Local Group Explains Renewed Opposition to Non-discrimination Ordinance

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 11/01/2013 3:55 pm

After a petition drive, Pocatello's recently passed and controversial non-discrimination ordinance is going before the voters of Pocatello to decide if it should stay on the books.

Stand Up Pocatello is a group that was against the ordinance during the process of the Pocatello City Council gathering input on such an ordinance.

During recent weeks the group has gathered over 2000 signatures from voters to take the ordinance directly to the people.

It will appear on the ballot in the primary elections in May with voters having the final say.

Stand Up Pocatello says the ordinance infringes on the rights of business owners, property owners, churches and religious people. In a statement issued to KPVI News 6, the group said:

"Stand Up Pocatello is grateful to The Lilligs, the signature gatherers, and the 2000+ citizens who signed the petition for referendum of the NonDiscrimination Ordinance. We will continue to educate our Pocatello voters, that despite being well intentioned, this law will put some of our citizens at risk of being jailed. Women like Elane of Elane Photography, Arlene of Arlene's Flowers and Melissa of Sweet Cakes By Melissa are just a few of this law's victims in other states. There is something seriously wrong with a law that compels some people of faith to have to choose between conscience and commerce and for government leaders to justify this outcome when no economic or other harm is inflicted upon the consumers in these cases. There were other companies readily available and willing to provide these services. A New Mexico State Supreme Court judge recently said that Elane and her husband "are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives","as "the price of citizenship." Our City Council members who voted for this Ordinance and all the current candidates who support this Ordinance need to answer why it is "good" for our City that women like these three be at risk of jail time in Pocatello and why they think it is OK for someone like Colleen Francis, a transgendered woman, to have legal protection under the Ordinance to expose her male genitalia to young girls in a locker room at Evergreen State College. A nondiscrimination law allowed this in Washington and will allow it in Pocatello also, if the prosecutor cannot show "lewdness" along with willful intent. Our citizens also need to ask themselves whether they want to allow this ""entryway" law into our cities and our state since it paves the way for LGBT values based policies and laws in our schools and other pro-gay legislation like the current controversial Callifornia AB 1266 which becomes law January 1, 2014.

We encourage all citizens to not rely solely upon sound bytes and political talking points, but to further research the issue thoroughly for yourself. Our webpage will be updated next Spring, but in the meantime, for more information, please visit and LIKE our facebook page, Stand Up Pocatello."

As for the wording of the item to be on the May ballot, the elections office is still working on that.

Share
3 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

Sammy - 12/13/2013 12:55 PM
0 Votes
Discrimination is discrimination, Stand Up Poc exists only to support discrimination.

Stand Up Poc - 11/2/2013 4:31 PM
0 Votes
Stand Up Pocatello Correction: Our statement to KPVI incorrectly referred to one of the business owners as "Arlene." The owner's name is Barronelle Stutzman of "Arlene's Flowers" in Richland, WA.

Stand Up Poc - 11/2/2013 4:18 PM
0 Votes
Do you think you know everything there is to know about this issue? It isn't likely. A large majority of our public does not. If you’re willing to dig deeper, you will learn that most of the people who oppose this Ordinance are opposed to what you and I think is blatant discrimination; the refusal to hire, provide housing, etc. So, who are these women mentioned in this statement? These are business owners who DO NOT discriminate against the LGBT community. For example, there's Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, WA. “This case illustrates the difference between discriminating based on sexual preference and making decisions based on your beliefs about marriage. A policy refusing to serve gay people under any circumstances would be discrimination based on sexual preference. That would also be like segregated lunch counters. In this case, however, Arlene’s Flowers had no such policy refusing to do business with gay people. In fact, they have employed gay people and had happily and knowingly served gay people for years without any claim of discrimination or hostility. However, this particular event was something they did not want to lend their artistic, professional services to because of their beliefs about what marriage is. You cannot have a policy refusing service to all Mexicans or Japanese people, but you cannot be compelled to do something you don’t wish to do simply because the person asking is Mexican or Japanese.” http://www.fpiw.org/get-involved/team-arlenes.html There's a big difference between refusing service to the LGBT as a policy and simply declining to facilitate something that violates your beliefs or conscience. Please educate yourself by digging deeper. Visit Stand Up Pocatello’s facebook page to learn more about these cases and related issues and do your own homework.
Watch our LIVE NEWSCAST
All content © Copyright 2014 to Idaho Broadcast Partners LLC . All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.