The measure is expected to clear the Lewiston City Council, though two of its 11 seven members have voiced opposition, claiming the ordinance would create special rights for LGBT people while robbing others of the right to choose with whom they do business or rent a house or apartment. “They feel forced and bound and handcuffed to serve [LGBT people], and that’s not the truth,” said Maldonado. “I had a great comeback to that at a meeting. What I said was, ‘We don’t grant special rights. The only rights that are being taken away is your right to discriminate against somebody.’” A similar conversation took place in the Panhandle city of Sandpoint, where the Àrst LGBT-speciÀc nondiscrimination ordinance in Idaho was passed in 2011. The Sandpoint NDO’s yearlong path from inception to city ordinance sparked a community dialogue about the rights of citizens—in large part because there were misconceptions about what the ordinance does. Business owners wondered if they could be Àned for denying service to LGBT customers and property managers worried
they could be jailed for telling a same-sex couple they couldn’t rent a house. Sandpoint City Council members met those concerns with education about the ordinance. That, and the long road to passing the ordinance, helped consolidate support for the NDO, which punishes LGBT-based discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and access to public accommodations with up to six months in jail or a $1,000 Àne. The ordinance also established a Human Relations Review Board to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. It does not prohibit denying citizens those things for other reasons like poor job performance, unruly behavior or past criminal offenses, but some citizens were initially suspicious that the ordinance might be a reiteration of existing state or federal law. According to former Sandpoint City Councilman John Reuter, who introduced and shepherded the ordinance, common questions were: “Why do we need to do this, and isn’t this already protected by state and federal law anyway?” “I politely explained that it wasn’t covered currently. We have an opportunity to make sure [the
LGBT community] is covered by our local laws,” said Reuter, who now serves as executive director of Conservation Voters For Idaho in Boise. Civic equality for LGBT citizens remains controversial, and community education on the ordinance didn’t smooth over everyone’s concerns. There were those whose opposition to providing any kind of protections for LGBT citizens was immovable. Reuter told Boise Weekly that he received a death threat in relation to the ordinance. Still, that resistance did little to slow the NDO’s progress. “We didn’t have meetings Áooded with people in opposition. We certainly didn’t have well-organized opposition in our meetings,” Reuter said. From an outsider’s perspective, the unanimous passage of Sandpoint’s nondiscrimination ordinance seems like a textbook example of democracy in action, but the process was fraught with conÁict. According to Reuter, the civic wheels were greased by being patient with the public and what he described as Sandpoint’s “belief in equality.” “It only looks like smooth sailing now, but the reason it ultimately went through is because we
took the time to have honest conversations with people and work it through the process. It was because the community as a whole supports those values,” Reuter said. “We had a vibrant conversation about what religious exemptions should exist.” While the ordinance was meant to set in law what the Sandpoint community values about respecting equality and freedom, its effect on individual citizens was personal, and some LGBT citizens came to feel that their sexuality was no longer a liability. Reuter recounted the experience of a conservative city employee who sat in on city council meetings discussing the ordinance, her arms crossed. She never said anything during deliberations, and waited for months after its passage to approach Reuter.
KEY AREA IS PROTECTED BY NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE HOUSING EXCEPTION: Owners of duplexes or rooms to rent in a home can deny housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity if they or a member of their family also live in the property.
IDAHO FALLS EXCEPTIONS: Housing can be denied to prospective LGBT tenants or buyers if the seller or landlord owns three or fewer single-family homes, sold no more than one single-family home in the previous two years, and/or handled the sale themselves. Rental housing can be denied if the landlord lives in the property or in a unit of the property. Business owners who operate out of their homes can deny employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as employers who have up to four part-time workers on the payroll.
MOSCOW EXCEPTIONS: LGBT renters can be denied housing in a duplex if the property owner—or a member of their family—lives in the adjacent unit, and boarding houses can turn away prospective residents based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
POCATELLO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION EXCEPTION: No person is required to provide bathroom, locker room or similar facilities that are not separated by gender.
12 | OCTOBER 15–21, 2014 | BOISEWEEKLY
B O I S E WE E KLY. C O M