[Vision2020] Bigotry Reigns in Idaho

Thu Jan 29 16:36:29 PST 2015

On further reading, this seems to clarify the issue:

Mormon Church Wants Freedom to Discriminate
ADDRESS:
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
 JANUARY 27, 2015 2:53 PM January 27, 2015 2:53 pm 315 Comments   
   - Email
   - Share
   - Tweet
   - Save
   - More
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held a rare news conference in Salt Lake City today that is drawing headlines about a supposedly new, accommodating stand on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights.The Mormon Church is now willing, news accounts says, to support anti-discrimination legislation in the realms of housing and employment. In return, all the Mormons want are laws that “protect religious freedom.”
We already have that. It’s called the Bill of Rights. So what is the church really after?The news conference, said D. Todd Cristofferson, one of the 12 apostles of the church, was held to raise concerns about “the increasing tensions and polarization between advocates of religious freedom on the one hand and advocates of gay rights on the other.” Another apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, said church leaders were calling for “laws that protect faith communities and individuals” against unfair treatment.That’s fake “war on religion” speak. What they want is legal permission to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.The Associated Press explained: “Mormon leaders still want to hire and fire workers based not only on religious beliefs, but also on behavior standards known as honor codes that require gays and lesbians to remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex. The church also wants legal protections for religious objectors who work in government and health care, such as a physician who refuses to perform an abortion, or provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.”Substitute the word “black” or “Jewish” or “Catholic” or, say, “Mormon” for LGBT in these statements, and everyone would be outraged.Or, as Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for LGBT rights, put it: “All Americans should have the right to be employed, receive housing and services in environments free of discrimination. We await the day the church embraces that fully, without any exceptions or exemptions.”The church’s “new” position looks like an outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, in which a 5-4 majority said the owner of a closely held business could refuse to comply with a federal law (in that case, the Affordable Care Act) on the basis of his personal religious views.Apparently the news conference today was the product of five years’ behind-the-scenes negotiations. Five years for this?315COMMENTS   
   - SHARE
   -    

     On Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:29 PM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 OK, Ken Andrus is a Mormon, The church issued a statement on LGBT laws. NPR asked an Elder to clarify the Church's stand. Can you figure out what it is by listening to the story? I can't.

Mormon LGBT Announcement Met With Cheers, Skepticism

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Mormon LGBT Announcement Met With Cheers, SkepticismRobert Siegel talks to Mormon leader Elder Dallin Oaks about the press conference this week where the church announced it would support LGBT anti-discrimination... |
|  |
| View on www.npr.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |

  Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA 

     On Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <paul.rumelhart at gmail.com> wrote:

 I haven't had time to read the bill, so I don't know what Rep. Andrus is referring to when talking about forcing clergy to marry gays or of any first amendment violations.  I'll look over the bill and the AG's letter later, I can't at the moment.  If there is something in the bill specifically addressing those points, then that is where I would suggest compromising, not on any of the items you mentioned above.  Rep. Andrus' comments may be unfounded, I don't know and I don't have time to research it right now.  That's why I asked about it.  Maybe someone has already looked into it.

Paul

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:

Paul, feel free to read the IHRA yourself:http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH59SECT67-5909.htm My understanding is that the bill would have added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the first sentence.  You might find this Web site helpful . . . or not:http://www.addthewords.org/#!about/aboutPage I’d also recommend reading the AG Office’s letter:http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2015/01/28/10/18/DngRt.So.36.pdf#storylink=relast I’m not sure what you mean by compromise?  I don’t think you mean that basic human rights should only be extended on the whim of the majority and only so far as the tyranny of a bigoted majority wishes, so can you please clarify what a compromise acceptable to you would look like?  Protection from being fired but not protection from housing discrimination or vice versa?  Someone can ride this bus but not that one?  You can buy a house in this neighborhood but not that one?  “Separate but equal”?  Or do you envision carving out yet another religious exemption? I’m genuinely interested in how a compromise would look to you.  Thanks,Saundra  From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:paul.rumelhart at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bigotry Reigns in Idaho Quotes from the article:"Some of the legislators who voted to defeat the bill expressed their willingness to support a future compromise bill."We have come a long way. I think this very hearing has brought us a long, long way," said Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, addressing supporters of the bill. "Do not despair. Your concerns are legitimate, very legitimate, and people in Idaho and in the Legislature have heard you and are hearing you."But, he added, "We have to be very careful how we make those rules and today my feeling is that this is not the rule that addresses the whole picture."" -and-

"Earlier this week, the Idaho Attorney General's Office issued an opinion in the form of a letter dated Jan. 26 to Rep. Ilana Rubel stating that the proposed Add the Words bill would not force clergy to marry gay couples, nor would its passage likely impair any Idahoan's freedom of speech, specifically as it relates to someone's ability to express views about homosexuality. The letter, signed by Assistant Chief Deputy Brian Kane, was in response to three questions posed to the AG's Office by Rep. Rubel."I can totally understand not wanting to force clergy to marry specific people and I can also understand not wanting to go against freedom of speech by limiting someone's ability to state their religious views on a topic, but then I've always been anti-pc.What does the bill say exactly about forcing clergy to marry gay couples and what is it in the bill that they object to on freedom of speech grounds?  Is Rep. Andrus being obtuse or is there actually something in the bill which could be construed to do what he fears?  If there is wording in the bill that could be construed that way, could a compromise be reached?Paul On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:
For those who think I'm employing hyperbole, I can only assume you didn't listen to the same public testimony I did. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/29/3617387_idaho-house-committee-to-debate.html?rh=1  Idaho House committee rejects Add the Words bill along party-line voteBY STATESMAN STAFFJanuary 29, 2015
Idaho's House State Affairs Committee voted 13-4 on Thursday morning to defeat a bill that would have added the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's Human Rights Act. The vote fell along party lines.Some of the legislators who voted to defeat the bill expressed their willingness to support a future compromise bill."We have come a long way. I think this very hearing has brought us a long, long way," said Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, addressing supporters of the bill. "Do not despair. Your concerns are legitimate, very legitimate, and people in Idaho and in the Legislature have heard you and are hearing you."But, he added, "We have to be very careful how we make those rules and today my feeling is that this is not the rule that addresses the whole picture."The approved motion to block the bill was made by Andrus.Thursday's vote came after nearly 21 hours of public testimony Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. After a closing statement from Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, committee members made a several motions and statements before the deciding vote to hold the bill in committee."I know what it's like to walk in fear and uncertainty," Buckner-Webb said. "I know what it’s like to face the fear of being treated with disdain and to be diminished. I know the energy it takes to constantly be on guard. I stand before you today compelled to call out for the right that some in their privilege continue to take for granted."An amended motion to move the bill to the entire House without a committee recommendation that it be passed was defeated 13-4. A different amended version, to move the bill to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation from the committee, also failed by a 13-4 vote."These are good human beings that deserve the same right and privilege that everybody else does," said Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise. "Even if we vote to pass it to the floor, that would at least give it its time for everyone to vote."Loertscher noted that the committee was "past 22 hours now on this project.""Every member of this committee is changed because of this process," he said. But, he added, he feared the financial burden for people to "defend themselves against government action or the actions of another.""I am certainly open to something that will work for the state of Idaho. This is not that bill," he said.Tears flowed among spectators who filled the Lincoln auditorium as the votes were cast defeating the legislation. After the voting was done, supporters filed out and lined the corridor in silent protest, their hands over their mouths, many still crying or stifling sobs.The committee took testimony this week from 190 people — 134 in favor, 54 against and two neutral.Advocates of adding anti-discrimination protections for Idahoans based on sexual orientation or gender identity have sought legislative action for nine years. This was the first year the Legislature held hearings.Even so, the bill wasn't expected to move out of committee. As reported Tuesday by the Statesman, the committee's makeup (13 Republicans versus four Democrats) and the split in testimony provided an uphill battle for bill supporters. Several lawmakers had said privately that simply hearing the bill is the first step in a process that likely to take several years.Earlier this week, the Idaho Attorney General's Office issued an opinion in the form of a letter dated Jan. 26 to Rep. Ilana Rubel stating that the proposed Add the Words bill would not force clergy to marry gay couples, nor would its passage likely impair any Idahoan's freedom of speech, specifically as it relates to someone's ability to express views about homosexuality. The letter, signed by Assistant Chief Deputy Brian Kane, was in response to three questions posed to the AG's Office by Rep. Rubel.Read the AG's Office response here.Kane wrote that Rubel's question about whether "federal (or state) law already exist which protects gays/transgender people in Idaho from discrimination in employment, housing and public services/accommodations?" could not be answered with a "simple 'yes' or 'no' because the relevant law is not settled."Add the Words advocates applauded the legal opinion. Cindy Gross, an Add the Words organizer, said in a release Wednesday: "There was a significant amount of confusion about what the results of this bill would be, and I am happy to see an opinion from the AG's office so that we can avoid the mischaracterization of this bill."Also Tuesday, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officials made news with theirnationwide call for new laws that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination while somehow also protecting those who suffer repercussions for asserting their religious beliefs toward these people.On Wednesday, the Statesman's editorial board came out in support of the Add the Words legislation, writing in part: "Any rejection of the amendment in House Bill 2 from here on out is tantamount to endorsing discrimination against gay and transgender people."The front page of Wednesday's Statesman featured a controversial peel-off sticker ad that read, in part, "Add No Words." It was paid for by an Idaho man named Lance Wells who says he wants to "draw people closer to God." Anger over the ad prompted a note from Statesman Publisher Mike Jung.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/29/3617387_idaho-house-committee-to-debate.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy    
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20150130/2f9d852b/attachment-0001.html>