Fargo Commissioner, Fargo Legislator Can’t Identify A Single Instance Of Anti-Gay Discrimination

Valley News Live – KVLY/KXJB – Fargo/Grand Forks

This evening Valley News Live host Chris Berg had on Fargo City Commissioner Mike Williams and Rep. Josh Boschee (D-Fargo) (last seen accidentally proving that it’s entirely possible to live on a food stamps diet) to talk about the City of Fargo’s new resolution about housing discrimination against gays.

There are a couple of interesting things from the interview.

First, Berg challenged both men to name names when it comes to discrimination in Fargo. Both men assert that there is discrimination happening, but Williams said he hasn’t received a specific complaint from anyone in the city, Boschee (who is openly gay) said he hasn’t experienced discrimination “to his knowledge” (neat turn of phrase, that), and neither he nor Boschee could name a single specific instance of someone being discriminated against.

The only evidence of discrimination Boschee would offer was his absurd, paradoxical assertion that the presence of people who opposed the resolution in Fargo (and a similar one in Grand Forks) is proof that it’s needed.

Pretty weak sauce. It is telling that there have been no instance of business boycotts in Fargo by homosexuals and that there have been no public accusations of discrimination by homosexuals. Because this policy isn’t motivated by a problem that actually exists in Fargo.

If people like Williams and Boschee really felt like discrimination in Fargo was a problem, they’d be happy to shame those doing the discrimination. As would I, if anyone would tell me who is doing it.

Second, when Berg asked how it is the state can compel businesses to provide goods or services (in this instance housing) even when they’re willing, Rep. Boschee said it’s because those businesses serve the community.

“Those business owners are…providing a service to the community,” Rep. Boschee said. “And so in order to do that and benefit from the tax breaks you get and the other services the government provides the government says you also need to treat people equally.”

That’s a chilling statement in that it co-opts the private sector, the labor and enterprise of private citizens, into the government itself. Boschee’s formulation of the relationship between citizen and government is not one in which the government exists to protect the individual rights of and provide services to the citizenry but rather one in which citizens are subjects of the government.

The fundamental premise of the American system of government is that the government is of us. We are not of the government.

Boschee, like a disturbingly large number of policymakers, has the relationship between citizen and state backward from how generations of Americans before us have understood it.

It would be very easy of me to go along with laws forcing business owners to serve homosexuals. I am very much for homosexual rights, and I find discrimination against gays to be a disgusting form of bigotry. But I am simply not comfortable with the state compelling the unwilling service of business owners, which is essentially what Boschee wants.

His choice, for business owners, is you either provide your labor even when it violates your conscience or you go out of business.

That’s fundamentally un-American, and all the more obnoxious when you consider that he can’t seem to identify as justification for his position anyone actually guilty of what he’s talking about.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Jerry

    Another solution without a problem. Because, you know, all of our real problems have been solved by government. Or something like that.

  • kevindf

    “benefit from the tax breaks you get and the other services the government provides” Where does Boschee think the money comes from?

    • headward

      Boschee doesn’t believe that you own any of your own income, property, or services. What the government leaves you with is a gift from the king.

      • ec99

        In this he shares a lot in common with nearly every elected official at all levels of government.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Wow, do you think the ANTI-GAY landlords/business proprietors have a claim against the government for confiscating their private property without due process of law? I wonder what Scalia would say . . . .

        • 2hotel9

          Where is all this anti-gay discrimination you keep screeching about, guest/ragnar? Not a single instance can be found, and yet you keep screeching about how it is everywhere. Show it to us.

  • headward

    They should look at Leith to see real discrimination. These two guys are about as useful as healthcare.gov

  • ec99

    I wonder is Boschee has the mindset that, as a gay, he is automatically the victim of discrimination whether it exists or not.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Given the MINDSET on display in this discussion, i.e., that people have the “right” to discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation, I believe Boschee’s MINDSET that discrimination exists has merit.

      • ec99

        One more time, why should sexual orientation be considered a legitimate class any more than people addicted to chocolate?

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          you need to define “legitimate”
          I wonder if there is a history of victimization and persecution of people who eat chocolate.

          • ec99

            You miss my point. I don’t deny periods in history of the persecution of homosexuals. Hitler’s Germany, Castro’s Cuba. What you seem to be saying is that one’s sexual preference validates rights. The central point on this thread is a guy who proclaims himself “openly gay.” Why? I don’t proclaim myself “openly straight.” In fact, I don’t identify myself principally as a heterosexual. Whom one goes to bed with seems to be a priority with gays, since they are always publicizing it. My view is that neither that, nor blue eyes, nor chocolate, nor smoking represent a valid reason for laws.

          • 2hotel9

            Don’t forget Islam! It is a daily event in Muslim majority countries to imprison and murder homosexuals. Funny, leftards never want to acknowledge that fact.

          • ec99

            People are obsequious to Islam and refuse to criticize it due to the fact they know any such vocal act could result in their death.

          • 2hotel9

            Quite true, Islam is allowed to murder at will because people don’t stop it. All these liberal crusaders for “rights” and “equality” are cowards.

          • ec99

            Christianity and Islam both have their roots in Semitic culture, which considered homosexuality as an abomination, an incitement to raise the ire of the Divinity. Problem is, now only Christians get criticized for upholding this belief; Moslems get a pass. Islamo-terrorism has shut people up, for fear of a fatwa.

          • 2hotel9

            The left is endlessly screeching and caterwauling about how THEY are the champions of “rights” and “equality” for all, so their deafening silence concerning Islam is doubly damning.

  • Lianne

    I suppose he will scream discrimination when he looses an election. I can’t believe his view of people and businesses are subservient to the government.

    • ec99

      Not really that strange, given that he likely believes it is the role of government that it mandate that everyone accept his lifestyle. This is part of the gay agenda, culminating in being declared eligible for Affirmative Action quotas and set asides.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Does sarcasm work here? Let’s try:
        Oh no! Not the “gay agenda” again! Damn those gays thinking they are just as good as the rest of us! No equal rights for them! No sir!

        • ec99

          Quotas and set asides are not EQUAL rights, they are advantages which toss MERIT down the toilet.

    • Thresherman

      I am unaware of Boschee’s sexual orientation, but if he is gay and is using his position to gain special rights for gays, especially when there is no evidence that it is needed, is he then not guilty of a conflict of interest regarding his elected position?

      • Lianne

        In my ethics and your ethics, I suppose, but not in the realm of politics. Of course, I still contend that if discrimination by land lords is going to be defined by sexual orientation, then heterosexuals can not kicked out for non-payment, or any other reason for which people are evicted.

        • Matthew Hawkins

          Can you speak English, because I have not idea what your point is?

          • Lianne

            I could draw you a picture and you would feign an obtuse persona. I thought libs were all about equality for all. If one can’t discriminate because of homosexuality, one should not be able to discriminate because of heterosexuality.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            I would never accuse you of feigning an obtuse persona.
            (Sorry . . . couldn’t help myself!)

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          Nonsense! An eviction for non-payment is based on the renter’s CONDUCT (failure to pay the rent in accordance with the lease contract).

          Can you distinguish between valid and invalid arguments? Please try.

          If you post a sign on the outside of your business, which is open to the public, and that sign declares “HOMOSEXUALS NOT WELCOME–STAY OUT”, then you are guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

          On the other hand, if a person comes into your business, which is open to the public, and engages in disorderly CONDUCT, you may command him/her (regardless of the person’s sexual orientation) to leave and you may call the police and ask them to assist you to remove the disorderly person.

          Can you understand the difference?

          • Lianne

            Where and who is posting these signs?

          • Ragnar

            You mean all those people who claim the right to discriminate aren’t doing so openly? They aren’t posting signs? Why not?

          • Lianne

            Prove there is discrimination against gay by landlords. You need to expose the guilty parties.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            The proof of discriminatory animus is written all over this discussion by persons who claim they have the right to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. But you know better…you know it’s wrong to discriminate, otherwise you would openly post signs declaring “homos not welcome”.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Even if we find the motivations to be disgusting, why should anyone be compelled to provide unwilling service to someone else?

          • MrSkeptic

            I have been asking you why we shouldn’t use the state to compel unwilling bigoted property owners to provide services to LGBT renters for two days now and you still haven’t answered. Maybe you just don’t know or you just can’t articulate why you feel property owner’s are special.

          • 2hotel9

            You have yet to prove anyone is being discriminated against, Mrstupidity. Why is that?

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            Because, as a republic, we are a nation of laws not of men.

            There was a time in our national history when white persons were unwilling to provide services to black persons.

            Perhaps those who are unwilling to provide services to homosexuals would love to join ranks with the guy who said this: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace's_1963_Inaugural_Address

          • 2hotel9

            And you, guest/ragnar, still refuse to prove gays are being discriminated against by landlords and rental agents.

          • 2hotel9

            Compulsion by armed force is what Democrats have always been about.

          • ec99

            I guess I would ask, how many rental agreements include the question “Are you a homosexual?” None that I know of. That information is only available through self-admission. There are no outward signs. But, of course, many gays feel the need to proclaim it, instead of just shutting up. Which indicates to me they are looking for recognition and contention. So this is not so much about renting, as pushing the envelope.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            And, of course, many bigots feel the need to proclaim they have the right to trample on other people’s civil rights, instead of just shutting up….

          • 2hotel9

            Yes, guest/ragnar, bigots like you gleefully trample the rights of others every day.

          • 2hotel9

            They refuse to do that. Or perhaps they can’t. Looks like can’t is the real reason, their refusal to admit that is rather telling.

  • MrSkeptic

    First, Berg challenged both men to name names when it comes to discrimination in Fargo. Both men assert that there is discrimination happening, but Williams said he hasn’t received a specific complaint from anyone in the city, Boschee (who is openly gay) said he hasn’t experienced discrimination “to his knowledge” (neat turn of phrase, that), and neither he nor Boschee could name a single specific instance of someone being discriminated against.

    Why do they have to provide evidence of discrimination in order to show support for LGT residents through a resolution? Logically, one can show support with or without the
    existence of housing discrimination against LGBT residents.

    The only evidence of discrimination Boschee would offer was his absurd, paradoxical assertion that the presence of people who opposed the resolution in Fargo (and
    a similar one in Grand Forks) is proof that it’s needed.

    Ah. You missed an important specific detail concerning the evidence. Boschee isn’t arguing that the law is needed just because people are opposing the resolution; he is specifically
    highlighting the fact that some people oppose the law because they believe it is their right as property owners to discriminate against homosexuals. Brad Friesen, a landlord, is an example of the kind of people Boschee is talking about. If people like Friesen believe it is their right to discriminate against homosexuals, then letting those property owners know where the city of Fargo stands with respect to the issue is justified.

    Because this policy isn’t motivated by a problem that actually exists in Fargo.

    How do you know what it is motivated by? Do you have special knowledge? Are you a psychologist? No. How do you know discrimination isn’t happening? I think we need to scientifically study the issue. Aside from this, we already know that some property owners
    think it is within their rights to discriminate against people from the LGBT community. This is enough to warrant action by the city of Fargo.

    Second, when Berg asked how it is the state can compel businesses to provide goods or services (in this instance housing) even when they’re willing….],

    Wow! Your paraphrase is way off the mark (see interview at around 2:00-2:10). He did not ask how it is the state can compel businesses to provide goods and services to everyone. Berg asked, “Why do LGBT renter rights trump business owner’s rights with respect to the issue of discrimination?” There is an easy answer to this question. The city of Fargo commission values LGBT renter rights over property owners who think it is within their rights to discriminate against
    LGBT renters. In other words, the city of Fargo believes it is morally wrong for property owners to discriminate against LGBT renters. Since it is morally wrong for property owners to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, the city of Fargo is justified in compelling property owners to do the right thing (i.e., not discriminate and treat people equally regardless of their sexual orientation).

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The property owners believe it is their right to determine for themselves who they wish to serve.

      Shouldn’t we all have that right? Or does our labor really belong to the state?

      • Matthew Hawkins

        No, if you rent apartments than you cannot discriminate.

        • ec99

          Oh, there are ways to get around it. Have a property management company run it for you. And just make clear to them what the parameters are. No students, no gays (how you determine that is beyond me), no minorities, no rent-subsidized people. Then they just say the apartment has already been rented, true or not,

        • ec99

          OK, let’s explore this. Say you rent out property, and despite the fact that students pay a deposit, you find that you consistently spend more restoring your property after they have destroyed it, you are not allowed to not rent to students. Is that discrimination or just good business?

      • MrSkeptic

        Property owners have the right to determine who they wish to serve regardless if there are laws that punish them for not serving a protected classes. This is not the issue. The issue you have is punishing or rewarding behavior through law, yet you haven’t provide moral justification as to why this is immoral.

        We all have the right to make choices. Unfortunately, no choice is without a consequence even if you are a business owner.

        Who does labor belong to? What does it mean to belong to? If you mean who controls labor, then the answer is obvious. Those who hold more power in the situation at hand.

        • Thresherman

          So what you are saying is that enacting laws that put an onus on innocent people in order to address nonexistent problems is moral and ethical? Quite the world you live in.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Property owners have the right to determine who they wish to serve no matter what the consequences are for not following the law. This is not the issue. The real issue for you have is punishing or rewarding behavior through law (i.e., compelling people to do things.), yet you haven’t provide moral justification for why it is immoral to do so.

          So, what you’re arguing is, property owners aren’t compelled to rent in situations that violate their conscience, they’ll just face legal consequences from the state/trial lawyers if they do?

          I guess we should pass a law that levies fines on being a liberal. You’ll still be free to be a liberal, of course, you’ll just be sued into poverty if you express liberal views.

          That’s fair, right?

          ;-)

          • MrSkeptic

            Hey, if you think you can convince the state to pass a law that punishes liberals for being liberal go for it. Everything is fair game in the game of politics, but I suspect you won’t get very far.

            When are you going to explain to us why it is always wrong to use the state to compel people to behave morally? Is this just a libertarian assumption or do you have justification for your point of view? Stay away from your favorite argument, the slippery slope fallacy, will you?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Hey, if you think you can convince the state to pass a law that punishes liberals for being liberal go for it. Everything is fair game in the game of politics, but I suspect you won’t get very far.

            I wouldn’t do any such thing, because it would be unconstitutional, and immoral. Speech should be free.

            Whoever was responsible for your education in the area of civics has done you a real disservice, because our system of government was not intended to be a free-for-all in which even the most fundamental of rights (i.e. having religious or political beliefs) was fair game.

            Our system of government was predicated upon the sovereignty of the individual, who is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

            You may want to brush up on that history, because it’s obviously something you don’t understand.

            When are you going to explain to us why it is always wrong to use the state to compel people to behave morally? Is this just a libertarian assumption or do you have justification for your point of view?

            I didn’t say it’s always wrong. I think it’s right that the state compels people to honor contracts, respect property rights and refrain from murdering or assault one another. But I see those things not as a prohibition on the actions of the would-be murderer or thief, but rather as protecting the rights of the potential victim. That’s a very important distinction.

            And you’re fond of denouncing the “slippery slope” argument, and I’m not surprised given how inconvenient it must be for your politics. Yes, the slippery slope can be an argument, but given how often government expansion of powers usually manifests itself in ways never intended in the first place, the slippery slope argument can also be valid. Case in point, the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution which was intended to allow Congress to prevent trade wars between the states and is now used as justification for everything from federal gun and drug policy to education policy.

            The slippery slope argument is valid when there is, in fact, a slippery slope.

          • MrSkeptic

            I wouldn’t do any such thing, because it would be unconstitutional, and immoral. Speech should be free.

            Yea, but shouldn’t compelling people to do the right thing be free too? For example, shouldn’t liberal, govt representatives be able to compel bigoted business owners that they need to do the right thing and accept LGBT renters if they meet all other legitimate standards? You still haven’t explained why they shouldn’t be able to do this.

            Whoever was responsible for your education in the area of civics has done you a real disservice, because our system of government was not intended to be a free-for-all in which even the most fundamental of rights (i.e. having religious or political beliefs) was fair game.

            Why do I care what you think about my knowledge about civics? I don’t. Why do I care what some dead white guys intended? I don’t. This isn’t a civics class discussion. It is a philosophical discussion about why you think it is sometimes wrong to compel people to do the right thing.

            Our system of government was predicated upon the sovereignty of the individual, who is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

            So, some ancient, dead, white guys assumed the concept of “the individual” is sovereign (whatever that means) and some rights should not be taken away (cannot be taken away is false since death would inevitably lead to rights being taken away). In a morally relative world, why does this matter? Are you trying to say that objective morality exists? Prove it.

            I didn’t say it’s always wrong. I think it’s right that the state compels people to honor contracts, respect property rights and refrain from murdering or assault one another.

            Ah. So you are in favor of the state compelling people what to do when you want to protect what is valuable to you. How is this different than anyone else?

            But I see those things not as a prohibition on the actions of the would-be murderer or thief, but rather as protecting the rights of the potential victim. That’s a very important distinction.

            If you don’t see these as prohibition of action, then you must be seriously deluded (i.e.,most likely rationalizing your cognitive error) and do not have a good grasp of logic. Prohibition of would-be murderer or thief is not mutually exclusive to protecting the rights of the potential victim. In fact, both can happen simultaneously. The situation is not like a coin toss, where there is only one head OR tail. The protection of victims automatically entails the prohibition of would-be murderers and vice versa. Logically, your intent doesn’t matter…the consequence is the same. You may feel it matters, but a feeling is not an argument.

            Moreover, if the only thing that is required to convince you that using the state to compel people to do the right thing is convincing yourself that you are protecting victims, then you should be siding with LGBT renters, not property owners because LGBT renters are potentially victims and some property owners are potential bigots. By intentionally protecting LGBT renters you are not intentionally prohibiting property owners from exercising bigotry and discrimination. That is an important distinction that may help YOU do the right thing.

            This is all very interesting because you could frame the current issue in terms of protection, but you do not. Instead, you frame it in terms of prohibition of bigoted property owners, which is something you will not condone. (That’s a convenient trick you have there!)

            The fact that you frame the current issue in such a way leads me to believe you only care about protecting victims when you actually care about the victims, and you care about prohibition when you could care less about the victims. In all reality, it seems like morality is not really that important to you. What seems more important is who we are talking about. If we are talking about bigoted property owners, then prohibition via govt is immoral. If we are talking about potential murderers, then prohibition is moral. If we are talking about potential victims of murder then protection is moral. If we are talking about potential victims of renter discrimination then protection is immoral. All in all, I would say you are a moral relativist, which is confusing, since, earlier, you were talking about inalienable rights.

            The slippery slope argument is valid when there is, in fact, a slippery slope.

            Oh, I agree that the slippery slope can be valid, however, your slippery slope arguments are usually invalid and, hence, fallacious. When I have denounced your slippery slopes arguments in the past, they were fallacious. I just didn’t want you to use another one of your fallacious slippery slope arguments when you answered the question, “Why it is always wrong to use the state to compel people to behave morally?” You didn’t and I commend you for it.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Yea, but shouldn’t compelling people to do the right thing be free too?

            Not if it violates their inalienable rights, no.

            And philosophically speaking, who gets to decide what is and is not the right thing?

            Rick Santorum might think that outlawing premarital sex is the right thing. I disagree with that, and I’m sure you would too.

          • MrSkeptic

            Not if it violates their inalienable rights, no.

            First of all, why? All you are telling me is that inalienable rights (i.e., rights you really really value) are more valuable than compelling people to do the right thing. Part of critical thinking is being able to justify your position. So far, you have not. Perhaps you are busy. Who knows.

            Maybe you think inalienable rights are absolute and objective rights. If that is the case, you have a lot of work to do because no one has ever demonstrated rights are objective and absolute. People simply assume they are. Do you hold this same assumption or do you have some special knowledge you could share with the rest of us?

            And philosophically speaking, who gets to decide what is and is not the right thing?

            What a philosophically naive question. The answer is obvious. In a morally relative world everyone gets to decide what is and is not the right thing. The real question is who will be powerful enough to make their moral decision and view the law?

            Will a morality that protects bigotry win the day or will a morality that protects LBGT renters win the day? Time will tell, but I suspect you and your kind will be on the losing side.

      • ec99

        Reminds me of this exchange:
        Teddy Kennedy: My law professor taught that an expansion of rights for some meant an expansion of rights for all.
        Robert Bork: Your professor was wrong.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Is it a fundamental right that is protected by our state and federal constitutions? “Believing” you have a right to discriminate against a class of persons in the provision of public accommodations/housing isn’t the same as actually having that right. There are many laws set forth in the NDCC that would be unconstitutional if an actual right to discriminate in this manner exists.

        • ec99

          Why should whom you go to bed with make you a legitimate class of persons?

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            People are classified all the time. Please identify the “legitimate” classes so we know what you’re talking about.

          • ec99

            “Legitimate” has come to mean “government recognized.” So, smokers are not a class, and can be discriminated against by not being allowed to smoke in a restaurant. Gays, whose only claim is whom they have sex with, are a class, and can demand what they want, with government approval.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            If a group of people have been historically victimized and persecuted, they belong in a CLASS of people . . . wait for it . . . who have been historically victimized and persecuted.

            Even now, ec99, you think you have the right to victimize and persecute a person based on his/her sexual orientation.

            Have you heard of the Matthew Sheppard Act?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act

            The act “expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”
            ec99: Maybe you should write your congressional representatives and complain about this act. After all, according to YOU, these people do not belong in a “legitimate” class.
            Maybe you don’t want to beat them up or kill them, maybe you only want to deny them housing and other accommodations. Yay for you! :

          • ec99

            Uh, I don’t believe I have uttered a critical word about anyone. I am asking you what is the legitimacy in arriving at distinctions based on such things as sexual preference in the bedroom. I see little difference between that and smokers. But it seems the former get certain advantages and the latter are marked with scarlet As. I really don’t care about laws that are passed. Politicians are hardly barometers of anything but what will get them elected. Point is a smoker is more identifiable than a homosexual. It’s just that latter tends to use that as his primary identification.

          • 2hotel9

            Why don’t you prove that gays ARE being discriminated against. Trot out all the court cases and convictions there from and silence us all. We will be waiting.

          • Sue
          • 2hotel9

            That is an impressive list from google, and none of them in Fargo. Although 26 of those listed are article about one instance at a B&B, and another against a bakery gets 9 hits. Hmmmm, still, an impressive list that does not support the case for a law in Fargo.

            Try again, sweety.

          • Sue

            You didn’t ask for anything specific to Fargo. But I am impressed that you can count.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            “silence us ALL” you say? “WE will be waiting” you say?

          • 2hotel9

            Oh, and Shepard was killed over drugs, not sexuality. Too bad your heroes always turn out to be fake.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            How many drugs are you on? If we go by your version of the facts, then Congress didn’t investigate before they passed the law against hate crimes.

  • Guest

    Someone asked about Rep. Joshua Boschee’s sexual orientation. Boschee, a Democrat who represents the 44th Legislative District in north Fargo, is openly gay. He campaigned for office last year as an openly gay person. He is a support staff member at NDSU. Boschee became Rep. Blair Thoreson’s seat mate during the 2013 legislative session, having narrowly defeated the incumbent Rep. Byron Clark for the district’s second seat in the state House of Representatives. t44th Legislative District, which encompasses a large part of the northeast neighborhoods of Fargo adjacent to NDSU has been reliably red and mostly conservative for decades, 40 years or more. Boschee is the first Democrat to be elected to the district’s what previously was an all-Republican legislative delegation for as long as I can remember.
    However, both Rep. Boschee and Fargo City Commissioners Melissa Sobolik and Mike Williams are trying to fix a problem that just doesn’t exist. Besides, I believe that to address any such discrimination would be best served either by a change in state law, or perhaps by a constitutional amendment.

    • Flyby_Knight

      He defeated Rep. Don Clark, in point of fact.

  • MrSkeptic

    But I am simply not comfortable with the state compelling the unwilling service of business owners, which is essentially what Boschee wants.

    Why are you uncomfortable with the state compelling the unwilling service of business owners, when you believe discrimination against LGBT renters is wrong? In other words, what is your moral justification for allowing business owners to discriminate against LGBT renters?

    More generally, what is wrong with using the state to compelling business owners to do things against their will? For example, what is wrong with making owners of nuclear power plants dispose of their waste in a safe and proper way? What is wrong with making restaurant owners comply with health standards? What is wrong with compelling business owners to sell safe products? What is wrong with compelling business owners not to own slaves?

    I think you are in favor of using the state to compel unwilling business owners to do what they do not want to do, but, in this particular case, you don’t because you simply don’t value LGT renters enough. Property owners, a powerful group, is more important than LGBT renters, a marginalized group.

  • 2hotel9

    If no one is complaining why is this needed? No actual, provable crime and yet they want a law. Hmmmmm

    • Guest

      very little to no evidence of vote fraud didn’t stop you ‘tards from passing voter id/suppression measures.

      • 2hotel9

        The FEC and Dept of Justice call you a liar.

        • Guest

          Too lazy to do anything but make up lies about fake findings? You’re statement that the Federall Election Commission has made any sort of assessment about voter fraud is especially hilarious, since the FEC “has no jurisdiction over the laws relating to voting, voter fraud and intimidation,” but rather oversees campaign finances. http://www.fec.gov/info/election_day_links.shtml

          Thanks for the especially good laugh at the current pathetic state of the conservative ‘thought’ you so very well exemplify and helps Dems win elections!

          • 2hotel9

            And they monitor voting in federal level elections, and have in fact stated that voting irregularities have happened in past elections. Money is used in vote fraud. Now, tell us Dept of Justice has no involvement in elections, too. We love laughing at mental retards like you.

          • Guest

            Prove it sh^head. I just gave you a link from their website in which they say voter fraud is not in their jurisdiction. You just continue to stupidly repeat to yourself your proven lies.

            Nothing is as funny as retards who just make stuff up- like the FEC stating there’s massive voter fraud going on when the FEC doesn’t even handle that! ROFL @ 2hotel9!!!

          • 2hotel9

            And yet they ARE involved in monitoring of voter fraud, campaign finance being just one aspect of your ongoing voter fraud efforts, stupid c*nt.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            There you go again dropping another turd on the page. And no, stupid, I’m not guest. Posters other than guest have the ability to respond to your foul mouth. Knee-slapping funny you didn’t know something as simple as that, but then again, not much more can be expected from your juvenile mentality. Grow a brain, please.

          • 2hotel9

            Starting a Monday out by crying in a comment thread, not a good indication for your week, honey.

          • 2hotel9

            And still waiting for you to tell us DoJ is not involved in monitoring and prosecuting vote fraud, c*nt.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            Run, hide, little one. Your mommy grabbed a fresh bar of lifebuoy and she’s looking for you!

            http://www.goodolddaysstore.com/images/products/super_closeups/1886_1.jpg

          • 2hotel9

            So, you post under multiple usenames, too. That tells us all we need to know about your integrity and honesty. You’re done, bahbye.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            I didn’t sign in as “guest”, I signed in as “Ragnar”. You need to get your potty mouth under control before you start ranting about someone else’s integrity. Makes me wonder how many personas you probably have. But it really doesn’t matter because it’s apparent that you use this particular persona to crap turds on the page.

          • 2hotel9

            You answered for guest, that makes you guest, sweety.

          • Thresherman

            Another Democrat was found guilty of election fraud just a couple of days ago. http://blog.pfaw.org/content/maryland-gop-campaign-manager-found-guilty-election-fraud

            Then there is this piece; http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-is-a-proven-election-manipulation-tactic

            A quote from the article;
            “Two veteran Democratic political operatives said voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections. One of them who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told police that such fraud was a “normal political tactic.””

            So we have a Democrat admitting that election fraud helps Democrats win elections, huh.

            Another quote;

            “The Supreme Court answered this question in 2008 when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law. “Flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” the court said, “[and] not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

            So, even the Supreme Court finds this credible, but naturally liberals dismiss it because they can’t admit that they are doing it. But even further, election fraud is very real to them when it is their ox they think is being gored, even when the claim is ludicrous. In 2004, we were treated to liberals claiming Bush stole the election because “Exit polling is more accurate than vote tabulation.” Also recall that that liberals were convinced that electronic voting machines stole an election from them.

            So to sum up the current liberal mindset, demonstrable election fraud is “laughable” and “pathetic” while pathetic and laughable election fraud is very real.

          • 2hotel9

            You horrible hateful poopyhead!!!! Throwing reality in the face of a voter fraud defending leftard! I bet you rescue kittens and love puppies, too.

  • Opinionated

    Who elects these losers

  • yy4u2

    It’s not about gay, it’s about control.

    • ec99

      All government is about control. The plethora of rules, regulations, ordinances, and laws at all levels pretty much make it possible for anyone to be arrested at any time if they were all applied.

      • yy4u2

        Sad but what it has become. I believe the Founders tried to write in the checks and balances to preserve a govt of the people, for the people. The balance has gone to govt and we are left writing checks due to excessive laws and regulation as well as over taxation.

        • ec99

          There really are no checks and balances anymore. The three branches have become an amorphous blob. So one result is that probable cause is now a cop with a hunch.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Rob: “It would be very easy of me to go along with laws forcing business owners to serve homosexuals. I am very much for homosexual rights, and I find discrimination against gays to be a disgusting form of bigotry. But I am simply not comfortable with the state compelling the unwilling service of business owners, which is essentially what Boschee wants.”

    Well, the state of North Dakota already has numerous laws against discrimination. Are you comfortable with laws that prohibit business owners from discriminating against people based on race?

    • devilschild

      Why do they need numerous laws against discrimination? It seems like overkill to me. Why not just write one and be done with it?

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        I don’t know. Perhaps you can review all state laws on the subject, consolidate them into a single statute, and submit your draft for consideration by our next legislative assembly.

        • devilschild

          Okay…I’m ready. Paragraph one of Chapter 14_02. 4 covered it just fine for me. Anymore than that is just word pollution.

        • 2hotel9

          Or you could prove there IS discrimination running rampant and requiring legislation to stamp it out? Why are you unable to provide proof of all this anti-gay discrimination? Or is it just that you refuse to do it? Hmmmm, guest/ragnar, quite the dilemma for you.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            Please contact the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights. This is the state agency that handles discrimination complaints.

          • 2hotel9

            No, guest/ragnar, you keep claiming it is a rampant problem, you prove it.

  • kevindf

    How would the owner know if the potential renter is someone they should discriminate against?

Top