From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:51:57 GMT

In article <1inoq0INNh1a@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com
(Walter Smith) writes:
>rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>> In the first place, insisting on talking about the current situation
>> misses one of the points.  While many places have not forbidden
>> discrimination, Colorado has explicitly legalized it.  
>
>Either way you look at it, in a state where there is no inclusion of 
>sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination statutes, the discrimination 
>is legal.   As for Colorado "legalizing" it, that is true in three instances; 
>Denver, Boulder, and Aspen; who had such orientation inclusions, and where 
>such discrimination was explicitly _illegal_.  These towns were actually 
>ahead of most of the country on protecting the rights of homosexuals. 
>Now, those have been reversed, and the situation there has been reduced 
>to being _on par_ with most of the rest of the country, which has no 
>such sexual orientation clauses; where discrimination based on sexual 
>orientation is *not* illegal.  (and thus, legal) As the Cracker Barrel 
>case showed.   

You deleted the text that made the point of my paragraph.  This point is
not about what people's rights are; it is about why Colorado is being
singled out.  Let me try again.  Consider three cases:
	(1) discrimination is forbidden by law
	(2) discrimination is not addressed by law
	(3) a law forbidding discrimination is prohibited
You are correct that the effects of (2) and (3) on an individual's
rights are the same.  Still, many people who favor laws prohibiting
discrimination find changing from (1) or (2) to (3) much more
reprehensible than simply being in state (2).

>> In the second place, here is a difference.  CO2 prevents any court's
>> enforcing a policy that protects non-straight people from
>> discrimination.  I don't have the text in front of me, but the language
>> is not explicitly limited to governmental policies.  Suppose I work for
>> a company enlightened enough to have a policy protecting employees from
>> being fired for being gay, but for a manager unenlightened enough to do
>> it anyway, and I am fired for being gay.  I can go to court in any
>> state but Colorado to compel the company to follow its policy, under
>> contract law, but CO2 denies me that access.
>
>If the state in question doesn't have sexual orientation in the state's 
>anti-discrimination codes, on what basis will you be approaching them 
>legally?  If there is nothing in the law to protect you, you have no 
>legal recourse.

I will approach them under contract law.  A stated company policy has
the force of a contract.  Thus if I am fired in violation of a company
policy I will sue the company for breach of contract.  But in Colorado
the court is prohibited from enforcing the company's policy.

>And your example only even has meaning if the company 
>you work for has such inclusion in _its_ policy.

I said "Suppose I work for a company [that has] a policy ...."  You
asked how CO differs from other states.  This hypothetical case shows a
difference.

--Rich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush