NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/11870

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11870 alt.rush-limbaugh:13272 alt.politics.homosexuality:9167 alt.politics.clinton:19827 alt.politics.bush:15682
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsh!josh
From: [e-mail] (joshua.h.rosenbluth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:46:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> For them that cares, here's the text of the CO Gay Discrimination Ammend-
> ment:
>
>   Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
>   nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
>   districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
>   or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
>   practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
>   or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>   status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

Quota preferences safely fall into "special rights."  I'm not sure what
"minority status" or "protected status" legally entails.  But, prohibiting
laws that allow a "claim of discrimination" on the basis of homo/bi-sexuality
openly invites employers to fire people just because they are gay, and
landlords to refuse to rent to people just because they are gay, with no
fear of legal action.  We've crossed the boundary into "equal rights" and
this ammendment denies such rights to gay people.

And then a follow-up discussion occured between two other people:

||Notice heterosexuals are still (perversely) protected by the existing
||anti-discrimination ordinances in Colorado.
||
||-Ric

|No, they are not protected.  Legally, Heterosexuals are not a "protected
|minority", this ammendment simply says that having an "alternate" life style
|does not qualify one as a protected minority.  The situation is much like when
|I rented an apartment from a place which refused to rent to college students,
|hardly fair to students, but they do not qualify as a "protected minoity".

Huh?  Is this correct?  Only "protected minorities" are allowed to obtain
legal retribution for such discrimination?  That's not the way I see it.
Many municipalities explictly prohibit such discrimination on the basis of
race, religion, sex, etc., and that holds whether you are in the majority or
minority.  And, if a law, like Aspen's, says you can't discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation, then that applies to hetero, bi, and homo.
Except the above ammendment strikes out the bi and homo and leaves hetero in
place.  Do you really believe that a court, that accepts the validity of
this ammendment, will rule that a landlord can deny housing soley because
of someone's heterosexuality?

Finally, just because a trait (eye color, handedness, status as a
student) is omitted in an anti-discrimination ordinance, does that give
carte blanche to landlords to practice such discrimination?  Isn't there
some burden on the landlord to show a reasonable basis for discrimination?
If there is such a burden, then even in the cities in Colorado that do not
explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
heterosexuals are implicitly protected and bi/homosexuals are not because
of the ammendment.

Josh Rosenbluth (attmail!jrosenbluth)