Idaho Bill seeks to nullify local LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination ordinances

BOISE, Idaho (KIFI) — A new legislative push in the Idaho Statehouse could strip 13 cities of their ability to enforce local anti-discrimination ordinances that protect residents based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

House Bill 557, introduced earlier this week, seeks to establish the "Uniformity in Local Antidiscrimination Ordinances Act." Sponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa) and written by the conservative Idaho Family Policy Center, the bill would prohibit cities and counties from enacting civil rights protections that exceed those currently recognized under state law.

Ending the "Tangled Web" of Local Laws

If passed, the legislation would make local ordinances that currently offer protections for LGBTQ+ individuals that do not exist at the state level unenforceable.

During the bill’s introduction to the House Local Government Committee, Rep. Skaug argued that a patchwork of local rules creates a "tangled web of red tape" for business owners, forcing them to participate in events that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, such as same-sex wedding ceremonies and Pride festivals.

"We've all heard the stories of the bakers, photographers, and wedding venues being forced to participate in ceremonies that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs," Skaug told lawmakers. "These conflicting local ordinances threaten our religious freedoms."

Skaug's statements echo a release by Blaine Conzatti, President of Idaho Family Policy Center, touting the legislation as a victory for religious freedom.

"No small business owner should ever be forced to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or leaving the marketplace altogether. But local antidiscrimination ordinances are frequently weaponized against small business owners—especially wedding vendors or those offering creative design services," stated Conzatti. "We call on the Idaho Legislature to rein in these rogue local governments by ensuring that these local antidiscrimination ordinances align with state law."

Under the bill, businesses, property owners, and residents would have the legal standing to sue local governments over "unauthorized" ordinances. The Idaho Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief against any city or county violating the act.

The Conflict Over "Local Control"

While proponents frame the bill as a win for religious freedom and regulatory consistency, opponents blasted it as an overreach of state power.

The committee voted 14-2 to move the bill forward, with the two dissenting Democratic members expressing concern over state overreach. Rep. Steve Berch (D-Bosie) was vocally unsupportive of the bill.

"I just find that this legislation is just irreconcilable with the principle that government is best when it's closest to the people." Representative Berch told the assembled lawmakers. "Different communities are different, and this basically is saying that a majority of 105 legislators get to decide how every community needs to govern over its citizens."

Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, Idaho State Director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, echoed this sentiment in a statement to the Idaho Capital Sun, noting that the bill blocks locally elected officials from fulfilling the mandates of their voters.

“In places across Idaho, locally elected officials are ready and willing to stop discrimination, and this bill blocks them from doing exactly that, what voters elected them to do,” Tolman said. “That isn’t small government. It’s a uniform denial of basic protections that tells LGBTQ+ Idahoans and other marginalized residents that their safety and dignity don’t matter.”

A 15-Year Stalemate

The bill comes after more than 15 years of failed efforts by Idaho lawmakers to add LGBTQ+ discrimination protections to state law, as reported by the Idaho Capital Sun. Current state law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.

Skaug argued that the Idaho Legislature has already established a comprehensive anti-discrimination framework for the state, and local government should not independently meddle with that framework.