Hopefully, arrest ends recent hate crimes, but legal discrimination blocks justice
With the recent arrest of a man accused of a string of assaults targeting the LGBTQ community, hopefully, the series of hateful, violent attacks will end.
But the official discrimination written into Idaho Code will continue.
Matthew Lehigh, 31, allegedly charged his vehicle at two women while yelling homophobic slurs at them. This was the latest of a series of violent and property crimes targeting the LGBTQ community allegedly committed by Lehigh, according to police, including burning a pride flag hanging on a local couple’s home.
The facts around the attacks are not yet entirely clear. If all that police say is true proves correct, then at best, they represent the extreme act of a mentally ill man whose delusions were colored by the bigotry unfortunately common in some corners of Christian fundamentalism. At worst, they constitute a conscious campaign of fundamentalist terrorism.
In a series of videos viewed by the Statesman, Lehigh claimed that demons were speaking through him and that occultists were taking over his mind. And he repeatedly invoked Old Testament passages calling for the execution of gay people and witches, referencing videos posted by other fundamentalist YouTubers who emphasize similar themes.
“If I go to church and I find there’s a homosexual in there, I will fight them. I might fight them with a weapon, I might kill them in the church if that’s what that takes,” he ranted in one video.
If Lehigh did what police say he did, and if he can be held criminally responsible for it, it seems that malicious harassment should be among the charges.
But it probably won’t be.
That’s because Idaho’s Republican legislative supermajority has allowed its personal bias to become a bias in the law. It is not that Idaho has no statutes for prosecuting hate crimes. It is that the LGBTQ community — frequently a target of hate crimes — has been written out of it.
If Lehigh had targeted Christians for their beliefs, he would be eligible for an additional five-year sentence. Because he is accused of attacking people because he believed they were gay, he is not eligible for such a sentence.
The situation is identical with regard to broader anti-discrimination statutes. If someone refuses to rent to someone because the prospective renter is a Baptist or a Mormon, then they can be sued. If they refuse to rent to someone who is gay because they are gay, that person is in the clear — at least with regard to state law. This is a position so extreme that even the Republican supermajority U.S. Supreme Court found that it would violate federal law.
This remains the case because Idaho has steadfastly refused to add the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to its anti-discrimination law, which protects against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations related to race, religion, ethnic background and other factors.
The old adage is that the law “is no respecter of persons” — that is, it treats all people and groups equally.
In Idaho, that is not true. It is not true because Idaho’s majority has allowed the LGBTQ community to have second-class legal status.
As you go to the voting booth, ask yourself whether the candidate you’re voting for would work to end that injustice.