I don't think there's any way to interpret it other than that the state can't draft a law that allows homosexuals (et al) to have advantage in a discrimination suit simply because they are homosexuals.
It doesn't say that homosexuals can't file a discrimination suit.
They can.
They can't file one where there's a law that gives them a leg up in a discrimination suit simply because of their homosexuality, BECAUSE the state is not permitted to draft such a law.
That's the only interpretation possible from that legislation you posted, and I'm likewise convinced that it could have been better written, but that no other conclusion was possible even written as it was.
So...both you lawyers are wrong, and I, a preacher, am right. (File under: Divine Right of Preachers...:>)
I think you are wrong. It appears to give them a distinct disadvantage under the law.
I believe you can constitutionally pass a law that will deny any person the right to file suit for discrimination based upon "sexual orientation". But in order for that suit to pass equal protection muster, it must not deprive any individual from equal protection under the laws. In other words it must be reciprocal and essentially apply to all persons "equally." Thus a law prohibiting any lawsuit of any kind for a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation or even sexual behavior would pass constitutional muster but it must allow the homosexuals the right to discriminate against heterosexuals and families without fear of lawsuit. IOW you must remove sexual orientation as the basis of any suit and not merely as the basis of a suit against homosexuals.
Colorado could have solved the problem by making homosexual behavior illegal (as then it would bar any discrimination since the person discriminating would be discriminating against those engaged in criminal activites -- which would be legal and would bar any claim for discrimination by operation of law), but the supreme court in Lawrence closed that door.
After hearing arguments from both sides, I lean towards a finding that the statute in question was poorly drafted and denies equal protection under the laws to all citizens and unconsitutionally singles out a specific group for denial of rights available to other citizens based solely upon a perception that they belong to a group which engages in activites that are legally sanctioned by the state.
I will need more persuasive arguments from your side to make me vote to uphold this particular piece of leglislation. I am inclined at this point to agree with the majority.
Here are my question to those who agree with the minority:
1) Under this law could a person file a suit against a homosexual person for denying them access to the homosexual's restaurant, apartment building, store, exercise facility or other accomodation becuase the homosexual percieves that they are heterosexuals?
Could a homosexual be sued for denying anyone access to homosexually owned accomodations because the homosexual perceived them to be fundamentalist christian heterosexuals or that he perceived that they othewise had a bias against homosexuals?
If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then, in my opinion, the statute does not provide equal protection to all citizens under the law.