Skip to comments.
Ritter signs controversial anti-discrimination bill (he/shes in the bathrooms now)
Denver Post ^
| 5-29-08
| John Ingold
Posted on 05/29/2008 6:43:13 PM PDT by dynachrome
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: A.A. Cunningham
“We think this is another important step in making Colorado safe and inclusive and welcoming to all those who live there,” he said.
But for MOST who live there, it will be threatening and repelling.
21
posted on
05/30/2008 6:49:37 AM PDT
by
Let's Roll
(As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
To: dynachrome
22
posted on
05/30/2008 6:51:19 AM PDT
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: dynachrome
One more reason to avoid public restrooms.
23
posted on
05/30/2008 6:52:50 AM PDT
by
JZelle
To: joebuck
They only care about how the *victimized* feel.
Common sense is not very common these days.
To: dynachrome
Opponents said the bill would have serious consequences, such as opening up Colorado public restrooms and locker rooms to all genders and transgender people, exposing children and women to sexual predators. YIKES!
To: the invisib1e hand
How much of a toe tap or glance are the heshes allowed to make in the washroom before you can call the cops for being solicited?
26
posted on
05/30/2008 9:47:33 AM PDT
by
weegee
(VOTE MCCAIN: Susan Saradon says she will move to Italy or Canada if he's elected)
To: padre35
Chuck Berry is being fitted for a dress as we speak < /sarcasm >
27
posted on
05/30/2008 9:48:51 AM PDT
by
weegee
(VOTE MCCAIN: Susan Saradon says she will move to Italy or Canada if he's elected)
To: dynachrome
The Supreme Gods told us that Lawrence v. Texas was about consenting adults in private. Not in public washrooms.
28
posted on
05/30/2008 9:49:57 AM PDT
by
weegee
(VOTE MCCAIN: Susan Saradon says she will move to Italy or Canada if he's elected)
To: dynachrome
Who cares if women are sexually assaulted, raped or the victims of peeping toms so long as the government can make transgendered types try and feel better about themselves?
29
posted on
05/30/2008 9:53:46 AM PDT
by
Ol' Sparky
(Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
To: dynachrome
Would this also forbid kicking out of a public area same-sex couples engaged in public displays of affection?
One could argue that it protects sexual orientation, not expression, but I don't think that argument will be made.
30
posted on
05/30/2008 10:56:33 AM PDT
by
Dumb_Ox
(http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: george76
Next, corporations will have to prove they have the proper percentages of LBGT employees. Perhaps affirmative action will take care of it.
32
posted on
05/30/2008 2:14:17 PM PDT
by
MtnClimber
(Stalin, Mao, Castro, Obama.)
To: MtnClimber
The flood of sleezy con artists and their lawyers are headed this way.
Businesses will have to add lots of extra expensive insurance, hire new staff to fill out tons of new forms instead of producing something of value...then raise the prices of food, clothing, lodging, and energy.
33
posted on
05/30/2008 2:57:09 PM PDT
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson