It is not Judicial Activism. It was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people. The people may not like it, but they have the right and ability to then vote the clowns out of office too.

And the rider will be struck down by the first court challenge. Legislatures are not very smart in some respects, especially this one.

Living here in CO, I'm quite surprised at this bill.

Even further I'm appalled at the fact that the senator from my district sponsored this bill. (Isgar - D).

While Colorado is not the No. 1 state for having the most registered sex offenders per capita the appended aspect regarding the bathrooms does have cause for concern for this (CO was ranked 25th according to Swivel.com).

On the minimizing damages they did exclude religious places (ie synagogues, Churches, Mosques, etc). They are exempted from this new law.

This outright a really bad Bill!

~AD is not happy!

AD

maybe you can keep us abreast as you hear the reaction.  I'm curious as to the backlash when the people realize how they were NOT represented and really have no say at all here. 

Doc, you're right....... maybe I should call it Legislature  (or Governor) Tyranny instead.  I'm just so tired of the blatant judicial tyranny that's happening all over the place.  These clowns should be looking for new jobs because I can't believe they can feel good about their latest decision. 

 

 

The odd thing is I had to search pretty heartily in order to find info in the papers on this. This piece of legislation went relatively quietly in comparison to the others. Supposedly there were 20 bills signed on last Friday (this being one).

My guess, is that majority of Coloradoans don't know anything about this. It may be just me but it seems that it is rather difficult to follow legislation here. There is another piece of legislation that I'm concerned about but haven't found out when the 'hearing' is (Gas and oil regs).

this backdoor thing is very common when they want to circumvent the people's vote.  Seen it happen in Maine almost exactly like this after defeating soundly the homosexual bil something like three times.  That's why we have watchgroups out there watching these cats.

The only diff I can see from what happened in ME and the one here in CO is the fact that you people have NO recourse.  It doesn't matter what you think and you are to just accept it. 

I'd see if you can turn on or check with James Dobson out there in CO.  I'll bet you dollars to donuts he's got their number and is going to be (if not already) broadcasting this on his radio program.  He's usually right on top of this stuff. 

 

 

Dobson's the reason why I knew about this bill. He's also the reason for the exception of religious facilities from this bill.

Didn't know that. But I knew he'd be on top of this......lol. He's my man!! So do I get the donuts or the dollars?   

I have yet to find Dobson or FOF here in Florida. I'll have to do a google search and find him here somewhere since skimming thru the stations gets me nowhere thus far.

You can stream Dobson's daily radio clip on his website.

Dobson does have some good stuff and their ability to stay on top of certain issues have been great.

I haven't decided what I want to do about this information. I am outraged about this bill and am considering to write a letter to the editor (of local paper) OR wait and campaign use this to campaign against Isgar at next election (no I won't run just wanna give him a black eye in hopes of helping a conservative get in).

Problem is people have short memories when it comes time to vote. It should be a requirement to have a large, easy to read poster of each bill/law the candidate (local and state) supported during their last term placed in a prominent location at each polling place. Maybe the memory deficient would be reminded. All candidates should welcome this approach if they are proud of their voting records. Maybe some of this nonsense would cease.

Here's what I've found after further digging:

Here is the controversial Section 6:

"(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."

The ALL CAPS are the additions. Paragraph 1 (1) defines and gives examples of "public accommodations." I spoke to Ellen Roberts - R (House Rep) from my area and she said this does include any 'public' bathroom, changing room, locker room, etc. Her background is in Law and expressed with me great concern over this amendment.

Now for the record I am not trying to discriminate against transgenders or anyone. The problem I have with this legislation is the disregard of safety of family. I am by no means saying that transgenders = sex offenders but rather suggesting that sex offenders may use the guise of transgender to pursue their next victim. If I object to someone going into the bathroom while my wife is in there I may be subject to going to jail for up to 1 year!

I think I'd be more worried about allowing priests to use publec bathrooms. C'mom folks, as far as I know anyway, there is no relationship between transgendered people and sexual predators.  This article is all about creating fear.

 

Get a grip.

 

 

I might add politicians to that bathroom thing as well.

So Daiho, did you not read all the comments?

so you don't see anything wrong with our legislators making up laws and then prohibiting any say against what they have legislated? Nothing wrong with circumventing the people's vote?

I think our government needs to get a grip.




exactly. That's what I was thinking as well.

Thanks AD for the info.