idaho votes against lgbt protections human rights act

Never claimed otherwise ;-P

 

Sexual preferences does not constitute a special body of law to protect gays as they assert. They are already rotected by existing law, as are the rest of us.

 

Why is that confusing? Gays are not what marriage is, between a man and a woman. Why should they be granted something that they are not? Simple really.

 

Would such a body of law not also protect heterosexuals from discrimination by homosexuals the same way?

Depending on how it's worded, such a body of law doesn't have treat everyone differently based on their sexual preference. It just means that sexual preference (heterosexual or homosexual) can't be used to treat people differently.

 

Yes it could have, but it seems like an unnecessary protection to me - and apparently to a majority of people who voted on this measure.

I don't see any reason for special protections for sexual preference to be provided by the government - existing protections are more than adequate.

 

Right, the people who have never been fired, denied a job, housing or services because they are heterosexual and non transgender - there is no problem, there is no need, because they don't have to live with that crap...

 

Just like to anyone who has never fought a groundless discrimination lawsuit no number of protections are too many - there is not problem since they don't have to defend every hiring choice and dismissal in court.