Posted 4 months, 13 days ago in 
Loading ...
This letter is in response to the July 7, 2008 article titled “White lambastes ‘bathroom’ ad campaign as ‘obfuscation’.” I am the Legal Director at The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado and operate a Legal Hotline specifically focused on helping those who suffer discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation. We receive hundreds calls a year covering a wide variety of areas and I can definitively say that discrimination against the GLBT community occurs in Colorado.
SB 200 goes beyond public accommodations. It also prohibits discrimination in housing and updates anti-discrimination laws dealing with jury service, auto insurance, public education, health care and other topics. In addition to sexual orientation, SB 200 added age, ancestry, color, disability, marital status, national origin, and religion to various state laws that had omitted these categories. With SB 200, Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws are now consistent in their scope and application.
The malicious ads run in this newspaper and on area radio stations prey upon the misinformed and suggest that prohibiting discrimination will permit sexual predators to molest children in public restrooms. This bold assertion is an outright fabrication without one shred of evidence to back it up. Moreover, nothing in SB 200 creates a defense against prosecution for criminal behavior.
Denver, Boulder and Aspen have had municipal ordinances covering this area for years. Nineteen other states have this law in place as well, with no reports of the problems predicted by Focus on the Family Action. These tactics are shameful and the claims are ridiculous.
Most people in Colorado don’t discriminate, and most people in Colorado don’t experience discrimination – but for those who do, SB 200 will provide needed protection. Don’t be fooled or intimidated by those who are fighting for their right to discriminate!
Sincerely,
Mindy Barton
Legal Director
The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado
Denver
8 Responses to “Ads give wrong impression of SB 200”
Posted July 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Mindy, if there has been false advertising, that is a criminal offense.
If that has occurred then I highly suggest you place the information on the desk of the nearest District Attorneys desks and file complaints with the FCC and force the removal of the offending ads.
Also, please feel free to post your proof of false advertising on here and we will help in your efforts to have the law enforced.
As an aside Mindy,
Why did you write a letter to the editor instead of writing a complaint to the Colorado Attorney General?
Wouldn’t that have been the legal and appropriate thing to do instead of trying to get public support?
Why would you feel the need for public support if the law supports your position?
Posted July 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Recently when I read the full page ad in the Daily Sentinel re: SB200, one statement caught my attention. It read “ Here’s the kicker–Colorado citizens can’t even vote by referendum to change it!” I’m not trying to start a rehash of the bathroom bill issue. Both sides have about beat that one to death. What I am interested in is the concept and legalities behind the quoted statement, so if we could, let’s just pretend that this statement and the bathroom bill have nothing to do with each other. Can anyone explain to me what empowers the State Legislature to create a law that cannot be changed by a vote of the people? Does this concept sound totalitarian to anyone else? Shouldn’t the people be the final arbiter of what laws they do and do not want, as long as their actions are constitutional? It seems to me that if our government derives it’s powers from the consent of the governed, then the people would have the right to remove their consent on a line item basis., from any action taken by our government. I would think that the rule should be that the people can overrule their government, but that the government shall not overrule the will of the people. Isn’t that what self determination is all about? I would appreciate any information that anyone has on when and how this concept was initiated or any opinions that you may have on whether it is legal and even what your general feelings are about such a concept. Again, I am not looking to pick a fight about the bathroom bill. I’m just looking for opinions and some facts. Thanks.
Posted July 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Does this concept sound totalitarian to anyone else? Shouldn’t the people be the final arbiter of what laws they do and do not want, as long as their actions are constitutional?”
No! This is the American way and is called our representative form of government. It was well explained in 10th grade high school civics and government classes (which my daughter took recently and I remember from 60 years ago). Since the general public cannot possibly have very detailed knowledge about every issue of government, we elect qualified representatives who can spend most of their time acquainting themselves with the intricacies of potential laws. That is why we vote for smart people who will act like statesmen and women and vote for what is best for the majority of citizens. If we are sufficiently unhappy with their performance, we vote for their opponent at the next election. God help us if we had popular votes on every issue since we all know that people are easily persuaded by their own narrow economic intersts, by prejudice, by demagogues appealing to the basest instinct of human behavior, etc. Politicians can of course be subject to these same ills which is why we have the opportunity to vote them out of office or to impeach them as the House just voted to do with our vice-president.
Posted July 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Well, apparently there was something that you missed in that 10th grade civics class. Your stated remedy at the poll simply removes the man. It does absolutely nothing to reverse the offending law. It is conceivable that one day the legislature, in it’s wisdom, will pass a law so draconian and far reaching and possessed of such power as to destroy our fragile democracy. Waiting years simply for the non-remedy of ousting those who voted for it, all the while under the yoke of a law which carries no guarantee of ever being repealed, appears to be no remedy at all. This fault in our system allows the power of “we the people” to be usurped without remedy, check or balance.
Posted July 11th, 2008 at 10:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: It is conceivable that one day the legislature, in it’s wisdom, will pass a law so draconian and far reaching and possessed of such power as to destroy our fragile democracy.”
Well it has not happened yet although I admit that the voters in the last presidential election put a regime in power which has tried its best to destroy our fragile democracy. In my opinion the original framers of the Constitution put in enough checks and balances to make it work. And it has so far, though I grant you that anything is conceivable.
Posted July 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis-Rather than merely cut and paste, which is clearly your only forte, I direct readers to my post on the other excellent letter that ran on this topic, and to my evisceration of your inaccurate, uninformed, and mean-spirited attack there. To recap–you are wrong on all counts.
Posted July 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is generally the Republicans that champion representative democracy over direct democracy, hence the name of their party–Republican, as in “it’s a republic not a democracy.” Apparently, however, when the legislature does something they don’t like they all become little ‘d’ democrats; when the president is selected by the Supreme Court having lost the popular vote, however, they are all in line with the ‘it’s a republic’ line.
From that source of GOP wingnutery,FreeRepublic.com:
“We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams
A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment
We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution
[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams
A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration
In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster
Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text
Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.
A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation.”
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dearest DADs,
My post was to bring out the point that IF a law has been violated, for the writer to seek legal action.
NOW that everybody seems to be in agreement that there was no actual violation of law as claimed.
” The malicious ads run in this newspaper and on area radio stations prey upon the misinformed and suggest that prohibiting discrimination will permit sexual predators to molest children in public restrooms. This bold assertion is an outright fabrication without one shred of evidence to back it up. Moreover, nothing in SB 200 creates a defense against prosecution for criminal behavior. ”
This is nothing more than the writer begging for sympathy by misrepresenting the honesty of the ads.
As I said in my letter: ” Also, please feel free to post your proof of false advertising on here and we will help in your efforts to have the law enforced.
As an aside Mindy,
Why did you write a letter to the editor instead of writing a complaint to the Colorado Attorney General?
Wouldn’t that have been the legal and appropriate thing to do instead of trying to get public support?
Why would you feel the need for public support if the law supports your position? “
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.