Monday, June 9, 2008

Disturbing new law in Colorado

Let me just start off by saying I am not a very eloquent or articulate writer and I do not like to "sugar coat" things to make them less offensive to others..... This is my (and my husband's) take on a new bill that was enacted on June 1 in Colorado.

You can read the full bill here. But I'll tell you what it says in a nutshell.... that any person, regarless of gender, age or sexual orientation may be in ANY place anyone else may be, specifically, public restrooms and locker rooms. It basically states that a man may go into a girls restroom or locker room w/o any reprecussions simply because he 'claims' he's gay/transgender* and feels more comfortable there or visa versa with women. The ONLY public exemption is churches/synagogues/mosques, etc. that are primarily used for religious purposes. From some commentary we've read and discussed, I think private schools, etc. are exempt because you have to 'pay' to be there but public schools are definitely part of the new law.

Here's an excerpt
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means
any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place
offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to
the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or
retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any
combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any
public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool,
bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted
to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a
campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home,
or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary,
undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public
building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit,
or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "PLACE OF
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION" SHALL NOT INCLUDE A CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, MOSQUE, OR OTHER PLACE THAT IS PRINCIPALLY USED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person,
directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or
a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to
publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, ELECTRONIC, or
printed communication, notice, or advertisement which THAT indicates that the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation
will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an
individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is
unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability,
race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin,
or ancestry.

Tell me if you don't think this will make a pedophile happy? This is an absolutely disgusting new law and I cannot imagine (even trying to view it from a liberal standpoint) what was going thru these people's heads.

Here are a list of problems I see just waiting for us now.

I'm just going to be real and vulnerable here, speaking the honest truth.

~ What female do you know who wants to be sitting in a stall in a restroom changing her feminine hygiene product while a man listens in the stall next door - you know paper crinkling and all... I have been married for 8 years and I even draw the line with my husband there, it's too personal and sometimes a little bit of a yucky procedure.
~ On the same line, I don't want a man in the restroom even just hearing me 'go'.
~ What about urinals, would you take your daughter (of any age) into a restroom where men are standing using urinals? I know I sure WOULDN'T.
~ A man in a girl's/women's restroom or locker room is disgusting. They have no need to be there. This is just one more easy way for men to become pedophiles or 'test the waters'.
~ Also, a woman in a boy's/men's locker room gives me the same feeling - there's no need for her to be there and it's just asking for pedophilia to happen.
~ I will never be able to allow my children to go into a public restroom unassisted (even with me standing right outside the door) especially if we ever have a girl, because then there could be a man in her restroom, but I would also be cautious of sending my boys in because there could be a woman (yes, women can be pedophiles, too) in there just waiting for a little boy to come in.
~ This law also makes it illegal for any employer (except churches....) -regardless of religious belief - to discriminate (ex. not hire someone) based solely on their sexual orientation. So, if you owned a business and took pride in only having employees that displayed a true Godly example, you would have to find another reason not to hire this seemingly equally qualified person and then, most likely, you'd be faced with a lawsuit because this person might claim that they had all the qualifications, etc. and you didn't hire him/her because s/he was gay - regardless of what the real reason for not hiring the person was. GAH.

I'm going to the gym (YMCA) later this morning and will ask the manager/whoever is the highest on the totem pole where they fall into this law. Maybe they don't fall under the public business section because I have to pay to be there and I can't even get into the locker rooms (past the check in counter) unless I have a valid, paid membership.

The State of Colorado has a law that all bills (except safety bills - having to do with protecting people's safety, rights, etc.) have a trial period (90 days, I think) and during that period if there are enough petitions and signatures gathered in opposition of the bill (it's a certain percentage, not sure about the actual number needed) then it has to be appealed, etc. and can't be signed into law until all appeals, etc. are complete. Guess what kind of bill this one was? Yep, you got it, a safety law that is exempt from appeals and actually CANNOT be appealed. We're stuck with it.

This is the kind of law that would actually make me not want to live in a state. I told Michael to see if he can find out what kind of policy the Air Force has on letting us transfer because we would not normally move to a state that had this kind of law, so can they make us live here (because in thruth, the military actually owns Michael - but not the kids and I)?

One of the reasons Michael and I strongly believe in State laws and the right of each state's government (and voters) to make its own laws -as long as they do not violate the Federal Constitution - is because rather than being forced (due to citizenship) to live in a country where the laws are contradictory to your beliefs, you can choose to move to another state that has more suitable laws for your beliefs/religious convictions, etc.

This law is so disturbing to me. I'm sure there will be at least one more post on this since it's only been in effect for 9 days and there will be many changes that take place in public buildings, etc. and there will be much debate in the news on it.

Here are some great places to read commentary on this (I'll be adding to this list as I research more commentary and 'interpretations'):
* Human Events
*

Conservative Coloradoans (and my family) need your prayers right now. Please also pray for us as we prayerfully consider how this will effect us. As we are asking God what our next step should be (should we request to move, etc.) please pray that this causes people to think and petition for a change.


* Transgender (from Wikipedia):
Transgender is the state of one's "gender identity" (self-identification as male, female, both or neither) not matching one's "assigned gender" (identification by others as male or female based on physical/genetic sex). "Transgender" does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual or asexual. The precise definition for transgender remains in flux, but includes:
"Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these."
[1]
"People who were assigned a gender, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."
[2]
"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the gender one was assigned at birth."
[3]

2 comments:

bryan said...

hmmm... I usually do have a more liberal perspective. Based on that, I don't usually have a problem with equal opportunity employment (except for maybe churches/temples/etc.). I don't think anyone deserves to be denied a living, regardless of race/sexual orientation/etc.

Still, I can't see where anybody would find this new law to be a good idea. And usually, most liberals I know would be appalled at anything that would put a child at risk. Just look at every safety belt and precaution on every motor vehicle in the world. This law is just ridiculous. I don't see how anyone would find it to be anything other than dangerous!

A man is now pregnant. Some things are just stupid! ;)

Stephanie GO said...

What an IDIOT law. That's all I have to say right now. :)