🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: cu.motss
Article #216

Re: COLORADO BOYCOTT ACTION IDEAS

#216
From: Bob Cormack
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 00:00
38 lines
3124 bytes
In article <mj3XxQ9ytxPH089yn@csn.net>, thads@csn.net (Thad Smith) says:
<...>
>
>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.
>
>I recall that Boulder and maybe Aspen had such laws on the books prior
>to Ammendment 2 passage.  
                                                                        
Actually, Boulder's law does not specifically mention homosexuals -- it
prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, etc. on the basis of
sexual preference.  Before Amendment 2, both homo- and hetero-sexuals
could have relief under this law if they were discriminated against.
If Amendment 2 is upheld, then only heterosexuals would be protected
by the law.  As a specific example (used by the city attorney, I believe):
if a straight bartender was fired from a gay bar because of his 
sexual orientation, he could sue -- but the same relief would be denied
to a gay bartender fired from a straight bar.  Boulder's law does
not give special priviledges to gays -- it sets out a universal right.
When combined with Amendment 2, however, it gives special priviledges
to straights, in clear violation of the equal rights clauses in the U.S.
constitution.

The idea that Amendment 2 only prohibits special rights is a smokescreen
created by the amendment's creators -- it does not survive an actual
reading of the amendment, which makes gays a special class -- one that
it is OK to discriminate against.  In my opinion, many people were fooled
by this line, and would probably vote differently today.

I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court (U.S.) will uphold it,
especially given the hard line of questioning taken by several of the
judges during the first hearings.

Bob Cormack
Technical Details
Message-ID: <4jqa75$mha@boulder.earthnet.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960314102039.5899B-100000@spot.Colorado.EDU> <mj3XxQ9ytxPH089yn@csn.net>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10be61,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid10be61,public
X-Google-Thread: 1026d8,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid1026d8,public
X-Google-Thread: 10bb69,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid10bb69,public
X-Google-Thread: 12ce57,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid12ce57,public
X-Google-Thread: 108be9,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid108be9,public
X-Google-Thread: f744b,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gidf744b,public
X-Google-Thread: f49ec,aa6eaa084db3e9fe
X-Google-Attributes: gidf49ec,public
From: bob@compopt.com (Bob Cormack)
Subject: Re: COLORADO BOYCOTT ACTION IDEAS
Date: 1996/04/02
Message-ID: <4jqa75$mha@boulder.earthnet.net>
X-Deja-AN: 145352899
references: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960314102039.5899B-100000@spot.Colorado.EDU> <mj3XxQ9ytxPH089yn@csn.net>
organization: Computational Optics
newsgroups: cu.motss,soc.motss,co.politics,boulder.general,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.homosexual,co.politics.amend2.discuss