🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mj3XxQ9ytxPH089yn@csn.net>, Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
>In article <315f499e.0@news.paradise.net>, RT <wolfd@paradise.net> wrote:
>
>>But here's a little news flash for ya.  If the Supreme Court does uphold 
>>Amendment 2 - how many gays are going to STAY in Colorado?  Oh sure, 
>>those in the closet will stay for a while - but it won't last.  People 
>>will be firing heterosexuals just to get rid of them and claim they did 
>>it because they were gay.  
>
>Let's put this in perspective.  Amendment 2 prohibits passage of laws
>which establishes sexual preference as a protected class with regard
>to discrimination for employment, and probably other social
>interactions such as housing (I can't remember the details now).  That
>means simply that cities, such as Boulder, cannot give special
>consideration to sexual orientation in terms of enforcement.

	False.

	It isn't that generalistic.  If you read it carefully,
you'll notice that it was worded VERY carefully to ensure
that special consideration CAN be given to a heterosexual
orientation.

	It is ONLY *non-*heteroseuxal orientations that are
removed as a protected class (or more correctly that are
forbidden from being viewed as a protected class).  Heterosexuals
have no such restiction, and under CO:2 can still
sue for discrimination on the basis of their *heterosexual*
orientation.  So you *can* discriminate against homoseuxals
or bisexuals, but you're still forbidden from discriminating
against heteroseuxals.

	In short - the bill that was advertised as being 
*against* "special rights" created *more* of them in being
passed.  This isn't surprising since working towards
"equal" rights would require extending them to people
of all orientations, instead of restricting them to just one.

	(Of course no one has ever been able to actually
*list* what those "special rights" were, or are.  But gee it's
a great buzzword for Fundie fundraisers!)

	I don't think a lot of people will move out if the
SC upholds CO:2, butI think that it will lose a lot of revenue.
At least until the 10-12 copycat CO:2's get put up with a SC seal 
of approval on other states on the 1998 ballot in which case oit
won't matter anymore because everyone will be too busy trying
to keep their jobs and housing wherever they are to have the
energy to remember which state cuased all of it.

	At the same time, Coloradoans might start looking
to themsevles and the people who pushed CO:2 on them to see
what benefits they've gained.  Did the Radical Reich really pump
a lot of $$$ into CO?  Or, did the $$$ just get sheltered in
"non-profit" or "religious" coffers that give little if anything
tot he rest of the state?  Furhtermore, did it even come close
to the lost revenue from people who stopped doing business in
CO?  From what I've been able to figure out, CO:2 has already cost CO
millions in $$$ and has bought them almost nothing in return.
Given that, I fail to understand why there hasn't been a groundswelling
to negate CO:2 through a reversal amendment. In that case it won't matter
a t all what the SC decides, and they can recoup their losses
from the show of support.

Bob