your choice; no one is forcing you to do either one.

     
  • myhome posted at 8:35 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Rationale is just upset because (in the Lord's kingdom) he was chosen to be the a** when what he really wanted to be is a Shepard. It' tough being a naysayer!

     
  • Rationale posted at 10:20 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Ziggy,

    Apparently, you couldn't understand "discernment is not bigotry."

    Was "discernment" too big a word for you?

     
  • Rationale posted at 10:18 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Mahiun,

    You see...that is your problem. It is possible to condemn the actions of someone...to call what they are doing wrong when it is, indeed, wrong. That is "discernment." It is righteous judgment. People are not allowed to judge unrighteously...but they are allowed to judge right from wrong!

    Otherwise, according to you, people have no right to judge the actions of Joseph Duncan as wrong.

    What Jesus was preaching against was those who believed their feces didn't stink!

    It is o.k. to call the actions of a murderer, pedophile, rapist, or others wrong! That has nothing to do with the "beams and specks!"

    Jesus did not say, nor did he infer, that people have no right defending morality...no matter how you spin it!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:32 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Whether or not Jesus judged her actions is irrelevant to whether you are authorized to do so. Even in the passage you cite, he did not appoint proxies nor delegate either the privilege or responsibility of condemning others --- in fact, he quite roundly criticized those who attempted to. And he commanded this woman to see to her own sins, not those of others.

    So we are basically back to beams and specks, it would seem....

     
  • Ziggy posted at 8:54 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Ziggy Posts: 1142

    The sky won't fall, chicken little will live on. The only thing is that some people who needed it, have a little more protection.
    CdA needs this. It has enough trouble with a bad reputation and some of the quotes below point to the fact that it is somewhat deserved.
    What I want to know is why all these people seeking a "conservative" community moved here when Idaho had Democratic senators, governors, legislators back in the 80s. Frank Church was a very progressive guy. Now.....what could it have been that lured them here? Three guesses.

     
  • Rationale posted at 4:06 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Look up Kirk and Madsen and actually learn that you have been played like a two-bit piccolo!

     
  • Rationale posted at 3:26 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Great quote:

    “The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that facade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain. … If your so-called friends urge you to do anything you know to be wrong, you be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone.”

    In other words, stop worrying about being trendy and jumping on bandwagons... and don't succumb to bullying...when you know society's choices are wrong!

    For those using the Bible (or attacking it), especially those who try to use Jesus' words (or lack thereof), Jesus told the adulteress that he did not condemn her...but he also chastised her and said "Go and sin no more!" Hmmm...no relative moralism there! Jesus did not condone her actions under the guise of "tolerance," did he?

    Discernment is not bigotry!

     
  • pullandpray posted at 11:36 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    pullandpray Posts: 4

    what agenda are you accusing LGBT of pushing? asking to be treated fairly and as equals doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. it seems to me that close-minded people like yourself felt the same way when black people demanded fair and equal treatment.

    how in this day and age when information is so readily available that people can still be so ignorant? how does someone being gay effect you to the point that you want to treat them unfairly? if you're using religion as an excuse then you're a lousy Christian and you need to re-read the Bible.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    I dont believe LGBTs are refused service in bars and restaurants.
    It happens. I've seen it happen, particularly if they're parents and come in with their children. Or their receipt may contain a notation to the server that the food goes to "the d*kes at Table 16".

    The LGBT community is looking for the power to smite down anyone who doesnt fall in line for their agenda and thats all this is about.
    And you know this because......??? Even if it were true, in what way would that be significantly different from the churches and other groups and individuals on the other side of the issue?!

    There is a fine line between discriminating and not being comfortable in social situations and sticking to people whi think like each other.
    No, not really.... You can be just as uncomfortable as you wanna be. It's how you respond to that discomfort that determines whether or not it's discrimination.

    THe LGBT movement is just as biased as those who speak out against them....
    Well, it can be at times, and certainly there are particular individuals within it who I'd say fit that description, but as a general rule? No, I think you'd have a hard time making that case. I've never seen a straight person turned away from a gay bar or restaurant --- not ever. (In fact, it's reached the point where it almost seems like there's a federal requirement of at least 6 straight women in each gay bar, at all times.) I've never seen a gay landlord refuse to rent to a straight person --- in fact, I've seen several of them set up their rental spaces as short-term corporate housing. I've never heard any gay or lesbian person denounce straight persons as "demon possessed" or "in need of professional intervention". I've never seen a straight person turned away, or refused communion, at an MCC church. I've never seen a GLBT person point, snigger, and whisper at a straight couple passing them on the street --- at their outfits, maybe, but not at the couple themselves. (Lighten up: it's a joke!) I don't think you can really make that case, Milburn, honestly.....

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 9:15 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1161

    This seems moreab out telling the world how great and kind you are rather than solving a problem I dont believe exists. Some people live to be offended and look for fights to gain recognition. I dont believe LGBTs are refused service in bars and restaurants. Perhaps someone renting out a room in their home might have a problem with same sex couples but like straights there are many I wouldnt want in my home either. The LGBT community is looking for the power to smite down anyone who doesnt fall in line for their agenda and thats all this is about. There is a fine line between discriminating and not being comfortable in social situations and sticking to people whi think like each other . THe LGBT movement is just as biased as those who speak out against them and will destroy anyone who speaks out. One person at a time we all get along fine for the most part start talking politics,religion or sex preference and it all goes out the window.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 2:56 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Or......let's see........hmmmmm.......... Oh! I know, I know! We could.....just stop discriminating!

    You'd think it would all be so simple:
    "You wanna pay me to make a cake for your wedding? Sure, I'll make ya a cake -- enjoy!"
    "You wanna pay me to do my job? Sure, I'll do my job and then I'll go home and boff my boyfriend, because it's really none of your business and has nothing to do with my job. So I'll see ya back at the office tomorrow. G'night."
    "You wanna rent an apartment? Yeah, you've got enough for the deposits and you can afford the rent so, sure, you got yourself an apartment!"

    Why are we overcomplicating this??!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 2:27 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Reminds me of a very dear friend of mine in law school, who regaled me with details of his most intimate trysts with untold numbers of male partners almost daily. I was always there to listen and support his emotional needs. He always insisted that my husband was secretly gay, too. Oh, but I was supposed to accept all that without question or outrage. I was kind and never said a peep.

    After a year and a half of that cr*p, I told him I Didn't Care about his sexual exploits and 'issues' any longer. I asked him if he wanted to hear about the most intimate, sexual details in MY Life? No, he said. He left me then. I was his Dear Friend and he was mine. Broke my heart. He also left law school in L.A. and went back to the entertainment industry in Hollywood.

    This is just plain boorishness, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It could just as easily have been some aggressively straight guy, determined to regale you with tales of the all the bimbos he boffed. It's a little childish, but it truly has absolutely nothing to do with the gender or sexual orientation of the person(s) doing the regaling. And it does raise that question of why you put up with this kind of boorishness for so long, instead of nipping it in the bud? I understand that you may have thought you were being kind and patient, but that may have inadvertently sent the signal that you were actually interested in hearing all this stuff. A polite but firm, "Sweetie, what you do and who you do is your business and I won't try to tell you otherwise, but can we please not talk about it and risk having it get in the way of our friendship? Thanks for understanding," might have headed off a lot of heartache....

    You are polarizing us. You cannot and Will Not force us to give up our heartfelt religious - in some cases - and Other, solidly held beliefs, like man + woman = marriage - and no other configuration will ever do.
    No one is asking you to abandon, or even compromise, your heartfelt beliefs. But your ability to act on those beliefs may be constrained. And as you know, actions carry consequences, particularly when they conflict with law.

    Yes indeed, it may come down to a choice between your business and your beliefs. You may need to choose whether you stand fast in your religious beliefs or whether you serve the entire public, and not just a cherry-picked portion of it. But it's difficult for me to see how that is any more onerous for you, as a business owner, than it has been for gay and lesbian people to have to choose between the person they love and keeping their job.

    As noted elsewhere, constitutional rights are not completely unrestricted, ever. And when they conflict, it becomes a matter of judging, evaluating, and deciding which one presents the more compelling interest that should take priority in the conflict. And in this situation, most of the time, the legislatures and the courts have decided that the right of individuals to not live in fear of imminent job loss because of their sexual orientation, and a reasonable expectation of receiving the same level of public service as any other member of the public, takes priority over the businessperson's 1st Amendment right of freedom of association, since the businessperson is always free to choose another line of business that would not generate the problem.

    Every single one of us has been discriminated in this lifetime.
    But this should not be an excuse for us to simply throw up our hands and say, "Well, it's all around us and there's nothing we can do about it...." We can and we must do what we can, everything we can, exactly because it is so widespread. Can we completely eliminate discrimination? No, but we can substantially reduce it. Can we create a perfect world? No, but we can certainly create a better one, a more just and equitable and fair one. So there's really no good reason not to try!

     
  • pullandpray posted at 9:55 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    pullandpray Posts: 4

    it's a futile effort attempting to use logic on a bigot.

     
  • Humanist posted at 9:49 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Or businesses can express their personal views and religion through other not so subtle means. Like "Faithful Chocolates" on Ironwood.

     
  • myhome posted at 9:05 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Surely a business proprietor could display a sign in ones store front window stating they will honor the Anti-discrimination ordinance of the city but that they personally disagree with it. By doing so, they will give the general public the opportunity to respect the owners view point and choose whether "to" or "not" spend their money at that place of business.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Because we're a representative democracy and the "people" have already voted for their representatives who make these kinds of decisions. Could you imagine every proposed law and ordinance going to a public vote? Incidentally, no other city that has implemented similar ordinances have gone to a public vote.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:41 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote NAS4AH2: "People get denied for jobs, housing etc, everyday over discrimination. "

    Sure, of course. But at least there were laws in place if the discriminated person wanted to pursue the discrimination based on race, gender and religion. Now you can add sexual orientation to the list. I guess EVERYONE is "special" now.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:34 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Or here's another idea. How about we just remove every anti-discrimination law on the books since it's nothing but government intrusion and creates "protected classes". Then, when you walk into my business holding hands with your husband and wearing a crucifix necklace, I tell you to head for the door. How would you like that?

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:32 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    We can justify it using all of the logic and reason in the world and it will NEVER be justification enough for people like you. We accept that.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    And thats my last word on the matter.
    Promises, promises....

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:04 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    MO, there is a lot of material packed into that last post, with even more "subtext", it seems. But let's take the biggest (or at least more frequently cited) one: The Cake.

    I think you'd probably agree that this isn't really the place to argue the legal merits of each side of the case --- that's already being done in the Oregon Supreme Court. (Interestingly, the father of an old school chum of mine sits as a justice on that court --- doesn't affect anything at all; I just found it an interesting connexion...)

    For the record, many people here have some details of the case wrong. It didn't take place in Portland, but in Gresham --- a much smaller, much more socio-politically conservative suburban community. This is germane, because this incident almost certainly would never even have occurred in Portland...

    And you're right that the defense in this case is defending it as a 1st Amendment case, an infringement on the proprietor's religious freedoms. The prosecution is pursuing it by making a claim that the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that an establishment in business to serve the public had an obligation to serve the entire public without cherry-picking, and that since the business had specifically advertised a specialty in wedding cakes, the plaintiffs (who also lived in the area) had a reasonable expectation of being served and being able to order their wedding cake from this baker.

    So that's essentially the question before the Oregon Supreme Court: to what extent does a businessperson set aside his or her 1st Amendment right to free association, by establishing a business that purports to serve the general public? (After all, there is no such thing as a completely unrestricted or unlimited constitutional right --- it is always a matter of balancing competing priorities, and determining which one takes priority.) The plaintiffs take the position that, by going into business at all, in a business serving the general public, the business owner tacitly accepts the rules, restrictions, and laws that come with it, including having to serve people you may not like or agree with. The defendants take the position that they should be free to refuse any clients they choose to, by asserting religious objections under the 1st Amendment.

    It is also interesting to note, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that this same bakery has since been "undercover investigated" by local media outlets, who discovered that the bakery was more than willing to accept, and quote, orders for cakes for pagan weddings, divorce parties, a party for an OHSU researcher celebrating getting a grant for cloning human stem cells, a pagan Solstice party, and a party for a woman who had had multiple children out of wedlock. (NOTE: ALL of these "events" were actually fake; they did not actually take place.) In each case, the bakery offered no objections whatsoever, but simply quoted a price for the cake requested. It was specifically, and only, gay or lesbian weddings to which the bakery objected --- which would seem to strengthen the plaintiffs claim of targeted and illegal discrimination.

    Could that happen here? Yes, it could. And since same-sex marriage is legal, a mere 30 miles away, it's entirely plausible that a couple might come to a Cd'A baker for a cake to be served at a reception at the resort, for example -- that would be a lot more practical than having one delivered from Spokane! But the ultimate question would seem to come down to the same basic one, in Gresham and in Coeur d'Alene: "How strongly do you feel about this? Strongly enough to go into another line of business, where you would not have to serve the public? Because if you choose to serve the public, you'll be asked to serve the entire public and conform to non-discrimination laws. The alternative would be to find another line of business that would permit you to conform to your religious beliefs without violating the law."

    The big difference would be that there would be no statewide law for a judge to go by, here, which could really tilt things. The judge would have only the Coeur d'Alene-specific law to go by. But these laws, in Idaho, are deliberately set up to encourage mediation and resolution rather than lawsuit and trial --- partly because there is no uniform statewide law to go by, which would make it harder on the judges.

    Other points in your post in a separate response. There's a lot there....

     
  • Joe D posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Mahiun, No matter how you or others spin, twist, or try to distort the truth, you will never be able to justify homosexuality. And thats my last word on the matter.

     
  • Why Not posted at 7:11 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 4285

    All is well, 5:15AM and all is well in Gotham….

    Just peeked out beyond the walls of my fortified downtown bunker, well stocked with ammo, guns, Snickers bars my super sized holy bible and garage sale stuff; still no signs of a hom-oh-takeover of Coeur d’Alene. We thought the inundation started about ten last night. The wife was on watch and reports it was just another cat fight in the 3rd Street alley, darn cats anyway - worse than skunks in love.

    It’s another beautiful day in Coeur d’Alene, but we’ll be watching and updating on the expected arrival of...of gays walking hand in hand and smooching on Sherman - Loorrd Have Mercy on the God fearing people of this city - AMEN!

     
  • concernedcitizen posted at 7:05 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    How can the city vote for any proposal for ordinance without the vote from the people? Shouldn't this have been put on a ballot? Oh wait, this is Corrupt d'Alene where the "PEOPLE" do not get a vote.

     
  • concernedcitizen posted at 7:00 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    So what is next, a tattoo ordinance? A piercing ordinance? A how I want to dress ordinance? An "I don't want to work but I showed up so therefore you HAVE to pay me" ordinance? Oh wait, that is government workers. Scratch that last one.

     
  • Peter posted at 6:08 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Peter Posts: 616

    You cannot and Will Not force us to give up our heartfelt religious"

    No one is forcing people to give up their faith. Just don't be discriminatory against them by firing them for being gay, refuse renting becasue their gay, or refusing business because their gay. Is that so hard to treat them as you would as anyone else?

     
  • Screen Name posted at 6:03 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 802

    "You are polarizing us. You cannot and Will Not force us to give up our heartfelt religious - in some cases - and Other, solidly held beliefs, like man + woman = marriage - and no other configuration will ever do."

    Who are "us"? Christians? In the past, heartfelt Christian beliefs have been used to justify egregious behavior. The fact that you believe in something and find support for the same in a work of fiction, does not make your belief socially and morally correct. Below is just one example of the use of solidly held religious "beliefs" to support an untenable position:

    [Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

    Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

    ... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:41 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "You cannot and Will Not force us to give up our heartfelt religious"

    How does one force another to give up that which cannot be seen? Doesn't matter, none of my business, except when Invisible Sky Ghost people try to distort the objective reality with info transmitted to them via holy psychic sessions. Especially concerned about messages to followers which perpetuate hate and intolerance of other earth people.

    Sad when hatred is wrapped up in the cloak of religion. Nothing heartfelt in that.

    Our challenge is to love unconditionally, this is something that even Christian God is incapable of, but it is a path worth taking. A path which is spoke of in the Jewish Sheep Herder's Guide to the Universe but a path rarely followed.

    Call your friend. Better yet, make him a cake.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 1:24 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    To The Golden Mean:

    So, I'm homowhatever (is that better than bigot?) in your view because I brought up compulsory cake baking and legal issues related to the statute? And I just haven't dealt with my secret gayness? Hahahaha.

    Reminds me of a very dear friend of mine in law school, who regaled me with details of his most intimate trysts with untold numbers of male partners almost daily. I was always there to listen and support his emotional needs. He always insisted that my husband was secretly gay, too. Oh, but I was supposed to accept all that without question or outrage. I was kind and never said a peep.

    After a year and a half of that cr*p, I told him I Didn't Care about his sexual exploits and 'issues' any longer. I asked him if he wanted to hear about the most intimate, sexual details in MY Life? No, he said. He left me then. I was his Dear Friend and he was mine. Broke my heart. He also left law school in L.A. and went back to the entertainment industry in Hollywood.

    I've had other dear gay and lesbian friends in life. I mentioned my gay niece who I love.

    I brought up compulsory cake baking several times here, Mean, because it's a case currently before the court in Oregon. Look it up.

    My comments from the beginning of this thread have been based on legal arguments. I have not bashed gays, generally or personally here. My void for vagueness and over-breadth arguments stand. My arguments in support of 1st amendment freedom of religion AND other beliefs stand.

    All in the gay community should read NAS4AH2's comment many times. He speaks for most of us clearly. You're pushing those of us with gay relatives and friends far away from you.

    You are polarizing us. You cannot and Will Not force us to give up our heartfelt religious - in some cases - and Other, solidly held beliefs, like man + woman = marriage - and no other configuration will ever do.

    Look up the Shakers in KY. I don't and wouldn't have supported them for the same reasons.

    And no, if we don't agree with you, we are NOT homophobic or bigots or secretly gay, crying out for freedom within, for crying out loud!

    To Mahiun: Kudos to you and bravo for your last post to me!!! I am speaking to you because of it. You haven't been so nice to other posters since then, however.

    My initial post to you was related to your support for stated liberal causes. I have the ability to react strongly, too. You must know that you are not winning friends with your approach, although I respect and recognize your passion for your beliefs.

    I would have welcomed you or Anyone with your strength and passion by my side when I got paralyzed and learned I was too young for medical assistance, too white, female and childless to find any benefits available. I was not in any protected class. I have been struggling to merely survive for some time now. Would I wish to be turned out of a restaurant because I had a butch haircut? No, not at all. Would I wish to be able to even go to a restaurant at all? You bet.

    Every single one of us has been discriminated in this lifetime. I could go on and on about those experiences in my own life - based on age, being a female in the business And legal worlds, etc., etc. I have a few hilarious (in hindsight) stories to tell.

    When you combine the liberal agenda with the ever present, in your face, gay agenda, some of us have simply had enough.

    [MyOpinion] and All Of Us need special care, too. Every Single One Of Us!!!

    G'night all.

    I have not responded to other ankle biters and don't intend to.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:42 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    So then you're saying that the ordinance should have passed by a 4 to 1 vote instead of a 5 to 1 vote?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:30 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Liberty is a right.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:29 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "... so I don't have to worry when a man with a beard walks out of the same restroom that my grand daughter is using"

    How many times has that happened?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:24 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Serious, you can't tell the difference? This is a good sign.

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 10:51 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    Gay folks have never done anything to me or anyone I know, from the ones I've known, they're all just normal people that just want to be happy and enjoy life like the rest of us, and live and let live. I'm not going to bully or hate on people who just want to be who they are. One of my wife and I's best friends is a gay guy. I really enjoy his company, he's a very laid back and happy and friendly guy. He's sharp as a tack too.

    I wish that I could soften some of your hard hearts but I can't. I just hope some day you have an epiphany and realize we're all in this together.

     
  • Joe D posted at 10:46 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    max power, That was Great. Finally someone not afraid to speak their mind. Now tell us how you really feel.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 10:34 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Why would a man with a beard be in there, in the first place?!

    Even if that man were interested in pursuing gender reassignment surgery at some point, if he still has a beard, he's still presenting as a man, and would not be using the women's room. By the time that person was far enough along to be presenting as a woman, you probably wouldn't even give her a second glance.

    So yeah, I guess I am saying that you really don't need to worry about men with beards coming pouring out the women's room. It just ain't gonna happen --- if it doesn't happen in San Francisco, LA, or New York, why would it happen in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho?!

     
  • local res posted at 10:28 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    so I don't have to worry when a man with a beard walks out of the same restroom that my grand daughter is using? Is that what you are saying Mahiun?

     
  • local res posted at 10:21 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    so I don't have to worry when a man with a beard walks out of the same restroom that my grand daughter is using? Is that what you are saying Mahiun?

     
  • Mahiun posted at 10:19 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Absolutely not!

    Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality refer to sexual orientations involving sexual and intimate relations among consenting adults. These men are sexual predators, preying on those who are too young to even be able to give legal consent. This is not consensual adult sexual relations, this is exploitation.

    So as far as I'm concerned, NAMBLA has as much to do with healthy adult gay relationships as the guy who was just arrested in Cd'A for kiddie porn has to do with healthy adult heterosexual relationships.

    But why worry about them, anyway? They barely exist, any more; they've been reduced to a single Web site and maybe --- MAYBE --- 800 or 900 members, nationwide. Nobody actually knows for sure, because they've basically been driven underground and vanished into the murky, but much larger, world of generalized Internet predators. As an actual organization, they're all but dead.

    How do I know all this? Because they're actually tracked by most every reputable GLBT advocacy group, including the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), GLSEN, (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), and GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) --- all of whom have denounced NAMBLA for basically the same reasons that I gave. NAMBLA is just used as a reliable "bogeyman" to get a rise out of people, and scare them into making generous donations.

     
  • local res posted at 10:16 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    Golden Mean are you Mahiun?

     
  • local res posted at 10:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the vote was illegal and therefore should either be done over or thrown out. How did acting mayor Kennedy have a vote? As the acting mayor he should not have had the ability to vote unless there was a tie.

     
  • Joe D posted at 9:58 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Mahiun, What's your opinion of NAMBLA? Do you support or reject that group of homosexual men?

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:53 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    I got it from reading the friggin' law! You should look into this whole "reading" thing; you might actually enjoy it. Have somebody show you how, sometime....

     
  • Joe D posted at 9:48 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    5inPfs, Are you sure about that?

     
  • Joe D posted at 9:40 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Golden Mean, Yeah right, go tell obama and the gun grabbers that.

     
  • Joe D posted at 9:29 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Mahiun, did you get this information on the same web site you got your Alfred Kinsey study info? That one was a pile of bull dung too.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 9:25 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "It is not up to you to determine what I feel about Mahiun, or any other poster's comments"

    Onus probandi... Not sure that that has to do with the price of butter?

    Truth is, your post was dismantled, point by point using only reasonable and civil language which makes your feigned outrage seem somewhat bizarre. Reasonable people can see right through the drama... what are you really up to?

    Your worries about Gay wedding cakes are also disconcerting. Like big tires on trucks, me thinks that you might be over compensating for something. Side Note: Did you know that researchers have found that homophobia is often caused the suppression of same-sex desire? I feel bad for those folks. Maybe the new ordinance will help some to consider a life based on truth instead of repressed feelings.

    Hetero-Curious what you think about that...

     
  • Irock79 posted at 9:15 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Irock79 Posts: 42

    Awesome news and honestly unexpected. Steve Adams is the only caveman left besides Ben, and Mr. real life ministries numb skull Putman.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    MyOpinion, I am sorry you feel as you do, but that is your prerogative. Although I freely admit that I am outspoken and occasionally sharp-tongued, it is nearly always in self-defense of either my person or my points of view (or both), and not meant to be mean-spirited (well, perhaps very rarely, again in self-defense when I have had one too many buttons pushed or suffered one too many personal attacks). I am, as you've seen, fully capable of holding my own and giving people a bit of their own back, but I very rarely launch the first salvo.

    Still, I bear you no ill will, and in the spirit of conciliation, I offer here the definitions of "gender identity" and "gender expression" (two entirely separate concepts) used in the guidance manual put out by GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation -- not because they are necessarily the ultimate authority, but because these are the definitions most frequently used, and most like to be used for purposes of understanding and enforcing Coeur d'Alene's ordinance:

    Gender Identity: One’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or a boy or a girl). For transgender people, their birth-assigned sex and their own internal sense of gender identity do not match.

    Gender Expression: External manifestation of one’s gender identity, usually expressed through “masculine,” “feminine” or gender-variant behavior, clothing, haircut, voice or body characteristics.

    You're right that the ordinance could be better worded, but given the close proximity of "gender identity" and "expression", I take it to mean that the second "gender" usage is implied, as in "gender identity and [gender] expression". It seems logical, if not completely clear.

    What would it mean in practical terms? Most of the time, nothing. But for those times when the gender is not entirely clear, it's not up to the merchant to decide who the customer "ought to" look like or act like. Transgender people are generally more than usually discreet -- they've learned that they have to be, to protect themselves. So even if Laura-who-is-almost-Larry uses the men's room because he thinks of himself as Larry and presents as Larry, he'll likely use a stall to avoid embarrassment for all involved. And Larry-who-is-almost-Laura would do the same.

    So, for the most part, it's just a non-issue. And if the merchant or barkeep is uncertain, just watch how his/her friends relate to him/her, or how s/he interacts with others, and use that as a cue. I've gone out with trans friends before (not in Cd'A), and at first I was very nervous about how it would go, until it became clear to me that it was only a big deal if we made it a big deal. Otherwise, nobody really ven paid that much attention....

    Hope this helps clear things up a bit?

     
  • cdanative33 posted at 8:40 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    cdanative33 Posts: 361

    I find Mahiun's tone to be fairly benign compared to many of those that attempt to verbally spar with him....Myopinion, you sound like the schoolyard bully that knows he's beat, so he takes his ball and scurries home.

     
  • NAS4AH2 posted at 8:39 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    NAS4AH2 Posts: 71

    exactly!

     
  • NAS4AH2 posted at 8:34 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    NAS4AH2 Posts: 71

    Welcome to Coeur d'San Fran Idaho. The GLBGT movement or whatever acronym it is now... are probably celebrating another victory. What your movement fails to realize is that with your quest for "equal rights" that are afforded to all under the Constitution, you've turned those of us that have gay family and friends off from supporting your "cause." Must there be gay content in every single tv show, in our music, in our faces every single day? Fortunately for you there is a corrupt local government that wants to tap into the vast homosexual bank so they were chomping at the bit to get this through. I love Coeur d'Alene and have a few gay friends there but this is so unnecessary and really amounts to little. Do you really think that those that hold the power will not be prepared when you apply for an apartment or miss a day at work, or see you kiss your lover? Get real. People get denied for jobs, housing etc, everyday over discrimination. You couldn't stop with don't ask don't tell and now we ALL have to know what sexual orientation everyone is. You can tack a hate crime onto a regular crime if that's what makes you feel better. I'm all for throwing criminals away for longer. Give us a break; hit your clubs, nice restaurants, enjoy the scenery and contribute to society as you usually do. Please stop forcing special protections that already exist.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:32 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    So if gays and leasbians only get this protection...
    But they don't. The ordinance says "sexual orientation"; it doesn't say which one. the law says "race"; it doesn't say which one. The law says "religion"; it doesn't say which one. And so on, and so on....

    ...what is fair and equal about that?
    Nothing! That's why it doesn't wok like that....

     
  • Joe D posted at 8:22 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Special Rights are not right...

     
  • Joe D posted at 8:19 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    AnonymousCda, Thomas Paine has been dead for a long time. His vote does not count. But Hillary Cinton just might dig him up in 2016.

     
  • Joe D posted at 8:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    Is anyone here aware of the fact, that here in Idaho anyone can be fired from their job, gay, lesbian,bi sexual or strate, or any race at anytime for any reason or for no reason at all with no explanation given? I was not aware of that until I checked it out with the Idaho Labor department. So if gays and leasbians only get this protection, what is fair and equal about that?

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 8:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    To Jason Abbott: Thanks for the pdf link. I'll check it out soon. Need to take care of other business.

    The phrase we are discussing could just as easily be read as referring to 'sexual expression'; hence, my examples. The world at large (i.e., the business community) will not be held to knowledge of a term of art in the gay community. On top of that it didn't say, specifically, 'gender expression'. Typically, legislation has qualifiers and definitions prior to the language of the statute itself. If the ordinance fully defines all terms, I would reconsider my opinion (as to vagueness and over-breadth). I still don't agree with the efficacy of the ordinance, however, inasmuch as it will force those of religious And other beliefs, to not only serve gays, etc., but to actively participate in other activities, e.g., baking a cake for a gay wedding. This we know due to litigation currently in the courts on precisely such issues. The jury is out on whether that level of compulsion will be enforceable.

    To The Golden Mean: It is not up to you to determine what I feel about Mahiun, or any other poster's comments. Perhaps our definitions of "tolerance" differ? / Also, I doubt anyone would consider a decision not to engage a poster as a "tantrum". What you consider to be tolerant and courageous I find to be rude, insulting, intolerant of My Beliefs and 'in my face'. I spoke of 'his' comments to others as well on multiple threads and MyOpinion stands. Oh, I also don't feel I've been 'beaten by a gay man'. Would that status mean something special in this regard?

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:08 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote MyOpinion: "sexual orientation, gender identity AND expression"

    The comma after orientation separates the sexual and gender part. It means sexual orientation AND gender identity and expression. It does not mean sexual expression.

     
  • Joe D posted at 7:55 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Joe D Posts: 2558

    I have to agree with you MyOpinion, it seems he has a lot of pent up anger. He also likes to throw the word bigot around a lot. I wonder what his take is on NAMBLA would be? I wonder if he would be bigoted toward that group of homosexual men? And if so why? They were surely born that way according to him. I am sure he would try to convince everyone that they are hetherosexual white christian men. It seems he has a lot of hate toward christians and contempt toward God. But I am just going from what I have read of his comments. And I do not think he has "outsmarted you, or anyone else.

     
  • IdahoNative posted at 7:42 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoNative Posts: 43

    IdahoMike sounds a lot like IdahoMike Pearce and/or IdahoMike Kennedy sitting together and typing out their thoughts like two little happy kids.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:01 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Final Note to Mahiun: stop your condescension and rudeness"

    Never knew Mahiun to be anything of the sort. Instead, I find his courage to be inspiring and his honesty to be refreshing. If anything, he has been rather tolerant of you without the same in return.

    Appreciate your candor, but do not understand your tantrum. Think you might be mad because you were out smarted by a gay man... don't feel bad, I have been too. It's not a big deal.

     
  • IdahoNative posted at 7:00 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoNative Posts: 43

    "Kennedy said he thought of his older brother, who is homosexual and living in New York, when voting."

    That figures. Way to go Idaho. Just what we all need.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 6:56 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “So how is a gay person going to prove that I, as in MOI, (in caps - just for you) ‘discriminated’ by having a certain thought?”

    I should have written more clearly to avoid this backwards interpretation. :-) I meant to say that this ordinance and other laws correctly, in my opinion, prevent business owners from excluding patrons on the basis of the patrons’ religious or romantic thoughts.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 6:46 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “Expression can mean many things”

    Indeed. But “gender expression” is a commonly used term of art with a particular meaning. A quick search will get you on the right track.

    “trying to legislate what is already protected by federal and state law”

    The council addressed this issue in several paragraphs, thoroughly debunking it, it seems (http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2013/05/2699_001.pdf).

     
  • COG777 posted at 6:43 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    COG777 Posts: 339

    I have no doubt that you would be happy to chase out traditional families in YOUR city. I will keep my money out of that city. But be warned if anyone wants to celebrate their coming out and ever again grabs any part of my body I will hit them in the face just as I would if a man did it.

    I will let people know about the gay cruising and shout it out until it no longer will be happening in YOUR city.

     
  • 5inPfs posted at 6:36 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    5inPfs Posts: 689

    ***psssst*** Mahiun is a man...

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 6:34 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to he!!, and delivered them into chains of darkness"

    Oh, I'm so scared... Surprised people still believe this stuff. Also a bit disgusted that it is used to support intolerance.

    I think it is you, he uses the Lord's words to threaten and condemn his children, who should fear holy lightning ripping his head in half.

    "Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him" - John 3:15

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 6:21 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Expression can mean many things... In MyOpinion, it is therefore unenforceable"

    Perhaps in a world where your mind projection fallacies carry weight... The word "Expression" as per the intent of the ordinance in which it is contained, is rather clear in its meaning.

    Also, I don't believe that your real concern is enforcement which makes everything you said to support your claim null and void.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 6:12 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    I will no longer respond to Mahiun, who has repeatedly denigrated both myself and several other posters without showing even a modicum of respect - in more than this thread. I find her comments to be utterly offensive. They are exactly why the gay agenda is met with such resistance. The 'in your face' approach will not work with me and I daresay, most others. I don't choose to engage her further.

    Final Note to Mahiun: stop your condescension and rudeness. You are no legal expert - that is clear.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 5:49 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    ...what is already protected by federal and state law...

    But that's precisely why these city ordinances are necessary --- because GLBT people are NOT protected by federal or state law!

    As for "gender identity and expression", it's really pretty simple:
    [*] If she considers herself a woman, so do you. If he considers himself a man, so do you.
    [*] If she presents to the world as a woman, you treat her as a woman. If he presents to the world as man, you treat him as a man. Whether or not you think she "looks like" a woman, or he "looks like" a man. Whether or not they are "manly enough" or "womanly enough" is their decision to make, not yours.
    [*] If you're in doubt about which pronouns a transgender person prefers, ask.<?i> They won't be offended; they'll be impressed that you cared enough to ask, instead of just guessing and getting it wrong.

    Don't overcomplicate this. It's not that complicated.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 5:25 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    To Humanist: I earlier quoted a phrase from the ordinance that was cited in the article. See above and my earlier comment.

    The prohibition is against discrimination based on "sexual orientation, gender identity AND expression" (emphasis added).

    Expression can mean many things, including conduct, just as in the examples I gave. The phrasing is vague and decidedly over-broad. It is therefore unconstitutional and void based on the legal principals of "vagueness" and "over-breadth" which are applied when evaluating whether any statute or ordinance passes Constitutional muster. In MyOpinion, it is therefore unenforceable.

    Longbow's comment below was right on target. CDA has officially gone down the rabbit hole. The city has no business trying to legislate what is already protected by federal and state law. The enactment of this ordinance will only create problems for all involved.

     
  • Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney posted at 5:24 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney Posts: 150

    When will some people evolve and learn this is a land of "diversity". Live and let live and leave the gay people alone. Furthermore, just because your Bible is against something (or your own interpretation) doesn't mean it has to be everyone's rules or lifestyle choice. Types who harass or bother gay people need to get over themselves because your HATE is what is destroying this country; not gays.

     
  • Peter posted at 5:00 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Peter Posts: 616

    Your sins will be judged as equally as harsh will it not? You mispelled "BIGETS"...it's spelled BIGOTS.

     
  • AnonymousCda posted at 5:00 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    AnonymousCda Posts: 299

    Thomas Paine, would approve the Anti-discrimination ordinance. So do I.

     
  • Humanist posted at 4:50 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Quote: "Same question to Humanist. If my examples are ""idiotic"", why don't You define what discrimination based on sexual expression means."

    Except that the ordinance was not about sexual expression and your idiotic example of toe sucking being protected. It is about sexual orientation. Two gay people should have the right to eat in a restaurant even if they're gay. Two gay (or straight) people sucking on each others toes in the restaurant could get kicked out for disrupting your business.

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 4:46 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2283

    Karasu's back!! Yay! I think you and Jittle would make a great couple. You could help him fight Satan, AND keep Satan out of the ladies room. I'm reasonably certain Satan has a peanis.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 4:45 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "... but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears"

    The lust bone's connected to the, ear bone?

    Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned with a Q-Tip!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:44 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    How many civil and/or criminal complaints are going to be lodged based upon someone’s claim that they were discriminated against?

    If Sandpoint is any guide, not many. In the year and a half that Sandpoint's ordinance has been in place, there's been one complaint --- and that one didn't go to court, it went to mediation, where it was resolved by mutual agreement of both parties.

     
  • Truther posted at 4:43 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Truther Posts: 2

    WELL! The ink isn’t even dry on the new ordinance and the “gays” are showing us who they really are! BRASH, BULLIES AND BIGETS! There isn’t a law enforcement officer in Kootenai County that will in force this ordinance. How do I know that, because they don’t in force the ones already on the books! And it is still a “good ole boys club” weather you like it or not. All you have is “false hope” that you are protected. When was that last time a gay adult in Idaho was imprisoned for “sodomy” with another adult? Hmmmm, I don’t know of any! You see, as mean as it is, it is easier to make the gay community think we are rallying behind them but in reality it is the furthest thing from the truth. It’s just easier to give a little here a little there to keep them from causing trouble but nothing will ever be in forced. What a reality check! So good luck with that gays! And now the fight is on to “scrub” that ordinance from the books. One more thing, 2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to he!!, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
    Your sin will not be spared, REPENT while you still can.

     
  • vanillagirl posted at 4:36 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    vanillagirl Posts: 28

    Good grief people of CDA, based on the ignorance shown in the comment sections of the Press regarding gay, lesbian and transgender folks , this ordinance was surely needed.

    Hurrah for the folks who know we're in this life together. Shame on the rest of you.


     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 4:35 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    Ah, watching the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes in these comments just make feel all warm and fuzzy. Anything that gets the local troglodytes so riled up, just HAS to be the right thing to do.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:34 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Next time you want to go on a Sin Crusade and preach the wages of sin, why not start by preaching to the mirror? Beams and specks, Sugar --- beams and specks....

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:28 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Why, were you planning on throwing one?

     
  • Truther posted at 4:27 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Truther Posts: 2

    2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
    2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
    CHRISTIANS! You better start taking a public stand against sin! Rev_3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
    It is clear that God just “spued” you out because you are luke warm. I’m blown area at the level of complacent Christians I witnessed. Most of you stood for NOTHING! What a shame, time wasted opportunity blown. Where was your transparent boldness as a Christian? Not hate speech but having faith that God would be with you for taking a stand, I didn’t see it and God didn’t either. You seem to think that because you’re a Christian God is in “favor” of you where ever you go. But God chose not to grant favor among you last night. Where did you put God first last night? Frankly, the gays were more on fire for their cause than the Christians. Here are some of the comments I heard from Christians, “how is holding that sign going to bring people to Jesus?” and “you Christians aren’t being very loving.” This wasn’t the time or place to win souls for Jesus, they were speaking out against sin as every professed Christian should have if they were there. It’s not like God didn’t warn you that it would get a little rough and hard when you defend His name. So would God consider you Christian? Based on what? Just because you did the “sinners prayer” you’re now a Christian, NO your just saved. If you think speaking against sin is not very loving than you need to get out of your “seeker sensitive” church and get a back bone and start reading you’re bible! For all you luke warm Christians I hope the gays take you to task so you’ll learn how to take a stand for yourself because you are NOT ready for that things to come! REPENT AND RENEW your heart! Don’t write me about “judging” it’s my job as a Christian and you need to read your bible.

     
  • Peter posted at 4:26 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Peter Posts: 616

    If I'm a restaurant owner in CDA, and a muslim man (small m) comes in, loudly proclaiming his love and sexual dalliances with his pet goat I don't have the right to refuse service?

    Better get your bunker ready and remember, hybrid seeds....always hybrid seed.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:25 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Weren't you the one asking for specific examples??!!? So how about some??! Where has all this rampant foot fetishism in public restaurants been taking place, anyway??! And why wouldn't that be taken care of with a simple "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign?

    Your desperation is getting more evident by the minute, but you seem to be running out of straws to grasp.....

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:22 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    This raises an interesting point. I can only imagine the howling that would ensue if anyone local were to be asked to leave a restaurant because of wearing a crucifix necklace or lapel pin. But I am also confident that many of the people posting here would have no problem with patrons being asked to either remove their rainbow flag pin or remove themselves, one or the other.

     
  • Peter posted at 4:19 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Peter Posts: 616

    So how is it again this ordinace going to affect your life? Still waiting for an answer.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:18 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    And we're supposed to believe that somebody who can't even spell it is going to be able to recognize it??!

    Just how do you plan to check, anyway??! Unless you're planning on climbing under every stall in the women's room, or demanding a grope in the hallway outside the restrooms, how the &*($%^#@ do you plan to set yourself up as Sergeant Jenna Taylia, Inspector General of the Coppafeel Force??!!?

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Why?! What's confusing about it??! This is why the ordinance includes "gender identity and expression". If she considers herself to be a woman, presents herself to the public as a woman, lives and works as a woman, then the anatomy-in-transition is none of your damm business unless she chooses to make it so in a private setting.

    And if he considers himself to be a man, presents himself to the public as a man, lives and works as a man, then the anatomy-in-transition is none of your damm business unless he chooses to make it so in a private setting --- or unless you're one of those obnoxious types who crane their necks trying to get a good look at the urinal next door. You're not, are you??!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:09 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Thank you, MyOpinion (you might want to consider using the more accurate MyOpiC but that's your decision), for such a graphic illustration of exactly why such an ordinance is needed. That may have been the single most offensive piece of writing I have ever read on the forums --- it's definitely in the running, at the very least!

    So, there were no incidents of discrimination proven or offered, I take it.
    You're not thinking this through. Where would these reports come from??! Until last night, it would not even have been counted a crime. So who was making the report?! Who was collecting and transcribing the report??! What would they report on, when no crime had actually been committed? Why would the victim bother even trying to make a report, and who would listen to it, anyway?! Any evidence presented would have been strictly "He said / She said", which would be of limited value --- although I do agree that it might have been useful to have had some sort of first-hand accounts of people who have either suffered or witnessed such discrimination in action. However, I suspect that the ordinance was being viewed more as a preventive measure than a corrective one --- but you would need to confirm that with the city council, to be certain.

    ...and a muslim man (small m) comes in, loudly proclaiming his love and sexual dalliances with his pet goat I don't have the right to refuse service?
    This is so patently offensive, I feel like I need to shower, just quoting it. Why on Earth would you think you had any reason to believe that a Muslim (upper-case M, just like Catholic or Lutheran or Buddhist or Wiccan) would be any more likely to come into your establishment singing of the joys and wonders of goat-o-philia and deification of horned artiodactyls??! Conversely, why would you think that such behaviour would characterize a Muslim person??! And if anyone were to create that kind of ruckus in a public restaurant, why on Earth would you think that laws about disturbing the peace would not apply?! Or if said person were to actually bring the goat in question, that Health Department laws would not apply?!

    You're frantically looking for some reason to be outraged and victimized, and you're coming up empty-handed --- and creating outlandish and deeply offensive scenarios, in the process!

    Those who oppose their ideology and 'life styles'; i.e., gay marriage For Any Reason Whatsover are just SOL, right?
    Not at all! If you have a good reason, let's hear it! But "God said so!" is NOT a good reason, under the secular law established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, you are still free to feel just as bigoted and homophobic as you choose to. And you are still free to choose not to serve the public, rather than serve GLBT customers. But if you choose to serve the public, then yes: you and your bigotry are S.O.L. and you are going to have to serve the entire public, without cherry-picking only the public you personally like.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 3:58 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Guess the local employers will have to remove 'hissy fit' from their employee termination forms.

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 3:43 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    To the Press: IMHO this message format is difficult at best. I'm not gonna reread the entire thread each time to see who has replied to whom about what.

    Oldest posts should be first and progress in descending order. Those who reply can reference the earlier comment. When you refresh, you then don't have to scroll up and down to see what the hey's going on. You should have buttons for italics, bold, strike outs, quotes and links.

    I demand an ordinance(s) or something! /

    To Jason Abbott:

    "Of course you do [have the right to refuse service]. You just can’t do so for the color of a person’s skin or the thoughts (romantic or religious) they have in their heads unrelated to their behavior in your place of business."

    So how is a gay person going to prove that I, as in MOI, (in caps - just for you) 'discriminated' by having a certain thought? Who are the new thought police? Is it an offense only if someone announces they're gay and I kick them out? Is it only an offense if I tell them I'm kicking them out because I'm guessing or thinking they're gay? Does 'sexual expression' include - well, what does it include?

    Same question to Humanist. If my examples are ""idiotic"", why don't You define what discrimination based on sexual expression means. Bet you can't. Bet there will be lots of law suits trying to figure that out. And I'll bet the ordinance will be unenforceable because it is unconstitutional and void based on vagueness and over-breadth.

    To The Golden Mean: I'll stop calling out destructive liberal policies when they stop insisting on destroying our Republic. Oh, and we see evidence of liberals defending Christian religious freedom every day, right? Nope, in fact it's just the opposite.

    Why shouldn't a baker bake a cake for the sheer joy of supporting a gay wedding, Jason Abbott asks? Um, maybe because they don't want to participate in and support the 'celebration'. Because the state can't make me bake a cake for a marriage I don't condone - whether it's based on religious beliefs or not.

    I have a gay niece who I love. She got "married" to one of her own sex. I didn't attend as I didn't choose to support it. Get it? It's my right Not To. I didn't bake a cake for her, either. She and her "wife" recently had a baby boy through insemination (because you know they couldn't have done it on their own). I don't choose to support that in praise for their conduct, either. What thought and conduct police are going to make me throw a shower or knit booties?

    My rights count as much as those in the gay/transwhatever communities.

    [MyOpinion] should be in my protected class so MY rights are no longer infringed upon. I demand more ordinances until I get what I want.

     
  • cdanative33 posted at 3:23 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    cdanative33 Posts: 361

    Very well said. Welcome to CDA.

     
  • myhome posted at 3:10 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Maybe they will outlaw plastic bags and charge $.10 per bag as is the rage...

    Yes, yes, yes! It took less than 30 years to see the results of trading paper bags for plastic all in the name of "saving our trees". Even tho most knew plastic will never biodegrade back to useful soil the oil giants pushed and won this action.
    The lesson has been learned and we must work to repair the damage. Too bad back in the day (during the time of the switch) we had not taken on the practice of the past and used cloth bags. Of course, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

    I wish people could see the bigger picture on this Anti-discrimination ordinance as it is not just about sexual preference. What if you have a disability? Maybe you have too many tattoos or your hair is to long. Move forward people.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 2:39 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “How many civil and/or criminal complaints are going to be lodged based upon someone’s claim that they were discriminated against”

    Is that what happened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Disabilities Act of 1990? I’m sure there were some lawsuits but did it bring us closer to oblivion, as you say?

    “Next thing you know, we’ll be facing ordinances about what end of the toothpaste tube we have to push”

    Why is that? Why is this particular ordinance the one pushing us to a nanny state when the long list of existing behavior limiting city ordinances¹ didn’t cause such alarm?

    ¹ http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=603

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:33 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I don't have the right to refuse service without being a criminal?"

    Think you're confusing public behavior with who/what somebody is. If somebody stood up in your place of business and started screaming bible verses, you could ask them to leave. However, if you refused to service somebody just because they were Christian, that's going to get you in trouble.

    Most Liberals would fight to protect Christians from being ejected from any business for being Christian.

    With that said, imagine how difficult life would be for Christians if the Right Wing was not Christian. That would be what life in America is really like for those of us who do not support the Christian Right.

    Think about that next time you bash Liberals.

     
  • longbow posted at 2:25 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    longbow Posts: 12

    Sadly, the City Council fell down the rabbit hole by accepting the premise of the argument phrased by its proponents. This is exactly the type of action that has resulted in California becoming the cesspool that it is.

    Everyone has biases and prejudices. Those saying they do not have any either live in a cave, are in denial, or are simply prevaricating. The question is, when is it right for government to weigh-in on these types of social issues?

    There are countless protections contained within the Constitution of the United States and the Idaho Constitution. There is no need for such a local ordinance, other than to make some people "feel good" about themselves and promote an image that they are progressive and tolerant.

    If the community does not like or accept local business practices, they should vote with their pocket book and feet. Businesses viewed as engaging in prejudicial practices will likely close when they cannot meet payroll.

    This ordinance is merely the first step in the path to oblivion. How can anyone argue with such a proposition? We are simply protecting individual rights! We are against all forms of discrimination! Sounds good doesn't it? Problem is, in practice that is not what will happen. How many civil and/or criminal complaints are going to be lodged based upon someone's claim that they were discriminated against on the basis of their _______ (sexual orientation, race, foot fettish, whatever). Lawyers, pro bono organizations and activists are going to appear to pursue all types of complaints. Attorneys handling these lawsuits are going to demand legal fees and costs, asserting that they are acting qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur. It's happened in California and it will happen here.

    Discrimination laws are something that need to be addressed under the Constitution. Local governments have no business weighing in to this fray. What is now an offense in Coeur d'Alene is not an offense in Bonner's Ferry or St. Maries? Other than to make some people feel better about themselves, what was solved by the passage of this ordinance?

    Next thing you know, we'll be facing ordinances about what end of the toothpaste tube we have to push first; or maybe they will outlaw plastic bags and charge $.10 per paper bag as is the rage in California. Maybe, we will each be asked to leave our home, while still paying the mortgage, so that some unfortunate and disadvantaged will have a place to stay.

    This was a BIG mistake.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 2:20 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “I don’t have the right to refuse service without being a criminal?”

    Of course you do. You just can’t do so for the color of a person’s skin or the thoughts (romantic or religious) they have in their heads unrelated to their behavior in your place of business.

    If, regardless of ethnicity, ability, gender or sexual orientation, you prohibit some behaviors (such as kissing or talking in ALL-CAPS) then refuse-away.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:19 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "... toe suckers are now a protected class"

    As are Gun Pride advocates.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:15 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Wrong...there is no penalty because white heterosexual males are not a special, protected class!

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 2:14 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “Business owners are now forced to do business … in support of gay marriage even if they are opposed to it”

    When a Christian business sells to a non-Christian, should they feel like they’re supporting Satan? Or if a Republican fixes the car of a Democrat, should they feel like they’re supporting the “destruction” of America (from your comment above).

    Why can’t you bake a cake in support of someone enjoying a cake? Or provide flowers in support of someone enjoying flowers? Why judge their private thoughts and perspectives?

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:10 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Get a room, wouldja? Hey, they can't turn you down!

     
  • Humanist posted at 2:10 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    What you describe would easily be classified as disrupting the public. You would have every right to kick them out.

    Stop making up idiotic hypothetical scenarios.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:09 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    So the Murder laws on the books didn't heretofore protect gays?

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:07 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Mob rule, indeed. Does the term "Obamacare" raise awareness. It should.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 2:03 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    “I don't have the right to refuse service?”

    Of course you do. You just can’t do so for the color of a person’s skin or the thoughts (romantic or religious) they have in their heads unrelated to their behavior in your place of business.

    “Liberal ‘ideas’ are proving to be destructive on a daily basis”

    If ordinances such as this are considered “destructive” then I suppose so. But when I get up and go about my day, the same sun shines as ever, the same flowers grow, I breath the same air, have the same freedoms, and love and am loved by the same people as under every other administration (in spite of what Fox News might proclaim). It doesn’t seem so bad.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:01 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Now that's funny right there ^. I don't care who you are.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 2:00 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    I would say "boot" em out but toe suckers are now a protected class.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:57 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Accept us, or go to jail. Good way to make friends"

    Accept me or burn for eternity. Bad way to encourage converts.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:54 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "If I'm a restaurant owner in CDA, and a muslim man (small m) comes in, loudly proclaiming his love and sexual dalliances with his pet goat I don't have the right to refuse service?"

    Does your restaurant serve goat food?

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 1:51 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    I’m not sure what a “pro gay agenda” is. I rather like being ignorant of others’ romantic lives, not pro or con. The only threat to churches, their only “storm,” is an educated society. It seems, on the other hand (even in comments above), that many would do financial and physical harm to gay people if they could.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:47 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "... and I have heard some really dumb things"

    Did you hear the one about the self-proclaimed intolerant bigot that monitors who goes into which restroom? Curious if Larry Craig would have made it past the goalie?

     
  • Screen Name posted at 1:47 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 802

    Boring reconstituted material from a conservative "news" website.

    Have you no original material Max?

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 1:46 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    No Form of Sexual Expression can now be discriminated against by a business owner in CDA without committing a crime? Bravo!!!??

    So, if a foot fetishist walks into my restaurant with his (aw heck, let's spice it up) Boyfriend and begins lovingly kissing and carressing his boyfriend's foot the minute they get comfortable in my cozy booth, I don't have the right to refuse service without being a criminal?

    The liberal progressive slope is endless. Anything goes.

    It's the liberal way and it's ALWAYS In Your Face, whether you like it or not. Their ideology and life styles trump all.

    YOUR rights be damned. Only theirs matter.

     
  • Humanist posted at 1:38 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    I also hope that the authorities google your phone number to find out who you are in the event that one of these assaults does occur. Your info is all out there and is consistent with who I remember you being.

     
  • Humanist posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Holy cow, Karasu is back!

    Karasu, if you do that you do understand that you would be subject to assault charges don't you?

     
  • karasu posted at 1:28 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    karasu Posts: 292

    Telling a man he has to use the mens room is discrimination? I guess I am an intolerant bigot.
    Intolerance is a good thing. And yes, behavior is a choice.

     
  • karasu posted at 1:21 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    karasu Posts: 292

    Telling a man he has to use the mens room is discrimination?(dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I have heard some really dumb things) Oh well I guess I am an intolerant bigot. Intolerance is a wonderful thing.

     
  • Humanist posted at 1:20 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Wah.

     
  • myhome posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    myhome Posts: 71

    Sundays sermon will be on David and Goliath. Oh...scratch that. Can't kill ones self with your own stone so better to fall back on Chicken Little the Sky Is Falling.
    As the service is about to come to a close, an announcement will be made that the Refreshment Committee has prepared a table of refreshments for you to enjoy, so please help yourself to the Kool-Aide. Now let us pray.....

    Isaiah Ch 57:4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood

    Isaiah Ch 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith The Lord.

    Maybe it's time to retire the soapbox (all it really did is raised you above the masses so your hatred was for all to see) and extend an olive branch to your community so you will be apart of making your home a better place to live for you and generations to come.

    Thumbs up, Coeurd'Alene!

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    Mahiun:

    "We're becoming quite the little progressive enclave here, aren't we."

    "Well, we can only hope so...."

    Decidedly NOT! Liberal 'ideas' are proving to be destructive on a daily basis; witness: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS destruction - and election stealing, violations against the press, etc., etc., ETC. We will not allow Progressives, in all their idiocy, to destroy our Republic.

    So, there were no incidents of discrimination proven or offered, I take it. Otherwise you would have offered them. And otherwise, they would have been cited ad nauseum in these posts leading up to the vote last night.

    If I'm a restaurant owner in CDA, and a muslim man (small m) comes in, loudly proclaiming his love and sexual dalliances with his pet goat I don't have the right to refuse service?

    Anything goes now, and freedom be damned, eh?

    Oh, that's right, liberals are only concerned with Their freedom and Their rights. Those who oppose their ideology and 'life styles'; i.e., gay marriage For Any Reason Whatsover are just SOL, right?

    It's the liberal way.

     
  • Humanist posted at 12:38 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Good question. Maybe Ben Wolfinger can help you with that.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 12:37 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    We're becoming quite the little progressive enclave here, aren't we.
    Well, we can only hope so....

     
  • Mahiun posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    Heather, sweetie, I was already well aware that you are not my friend and aren't likely going to be. I wasn't either expecting or seeking "friendship" from you, just respect and courtesy.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 12:30 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    But lets not go down the road of giving minorities the ability to supersede the rights of the majority.
    But that's exactly what laws do, what they're for: to protect the rights of vulnerable minorities against the whims of a fickle majority. Otherwise, all you've got is "mob rule".

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 12:24 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    How would an employer or a restaurant waitress/waiter know how someone "chooses to have sex"?

     
  • xargaw posted at 12:24 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    xargaw Posts: 178

    Sheeken, I think you are confusing the point here. A prospective employer can hire whomever he/she chooses. There are many reasons to hire candidate X instead of candidate Y and it is nearly impossible to prove you were rejected at the interview stage solely on your sexuality. Your sexuality should not even come up in an interview. An employer can give any number of reasons why a person was not offered a job. However, if you are hired, do an exemplary job, are an all around good and trusted employee for some period of time, receiving good reviews, and then out of blue you are dismissed solely because your employer learns you are gay, that is discrimination. Without this law, the employee has no legal recourse. With the law, he/she has limited recourse, but at least some. What fair minded person would support discrimination of any kind against someone punished who has done their job well?

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 12:21 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Painting bald doods with a broad brush, Goldy?

     
  • MyOpinion posted at 12:18 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    MyOpinion Posts: 36

    I was not able to attend, and the article doesn't give any Actual Examples of discrimination in housing or service based on sexual orientation in CDA. Were any incidents cited? If so, were they proven to be based Solely on sexual orientation?

    Just curious.

    Also, the phrase in the ordinance: "sexual orientation, gender identity and expression" sounds overly vague for enforcement purposes. What Kind of sexual expression is included? Are any forms of sex excluded?

    I suppose we can look forward to parades a la those chronicled by zombietime in the near future?

    Who is protecting 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion on the city council? Business owners are now forced to do business - bake cakes, provide wedding services, floral or photography services in support of gay marriage even if they are opposed to it - for Any Reason Whatsoever?

    I, for example, have no problem with the gay life style as long as it isn't 'in my face'. I am also not comfortable with blatant heterosexual public displays of affection. However, I do not support gay marriage - and it's not based on religious convictions at all.

    We're becoming quite the little progressive enclave here, aren't we.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:03 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I deserve to be protected from the intolerant, anti-bald, rubes in North Idaho"

    Ironically, some of North Idaho's most notorious intolerants intentionally shaved off all of their hair. I strongly suggest that if/when you do go bald, don't get a swastika tattoo.

     
  • max power posted at 12:03 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    max power Posts: 559

    *** Comrade Obama Proclaims June LGBT Pride Month ***

    Washington, D.C. - In an effort to get America to "Get it's Freak on" Comrade Obama has proclaimed the month of June LGBT Pride Month. "Clearly a day or week is not enough time. Speaking of time, it's time we as a nation embrace our sexually perverted brothers and sisters," said Comrade Obama.

    The First Sasquatch Michelle "Moochelle" Obama took the 5th day of June to remind everyone of the Riddle Homophobia Scale. "With summer school just around the corner this is an excellent opportunity to use this wonderful indoctrination tool," said the First Saquatch.

    The Riddle Homophobia Scale is named after Dr. Dorothy Riddle. It lists four "homophobic levels of attitude" and four "positive levels of attitude".
    Listed under the homophobic category are: 1) repulsion, 2) pity, 3) tolerance and 4) acceptance. That's correct: "Tolerance and Acceptance" are now considered homophobic.

    Listed under the postive category are: 5) support, 6) admiration, 7) appreciation and 8) nurturance. In other words, your kids in school should have an attitude of support, admiration, appreciation and nurturance toward sexual perverts: otherwise they are homophobic!

    But Wait, There's More:

    - The Little Boy Who Is A She-Lebrity -

    By now, you've probabaly heard about the new children's cartoon show called Shezow featuring a 12 year old boy named Guy "who uses a magic ring to transform himself into a crime fighting girl" wearing "a purple skirt and cape, as well as pink gloves and white boots." And to change from a boy to a girl, he just says the magic words, "You Go Girl!"

    Another harmless T.V. program for the little one? Not on your life. This is yet another attempt to blur gender distinctions and to celebrate the freak show that is transgenger identity. And in this case, the target audience for this indoctrination is very young. Ages 2 to 11.

    "It's all part and parcel of a Nation rotting from within. It's the Roman Empire 2.0" - Jack Hammer

     
  • OneNationUnderGod posted at 12:02 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    OneNationUnderGod Posts: 31

    The city of Ceour d'Alene is confirming rights to certain groups while Kootenai County and the Land Use Planning processing is restricting them with generational impacts on land owners.

    To all reading and commenting here please read the articel in today's issue of the CDA Press -- http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_3029cf40-535c-53bf-b950-2e72beb6d0ce.html

    While protection is being extended to a certain group, the broader community's rights are being taken away. Please take the time to learn about the Land Use Planning process and how "boring" planning can and will have a lasting impact of North Idaho's future.

    Private Property rights are a bedrock priniciple of freedom!

     
  • xargaw posted at 12:02 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    xargaw Posts: 178

    As a new member of the community, I have been reading the paper for a few months and followed several of the controversies with interest. I have lived in a variety of places over several decades, some royal blue, some crimson, some devout and some less so. I went to the meeting last night more out of curiosity because I had read so much misinformation from well meaning activist voices. I wanted to get a feel for my new community. I do not doubt anyone's sincerity, but many of the certainties expressed in their published letters or pieces have been either factually or scientifically inaccurate. Towards the end of the public comment last night one women got off topic somewhat and gave quite an emotional pitch that the council should be at least equally concerned with the fact that Idaho scores forty eighth in the nation in education. While, perhaps, not the proper forum for her comments, she had a point after listening to so many earnest speakers present faulty information as fact and make unsupported assumptions. Many called for an election on this matter. The very case from California in front of the Supreme Court right now regarding Prop 8 comes down to the argument that "rights" cannot to be voted on and that all Americans are guaranteed "equal protection under the law." I was impressed that in the end the council was able to separate church and civil governance. I do not think the religious argument had a place in this case which boils down to civil rights for all. After all, churches are exempt. It should also be noted that not ALL Christian churches would agree with those that represented the faith last night. Presbyterians USA, Lutherans and Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, and some Methodists, all have congregations across the country that have become open and affirming inclusive houses of worship welcoming members of the gay community. Some mainstream Christian faiths now gone so far as to ordain gay people. The matter of being gay and being a Christian is not as settled as most of last nights speakers would lead us to believe. I commend the council for leaning on the side of equality and sticking with civil governance. We are diverse nation. The melting pot of the world. Governments role is to protect the rights and liberties of all people, especially the rights of access and opportunity to minority groups that lack power. To those in the group last night that so fervently spoke with religious conviction, I am reminded of the words of the Rev. William Sloane Coffin, (ordained in both the Presbyterian and United Church of Christ) who said" It is a mistake to look to the Bible to close a discussion; the Bible seeks to open one. Christians have to listen to the world as well as the word--to science, to history, to what reason and our experience tells us. We do not honor the higher truths we find in Christ by ignoring the truths found elsewhere" The icon for the United Church of Christ is a "coma," the belief that God is still speaking beyond the words of the Bible. Religious fundamentalists tell us all the time that God has spoken to them. Apparently, there is one area where the Religious Right and the Religious Progressives have some common ground. Whether religious or not, most people would agree that loving thy neighbor as they low themselves is a pretty good idea. I think the council came as close as they could to deciding along those lines in a civil governing ordinance.

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 11:52 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    You don't need to "accept them" or be "friends." You don't need to change your beliefs. You could never kill them as the Bible supposedly tells you to.

    Just consider this law a new, broader limitation on your religious right to kill those LGBT's. Now you also cannot do some other stuff to hurt them (deny them employment, service, etc. on the basis of sexual orientation). The same logic that allows us to protect LGBT from being murdered based on religoius beliefs is the same logic that prevents you from firing an employee who you find out is gay.

    Suck it up and focus on merit, not religiously-driven prejudices.

     
  • fiepie posted at 11:44 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 2840

    Arius1...do you think those who went to war, those who gave their life, those who carried wounds only did it for certain people who live in this country?
    Did the homosexuals who did the same as the straights only serve to benefit their sexual preferences?
    You can just hear some of those military folks...yeah, I'm fighting for the red-heads...or the blondes...or the folks who own chickens..or...sure they didn't fight for freedom and equal rights?

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 11:44 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Not to worry "arius 1", because Muslims will take over this country like they have Europe and they'll kill all the gays anyway. Of course they'll kill all the Christians, Jews, and other Infidels as well.

    It doesn't matter to the Left that they are destroying our Republic piece by piece, chipping away at the foundation until it all comes crumbling down.

    The irony of those screaming for tolerance is that THEY are the most intolerant of others' views and beliefs.

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    How somebody chooses to have sex determines whether they can get a job? Be served at a restaurant? Sorry, but not in my city! Hooray CDA!!!

     
  • northone9 posted at 11:40 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    northone9 Posts: 278

    One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for........ALL.

    God I love cda.

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 11:39 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    Listening to people argue in favor of being allowed to discriminate against LGBT individuals at yesterday's City Council meeting, it seemed the general argument was always a form of the following:

    "Because my religion teaches me that 'X' is a sin, I have a right to do 'Y' against those sinners, and the government cannot pass laws preventing me from doing 'Y'."

    By that logic: Where X=anything, and Y=anything, you can do ANYTHING you like if your religion has your back. Sorry, but I will not resign my rights to you and your religion's fallible beliefs about what they think God wants.

    Thank you CDA!!!! So proud of you today!

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 11:37 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    I propose that the City Council adopt an anti-balding discrimination law. A bald guy doesn't choose to be bald. It's in his genetic blueprint.

    If a woman will not date a guy because he is bald, then that is discrimination. If a company won't hire a bald guy, then that is discrimination. You should not have a choice to discriminate against the follically challenged.

    Jesus loved bald fellas too.

    As "fiepie" said, "This ordinance is to help you keep your job, housing, etc..."

    I demand the Council do the right thing. Gays are protected by EEOC, FHA, FHEO, ACLU, NAACP, NFL, NBA, NHL, MSNBC, etc. Nobody lookin' out for the bald guy.

    Someday I may be bald (not by choice mind you) and I deserve to be protected from the intolerant, anti-bald, rubes in North Idaho.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:31 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Satan wins again"

    God let him win, so who really won?

     
  • rexaroni posted at 11:30 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    rexaroni Posts: 189

    Homosexuality in the animal kingdom: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

    George Washington, gay-friendy? http://www.bilerico.com/2011/10/george_washington_gay-friendly_father_of_our_count.php

     
  • CDGE posted at 11:29 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    CDGE Posts: 23

    Nothing like asking the government to do something for you that you can't get done (don't have the support, or shouldn't do) yourself. If you don't agree with, like, or support a business for the owners' beliefs, you are perfectly free to refuse to frequent that business. That is what the free market is. Supply and demand. (A good example would be for homosexuals to start their own scouting organization rather than insisting on changing one that doesn't include them. The BSA should also refuse federal funds.) How many times have you met with the owners of 'offending' businesses to try to talk through your differences? You don't see ordinances being submitted that would force GLs to be isolated (by law) to a particular section of the city, or not allowed to be in public, or forbidden to enter a business, you only have people trying to live by whatever code, standard they choose. They aren't forcing you to agree or support them, just wanting the freedom to run their business as they choose. It isn't really even a religious issue, other than our country was founded on judeo-Christian principles. It is a freedom issue. Why would you want to support someone who opposes you? Those supporting this ordinance aren't interested in fair treatment, they are interested in punishing those who don't agree with them and taking revenge out on, and restricting freedom of those who have a different standard than they. This ordinance may very well keep religious 'fanatics' out of the city, leaving it a bastian of homosexuality. That's really what supporters of this ordinance want. Sounds like very low tolerance to me. Oh yeah, that's what Christian's are accused of...funny.

     
  • Humanist posted at 11:28 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    Great job City Council! Thank you for doing the rational, reasonable and logical thing by providing equal rights and protections for all people. I especially appreciate Dan Gookins support of this ordinance since I thought there was no way he would. A very pleasant surprise.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:27 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "But lets not go down the road of giving minorities the ability to supersede the rights of the majority"

    The majority does not have the right to repress any minority.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 11:18 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Which is exactly the underpinnings of the pro gay agenda.

     
  • Moon_Smiles posted at 11:15 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Moon_Smiles Posts: 13

    Yes, please do keep your bigotry at home.

     
  • Moon_Smiles posted at 11:14 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Moon_Smiles Posts: 13

    SmallMinds, you clearly do not talk with even one LGBT person (or rather they are unwilling to confide in you), because all of the folks that I've talked to are able to share at least one story, often several more, of situations where they were discriminated against IN COEUR D'ALENE simply because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

    Perhaps you should broaden your horizons? Get out more and learn about your neighbors and the other members of your community. You are obviously moving in a close-minded circle.

     
  • pullandpray posted at 11:09 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    pullandpray Posts: 4

    Brilliant! Thank you Mahiun for shedding light on ignorance!

     
  • arius1 posted at 11:08 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    arius1 Posts: 734

    Hey if someone wants the LGBT life, so be it. Some may be born that way, and some may choose to be so after being here awhile. I have had friends who were gay/transgender. But lets not go down the road of giving minorities the ability to supersede the rights of the majority. I can see the effects of reverse discrimination happening again.
    If the city council is supposed to represent the people, and the majority in attendance last night were opposed to this, are they really representing us ? Just sayin. And if the homosexual lifestyle is so healthy, why aren't they allowed to give blood ? Just sayin.
    I have to admit that I am no expert on sex of all species, but I think we are the only species that does rear end sex( the administrator wouldn't allow it said correctly), thats just gross. That can't be right, or am I out in left field on this ? The founders of our country and the greatest generation ever (WW1 and WW2 folks) would be ashamed and embarrased by this vote. We are slowly going from "God and Country" to "no God and no Country"

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:41 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    ...and 2 steps backwards for gay rights. All they did was widen the chasm.

     
  • heatherfeather posted at 10:40 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    heatherfeather Posts: 297

    Forced togetherness. Accept us, or go to jail. Good way to make friends.

     
  • Cody Wiench posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Cody Wiench Posts: 352

    Being religious/adherent to a religion is a choice, being gay is not. Why would someone *choose* to be gay in N. Idaho? That's only setting themselves up for hate and bigotry. Part of being a business means playing by certain rules (your opinion of those "rules" is moot--they exist in the US, so get over that): paying the appropriate taxes, not harming the environment too much, treating customers fairly, paying employees legally, keeping a sanitary workplace etc etc. If a Christian can't play by those rules, they should CHOOSE a different career. The fact is that Christians don't hate the sin, as they so love to say. They simply hate gays, it's as simple as that. They can blame their religion, but it doesn't change the hate in their hearts.

     
  • pullandpray posted at 10:37 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    pullandpray Posts: 4

    and the hyper, over-reactions begin. bigotry hidden behind the Bible is still bigotry. if you're a business owner and you fire someone because they are gay then you're a lousy Christian. if you're a business owner and you refuse service to someone because they're gay then you're a lousy Christian. it's amazing to me how you "Christians" only use the Bible when it fits your narrow minded views. the Bible condones slavery and that it's ok to beat your slaves, the Bible states that a rapist must marry his victim if she isn't married or if she's a virgin, disobedient children can be stoned to death, people who commit adultery can be stoned to death, eating shellfish - rabbits - pork - blood and certain birds are all forbidden, you can't wear cloths that have a linen and wool blend.....

    this notion that people are morally bankrupt because they think bigotry is wrong is hard to get my head around. people like you used the same arguments about allowing black people the right to vote or marry a white person. you're a bigot disguised as a Christian. it's ok to disagree with someone, it's wrong to discriminate against them.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:36 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    Militant heterophobes!

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 10:32 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    It seems imagined victimization is the spice of modern life.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 10:30 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2310

    I have yet to see a job or rental application where I'm asked what my sexual preference is. Smoke and mirrors is all this was. A way for the intolerant to impose their lifestyle on the majority.

     
  • Ziggy posted at 10:20 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Ziggy Posts: 1142

    Well done Council. Hate is nothiing but fear and we sure have a lot of frightened little rabbits running around.
    Also this was a victory for Old Kootenai County who would have passed this without much argument. I was amazed that some of the people who testified actually said they came to Northern Idaho to "get away from this kind of thing." Maybe now we can begin to really lay Butler's group to rest. Anyway, it was a giant step. Congratulations to CdA City Council.

     
  • acid posted at 10:19 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    acid Posts: 45

    Roflmao, Mahiun! Where is the like button? Well put!

     
  • I_Am_an_American posted at 10:16 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    I_Am_an_American Posts: 30

    Mahiun, great comment . Your contestants are what put North Idaho into a bad light. Some will just fade away, others will just continue on with their attacks. They have pitiful sorry lives. Thanks for the comment, spot on.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:49 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 4956

    First, congratulations to the Coeur d'Alene City Council for a difficult job, done well. Doing the right thing is often not the same as doing the popular thing --- let's be honest, in this town, it's almost never the same thing! --- and this vote took courage. Nevertheless, it was the right thing, and it's appreciated. Discrimination is wrong, no matter what pseudo-justification is offered.

    Now, on to the pageant! Yes, folks, despite the recent vote of the Cd'A City Council, we still have quite a few contestants for the coveted title of Miss Informed! The runners-up for the grand title are still eligible to compete for the titles of Miss Ogynist, Miss Anthropist, Miss Interpretation, and Miss Understands. So let's meet our contestants, in chronological order of posting:

    Contestant #1: IdahoMan
    We need to know who to throw out next election.
    The name you're looking for, Contestant #1, is "Steve Adams."

    Contestant #2: ConcernedCitizen
    This has less to do with human rights as it does tapping into the $70 BILLION dollar a year GLBT tourist industry. This bunch doesn't miss a trick when it comes to greed.
    Contestant #2 has been a frequent entrant, and has claimed for some time now that the initials "CC" stood only for "concerned citizen". Those in the know, however, suspect that they may also stand for the secret identity of Contestant #2, Cyndi Cynic. Pageant judges are only allowed to judge contestants on their most recent entry, however, and CC may be disqualified for failing to explain why directing lucrative tourist business to a town that depends on a tourism economy would be a bad thing.

    Contestant #3: DeNiles
    Current titleholder, and heavily favoured to not only win once again, but to sweep the entire contest, becoming the biggest and most versatile queen in town and adding a bevy of brand new tiaras to the collection in this contestant's closet.

    If a 58 year old woman (a real woman, y'know a female) walks into an upscale eatery at 8 P.M. wearing a string bikini and flip flops I doubt that she would be welcomed or good for business.
    Probably not. But this is exactly why dress codes --- which remain perfectly legal, so long as they are enforced equitably and fairly --- were devised and implemented.

    What if she and all of her close friends decided to assault a business with the clear intent of causing it harm?
    Then they would likely be escorted out and, if they persisted, arrested for disorderly conduct. As would any group of Krrrrrischunns intent on disrupting the business of, and causing harm to, any establishment they disapproved for serving "undesirables".

    Now. Gays have this habit (ploy, strategy) of targeting businesses they feel do not adequately support their agenda or are even too religious (any sect).
    Contestant #3 has offered this entry several times already, and this entry has already enabled this contestant to claim the title of Miss Hyper Bully on multiple occasions. But will it be enough this time around, to claim the coveted title of Miss Informed?! Possibly, since our erstwhile contestant consistently fails to provide concrete and specific examples of this "targeting". The Chik-fil-A example cited was actually a boycott response, with isolated and sporadic "kiss-ins" on the part of local protesters who were not part of any organized nationwide campaign. The boycott was also in response to a very public discriminatory stance and specific campaign contributions made by Chik-Fil-A and its owners.

    They do things no civilized heterosexual person would do in public.
    Kissing??!!? Boycotting??!!? Contestant #3 evidently doesn't get out much....

    Wait for it. CdA is target rich. A religiously oriented retail business will be identified. Then from all around the northwest Gays will confer, design, and organize. And in the midst of the high profile tourist season they will converge, en masse and execute their plans.
    Folks, it's this kind of Neon-Bright Purple Prose that has kept this contestant as the reigning champion, heavily favoured in this pageant as well. It seems clear to the judges that we can already award this year's Miss Hyper Bully Award to our reigning champion, the one and only (at least, we certainly hope so!!) DeNiles.

    Contestant #4: XRGRSF
    A new entrant for this pageant round, but a strong contender for the title of Miss Informed, with an entry like this:
    Can anyone tell me what the penalty is for decriminating against white heterosexual males?
    Yes: exactly the same as the penalty for discriminating against black, homosexual females.

    Contestant #5: will--
    "Kennedy said he thought of his older brother..." And at that point he should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
    If the criterion to be used is to neither be nor know any LGBT person because of a potential conflict of interest, then in the interest of fairness and equity, we would also have to recuse any and all business owners with religious objections, potential customers of such businesses (on either side of the issue), and anyone else who might have a stake in the outcome. The room would be empty and silent.

    But, the judges must admit, an entry this wildly off the mark does make for a very strong contender for Miss Informed!

    Contestant #6: SmallMinds
    Another new entrant for this pageant round, this contestant evidently chose a screen name based on the contestant's mirror collection. The judges have ruled that this does not violate pageant rules, so this contestant could claim the crown (well, actually, just a tiara) of Miss Informed.

    The contestant cites two businesses sued for violating state-level discrimination law, but fails to mention that each of these businesses was the subject of undercover investigations by media reporters, who found that these businesses were more than willing to provide products and services --- and price quotes! --- for pagan weddings, divorce parties, and many other occasions that were also contrary to the same Biblical verses used to justify denial of service to gay couples.

    Consequently, the judges have opted to award the Miss Disingenuous title to Contestant #6, by unanimous vote.

    Contestant #7: Jesus Is The Light
    Satan wins again.
    Well, it sounds as though this contestant is conceding and giving up the title, doesn't it?! Nonetheless, Satan has not won, as he was not even an entrant in this pageant round. The winner will be chosen from these 7 contestants, and Satan is not one of the contestants.

    The judges had expected stronger entries from COG777 (Confused Ornery Grump? Cranky Old Geezer? Crabby Obtuse Grandpa?), but felt that the current set of entries, although definitely meeting the required level of "sour grapes", were not convoluted and confusing enough to qualify the contestant.

    Who will win??! (Who will care?!) Stay tuned....!!

     
  • acid posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    acid Posts: 45

    Lots of words have been thrown around about "Christian " business owners who will be DRIVEN out of business because they will NOT be able to discriminate against the SINNERS that may or may not come into their business. The way I look at it you are a BUSINESS owner, without customers you have no business. Hmmm. Maybe everyone should wear a label identifying what sins the have committed and that way you can select which customers with sin, and remember ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD, that you would like to serve. Even you have sinned in judging these people. Just saying.....

     
  • Randy Myers posted at 9:23 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Randy Myers Posts: 1635

    One step forward for human rights. Well done council.

     
  • Tulkas posted at 9:07 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Tulkas Posts: 25

    This is a sad day for CDA. This is just a new discrimination law that will prosecute those who uphold morals, nature, and just plain common sense. Do not fool yourselves to think otherwise. It will just be weapon to attack those who do not agree with the homosexual agenda. The gays will not "tolerate" those who uphold morality and common sense. Look in the news at all those businesses that are being prosecuted since they will not violate their consciences.

    Great to see my pastor Fr. Gordon in the pictures. God Bless that priest and all those who came out to stand against this unnatural policy. We must stand fast now, the storm is here and we will be the ones that will be discriminated against and not tolerated in the least bit since we know the truth and stick with it.

     
  • rexaroni posted at 9:05 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    rexaroni Posts: 189

    I think Penn Jillette nailed it when he stated:

    "Take some time and put the Bible on your summer reading list. Try and stick with it cover to cover. Not because it teaches history; we've shown you it doesn't. Read it because you'll see for yourself what the Bible is all about. It sure isn't great literature. If it were published as fiction, no reviewer would give it a passing grade. There are some vivid scenes and some quotable phrases, but there's no plot, no structure, there's a tremendous amount of filler, and the characters are painfully one-dimensional. Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because: we need more atheists — and nothin' will get you there faster than readin' the d-mn Bible."

     
  • Sheeken Hunter posted at 8:56 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Sheeken Hunter Posts: 179

    Yep, nothing like yet another law that nobody knows exactly what it means. Just what we need--more laws that nobody understands in order to keep the lawyers off the street and busy. I stopped watching after the assistant city attorney babbled that 'it just depends' and that he just couldn't say, when one speaker asked if the ordinance meant, if he opened a business as a Christian counselor and a gay person applied for a job opening, that he would be prosecuted if he did not hire him. The lame final comment from the attorney--well I don't think so--should cause every business owner to 'lawyer up' and be ready. If the council is going to pass a law, any law, it should have a clear understanding of the meaning of the law's wording before passing it.

     
  • I_Am_an_American posted at 8:56 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    I_Am_an_American Posts: 30

    Thank you City of Coeur d'Alene city council. A good call. Glad to be a citizen of this community.

     
  • Screen Name posted at 8:49 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 802

    It must be easy to go through life with such binary thought directed by a work of fiction and no need to ponder the plight of those whom you ostracize.

    It wasn't so long ago that Christians were persecuted and fed to the Lions. How soon we forget.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:42 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3038

    We're all going to he!! in a handbasket for sure now.

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 8:33 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1161

    Amazing how some pople preach tolerance and understanding on one hand and insult and ridicule anyone who doesnt agree with them. Those who spoke out against the mistreatment or indifference to LGBTs will now begin a witch hunt for anyone who is not supportive of any percieved slight to their cause. Most of us could give a rats --- about peoples sex lives. I certainly dont base my opinions on someones interpretation of the bible but its obvious the backers of these proposals will be in a footrace to punish someone for ignoring them. Hard to believe refusal of service is a problem unless those involved were attempting to create a conflict for political points.

     
  • Nwgirlforever posted at 8:31 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Nwgirlforever Posts: 5

    Hear hear!

     
  • Nwgirlforever posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Nwgirlforever Posts: 5

    He thought of his older brother, which means that he was open and willing to learn about the gay community. Based on his experiences, he made an educated decision. Hardly a conflict of interest.

     
  • wheels1 posted at 8:29 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    wheels1 Posts: 423

    I am proud of our mayor/council for doing the right thing.Discrimination against anything is wrong period.Nobody is asking anyone to change their belief system regardless of where you stand.That is of course not the case for those of you that think discrimination is to be tolerated.

     
  • wheels1 posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    wheels1 Posts: 423

    I'll agree with that.I also would only hope all the bigots,racists etc would move on.

     
  • Nwgirlforever posted at 8:18 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Nwgirlforever Posts: 5

    Another GREAT step forward!!

     
  • wheels1 posted at 8:17 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    wheels1 Posts: 423

    Small minds you are aptly named.

     
  • voxpublicusidaho posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    voxpublicusidaho Posts: 7

    Thank you to five members of the City Council for taking a courageous stand against bigotry and hate.Now we can move on.

     
  • Nwgirlforever posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Nwgirlforever Posts: 5

    Hear hear!!

     
  • voxpop posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    What there should be is a penalty for abusing the English language. "decriminating?" Turn on spell check for crying out loud. Either that or wait until you finish middle school before you post again.

     
  • Jason Abbott posted at 8:09 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jason Abbott Posts: 781

    The penalty is your business will fail since we remain the majority, especially around here.

     
  • gmamola posted at 8:07 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    gmamola Posts: 1

    Why is it that when some of you look at a homosexual couple the first thing you think about is their sex life? Is that the first thing you think about when you look at a heterosexual couple?. Some of the comments last night were disgusting and some were downright lies. Every human being has the right to live their life as they want without being told that they are sinful, disgusting or immoral by so called "Christians". These Christians need to ask God for forgiveness for their hateful words and attitudes. God will make the judgment, not you. These so called Christians give Christianity a bad name. You speak of Gods Holy Word, how about Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not shave ever" or how about Deut 24:5 "If a man is recently married he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid upon him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to his wife". I could go on and on.... Why is it that some of the laws apply and others don't? Our City Council did the right thing last night and I thank them for making the right decision, for all the right reasons.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 8:04 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1841

    What in God's name are you talking about? You had no problem with the bars that were promoting prostitution did you? You are what is wrong with this country COG777, small little mind. No one is forcing anything on anyone, just allowing others the same rights as all Americans deserve. Showing your bigotry is not good...karma will certainly play a role in how the rest of your life plays out.

    Anyone that is getting tax exemption as a religious organization and is speaking out on this needs to lose that status...

     
  • Miketeague posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Miketeague Posts: 2097

    The CDA witch trials have been stopped, so one giant atta-boy for the CDA City Council, well except Adams. It took real courage to maintain the separation between religion and government and vote to protect all people. The amount of research that Councilman Gookin must have done was remarkable. The fact that Adams can’t separate himself from the bible long enough to do the job was shameful and broke the oath he took to serve the community. I truly believe that once the smoke clears the nay-sayers will find their fears are unfounded. I would also commend among others Mrs. Susan Moss, to tell her story was also pure courage. I wish her and her spouse and children many years of happiness in Coeur d’Alene.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 8:00 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1841

    Good, if you have such small mind and can't accept others as they are...we don't want you or your family in our wonderful city..So, please, stay away. You won't be missed.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 7:59 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1841

    Well done city council, finally, a good decision. And to Steve Adams, don't think about running again. You really fooled a lot of people while campaigning.

     
  • 986crazy posted at 7:54 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    986crazy Posts: 410

    Well said.

     
  • Peter posted at 7:48 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Peter Posts: 616

    And life will resume in CdA...good job city council. That was the right vote.

     
  • JesusIsTheLight posted at 7:48 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    JesusIsTheLight Posts: 643

    Satan wins again.

     
  • SmallMinds posted at 7:42 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    SmallMinds Posts: 31

    The problem is that the city council has now created a solution desperately searching for a problem. Rest assured, businesses will be targeted for not being "supportive enough" of the GBLT agenda. Don't believe me? Just look across the border to the west and the south.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html

    http://www.kptv.com/story/20940125/gresham-bakery-wont-make-cake-for-gay-wedding

    The problem I have with this ordinance is that a need was never shown. Tony Stewart has to justify his salary so he creates discrimination where it doesn't exist.

    Hey Tony, will you defend the Christian business owner who will now be discriminated against because of your silly law? Yeah, didn't think so.

     
  • will-- posted at 7:37 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    will-- Posts: 923

    "Kennedy said he thought of his older brother..."

    And at that point he should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest.

     
  • COG777 posted at 7:37 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    COG777 Posts: 339

    Thank you for reminding me that next year I will not book the cruise for families with children in Coeur d Alene. I will no longer attend luncheons in downtown either.

     
  • mister d posted at 7:32 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    Good decision.

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 7:25 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    I think it has everything to do with human rights and doing the right thing. "This Bunch" you speak of is the City, not the Council. We are greedy for equal rights, and inclusive of everybody who supports this cause. If more money flows to the City, and biggots leave, that will just be an incidental benefit. THANKS CDA!

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 7:23 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1280

    The City Council made the right decision for all the right reasons. This was a no brainer both morally and as a practical matter.

    Hagadone Corporation and any business that relies on hospitality services and tourism has got to be ecstatic. Those championing our community as a symbol of tolerance and a model for human rights throughout the nation and within the state, have got to be relieved that once again, reasonable minds prevailed.

    The "christian" community that was representative last night in opposition to the ordinance was both shameful and embarrassing. The very same arguments they gave in opposition were the very same arguments in opposition to the desegregation of public accommodations during Jim Crow.

    Once again, Coeur d' Alene has been saved from "some" of "itself":)

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 7:21 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    Oh, and it's not like the reverse is not true? Or at least USED TO BE TRUE. Look up the list of companies that support LGBT rights and think about protesting all of them. Since you would have to protest both Microsoft and Apple, you would obviously be doing so offline... So why don't you start now ;-)

     
  • IdahoMike posted at 7:18 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMike Posts: 72

    The "penalty for decriminating" would be the EXACT SAME if you are doing so based on sexual preference. In other words, a gay business owner could not refuse to serve you *because you are a heterosexual*. Buck up! Welcome to more positive rights and freedom!!!

     
  • COG777 posted at 7:17 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    COG777 Posts: 339

    This will really help Post Falls, Hayden and the incorporated areas in the business arena. Way to go threatened business in the City of Coeur d Alene who may be Christian owners or not be comfortable because a lawsuit may be pending at any time.

    Why don't they stop the cruising for gay sex at Tubs Hill or Ramsey Park bathrooms?

     
  • Screen Name posted at 7:11 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 802

    Wait for it? I'm still waiting for the lawsuits against the BSA you predicted.

     
  • acid posted at 7:11 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    acid Posts: 45

    Get real! If a woman who is 58 is confident enough to wear a string bikini into a restaurant in this town the owner would gladly seat her and all her friends because they are in BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY! That being said, if she is attractive they may seat them near the windows, if not at a table near the back, because again, they are in business to make MONEY!
    As for your offense at public displays of affection I see plenty of displays from both the strait and lgbt community. The difference is that the lgbt crowd will glance around to see if it's "safe" to show the one they love affection without someone watching. They live in fear of hearing hateful remarks or worse. Judging from the comments here, they have been rightfully living in fear from the judmental self righteous people who would tear someone eles's love down so they feel better about their own selfish lives.
    Thank you Coeur d'Alene city council for voting for the greater good not special intrest groups

     
  • XRGRSF posted at 7:00 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    XRGRSF Posts: 135

    Can anyone tell me what the penalty is for decriminating against white heterosexual males?

    Oh, there's not one, you say.

     
  • Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney posted at 6:58 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney Posts: 150

    No lengthy response here. Thank you CDA city council. It was the right thing to do. Welcome to the 21st century of less hate. North Idaho didn't need another episode of embarrassment from who hate.
    DeNiles, sorry you are who you are.

     
  • fiepie posted at 6:58 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 2840

    DeNiles...they already had the right to protest against whomever they would.
    This ordinance is to help you keep your job, housing, etc. without having to tell anyone what your sexual preference is or was.
    This applies to all people not just gays.

     
  • will-- posted at 6:50 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    will-- Posts: 923

    The only surprise was how rapidly Mr. Gookin has been absorbed.

    There's a silver lining to everything. In this case, voter backlash.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 6:40 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    If a 58 year old woman (a real woman, y'know a female) walks into an upscale eatery at 8 P.M. wearing a string bikini and flip flops I doubt that she would be welcomed or good for business. What if she and all of her close friends decided to assault a business with the clear intent of causing it harm?

    Now. Gays have this habit (ploy, strategy) of targeting businesses they feel do not adequately support their agenda or are even too religious (any sect). The LBGT crowd are an organized group with clear tactics. We just recently saw this happen nationwide with Chic fil-a. What do they do? They organize protests in the guise of overtly offensive intimate displays. They do things no civilized heterosexual person would do in public. Their goal? To kill that business.

    Wait for it. CdA is target rich. A religiously oriented retail business will be identified. Then from all around the northwest Gays will confer, design, and organize. And in the midst of the high profile tourist season they will converge, en masse and execute their plans.

    These ordinances are not about anyones rights. They are established strictly for their application as protest vehicles. They are tools devised to limit or at least confuse legal avenues that can disrupt LBGT demonstrations.

    CdA, you have been officially used and soon you will see exactly how you have been used.

     
  • Nwgirlforever posted at 6:39 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Nwgirlforever Posts: 5

    The religious should have every right to believe what they want and we the people have the right to not have those beliefs dictate how we live our lives. I'm so proud of my city!! Thank you for making a fair, productive, and educated decision, councilmen!

     
  • concernedcitizen posted at 6:34 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    This has less to do with human rights as it does tapping into the $70 BILLION dollar a year GLBT tourist industry.

    This bunch doesn't miss a trick when it comes to greed.

     
  • lola123 posted at 5:48 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    lola123 Posts: 338

    "Council members Dan Gookin, Mike Kennedy, Ron Edinger, Woody McEvers and Deanna Goodlander voted in support of it."

    Seriously Idaho Man, read the full article before commenting. Why is it anyone with Idaho in their moniker consistently continues to embarrass everyone in the community and the state?

    Steve Adams again has shown the ability to not have a clue or grasp even the simplest concepts.
    Thanks Mary Souza and the rest of the RR for endorsing such a consistently wasted vote for a City Council position.

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 5:38 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    This is great news. It's great to see CDA not allow the christian right to bully people anymore. The homophobic letter that was posted the other day was both disgusting and ignorant. The fact that local church leaders were trying to block anti-discrimination ordinances is disgusting and ignorant.

    On Monday night I saw two guys walking down Lakeside holding hands and enjoying the evening, I remember thinking, good for them! They look a lot happier than many.

     
  • rexaroni posted at 5:03 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    rexaroni Posts: 189

    If you take the time to read the article, you will find the information you are seeking.

     
  • IdahoMan posted at 4:14 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    IdahoMan Posts: 100

    Is there a list of those who voted For/Against?

    We need to know who to throw out next election.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks