Bill to ban city nondiscrimination ordinances is government overreach | Opinion
When Idaho Rep. Bruce Skaug, R, Nampa, labeled my hometown of Victor a “hotbed of liberalism” during the public hearing and debate about House Bill 557, I had to laugh. Not because he was right, but because he was wrong in exactly the way the debate over this bill stripping local municipalities of the ability to protect their LGBTQ+ citizens has gone wrong: It misunderstands what small towns like mine are about.
Victor isn’t liberal or conservative. It’s community-minded. It’s pragmatic. It’s a deeply interconnected rural town where we shovel each other’s driveways, wave at strangers and show up to potlucks with more food than we need. It’s a place where everyone matters.
“Liberalism” is a political philosophy centered on protecting individual rights, liberty, the consent of the governed and equality before the law. It prioritizes individual autonomy over state control. So, yes, I’m proud to say Victor is guilty as charged. HB 557 strips cities like mine of the power to protect our LGBTQ+ neighbors from discrimination. If it becomes law, this bill will make it illegal for any city or county to go beyond Idaho’s bare minimum anti-discrimination protections. That includes Victor’s local ordinance — unanimously passed in 2014.
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that firing someone for being gay or transgender violates federal civil rights law. That decision — Bostock v. Clayton County — was clear: discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex-based discrimination. And yet, in states like Idaho, LGBTQ+ protections remain incomplete. While Bostock applies specifically to employment, its legal reasoning is reshaping how discrimination is viewed in housing, services and public accommodations.
Victor’s nondiscrimination ordinance explicitly balances equal treatment with religious liberty by exempting religious institutions and expressive associations, thereby reinforcing First Amendment protections. It creates no private right of action, no right to sue and imposes only a modest penalty — a maximum fine or, optionally, a reduced infraction if corrected. And for 12 years, it’s worked. No lawsuits. No conflicts. Just a shared understanding of an evolving and constitutionally grounded principle that discrimination against neighbors for being who they are or who they love has no place here.
I maintain that the root of all evil is the belief that some lives matter more than others. As a direct descendant of John Adams, I hold dear his words: “Liberty must be pervaded with morality, or it will soon implode.” American values — rooted in liberty and equality — require that church and state remain distinct, not so that faith is silenced, but so that no one belief system dictates who counts and who doesn’t. Morality, if it means anything in public life, is rooted in dignity — the inherent worth of all people.
If Christians believe in loving our neighbors, welcoming the stranger, and affirming the dignity of every person as made in the image of God, then we must ask ourselves — what are we so afraid of? If our faith is strong, it should not require legal insulation from diversity. Christian values are not threatened by inclusion — they’re tested by it. And they should pass that test.
This bill is also economic malpractice. Rural towns like Victor rely on people — workers, entrepreneurs, families, and visitors — who choose where to live and spend based on community values. Recent data show that Teton County is outperforming the region economically, contributing nearly one-third of all travel and convention tax collections in Region 6 — over $8 million this fiscal year — with year-over-year growth of nearly 8%.
What drives that success? Recreation, yes. But also stability, predictability, and reputation. There’s a reason cities with inclusive policies outperform others. They score higher in innovation, entrepreneurship and human capital. These aren’t abstract ideals; they’re measurable economic strengths. By preempting local protections, HB 557 undermines those strengths across the state.
By prohibiting every city and county in Idaho from going beyond the state’s bare-bones anti-discrimination protections, House Bill 557 is not just unfair — it’s un-American. It tells LGBTQ+ Idahoans, including children and families in Victor, that their rights are conditional on where they live — and that’s exactly the kind of inconsistency the law should fix, not enforce.
HB 557 is a solution in search of a problem. And in trying to fix what isn’t broken, it breaks something precious: our ability to govern ourselves and our commitment to treating all residents with dignity.
Local control isn’t just a slogan in Idaho. It’s a principle — one we ignore at our peril.
I urge the Senate to reject HB 557, and I urge our communities to remember: dignity is not a liberal value. It’s a human one. It is the bedrock of a free society. And it lives — or dies — at the local level.
Sue Muncaster is a Victor City Council member and advocate who promotes rural resilience, inclusive communitie and pragmatic local governance on her Substack, Teton Strong.