Skip to main content

Pro-Family Group Opposes Anti-Discrimination Bill Because Of Facebook (Video)

Focus on the Family's political arm CitizenLink recently announced that a "dangerous sexual orientation and gender identity bill was being considered" by lawmakers in Idaho.

CitizenLink host Kim Trobee said the Christian organization partnered with the Cornerstone Family Council to stop HB 2, which was killed by Idaho Republicans 13-4 on Jan 29.

According to the Idaho Statesman, the bill would have added "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" to the state's Human Rights Act. This would have protected people from discrimination in housing, employment and pubic accommodation based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Trobee asked Cornerstone Family Council's Julie Lynde why the bill was a bad idea (video below).

"First of all, gender identity and sexual orientation are not even defined," said Lynde. "And if you look at the American Psychological Association (APA), they say that those terms are on a continuum."

However, the APA does define gender identity and sexual orientation. The terms themselves are not on a continuum, but rather sexual orientation itself is.

The APA states, "[R]esearch has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum ... In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women."

Lynde later added:

"And right now Facebook has 50 to 71 different identities. So because gender identity is a self-identity it is something that citizens really can't tell from one person to the next what the gender identity is, if it's protected. So if someone is hiring someone for a job, they may not know that that person, may be gay or lesbian, and they may choose a better person for the job, but the gay or lesbian person would say, 'You didn't hire me because of my sexual orientation' and then haul them into court and so it cost the businesses a lot of money, it takes away their freedom of association, it takes away their rights as businesses, and it creates a 'sue first, ask questions later' mentality."

However, proving discrimination would still be the burden of the person who claims to be discriminated against. The job of the courts and judges has always been to rule whether or not the evidence in any case of discrimination is true or false.

Additionally, there is nothing in HB 2 that would have taken away "freedom of association," which has been the law of the land since 1958 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of the NAACP vs. Alabama.

Lynde also claimed that HB 2 put women and children at risk in bathrooms, and also put landlords at risk because it put certain citizens in a "special class."

In reality, HB 2 would have given LGBT people the same right to challenge alleged discrimination, which other Idahoans presently enjoy.

Sources:, Idaho Statesman, APA, CitizenLink
Image credit: CitizenLink Screenshot


Popular Video