quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

The protections are for churches but only within building walls. Street preachers, home churches, churches involvment in community activities, etc are not protected. Para-church organizations and businesses (even if started as a Christian business) are not exempt as well. Only the church building itself. So if you objected to homosexual special rights on moral issues you would be afoul of the law.

The way it's written it effectively silences the Church (body of believers) outside of the building.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

The protections are for churches but only within building walls. Street preachers, home churches, churches involvment in community activities, etc are not protected. Para-church organizations and businesses (even if started as a Christian business) are not exempt as well. Only the church building itself. So if you objected to homosexual special rights on moral issues you would be afoul of the law.

The way it's written it effectively silences the Church (body of believers) outside of the building.

You keep saying that, Dobson and WorldNut do, but where in the proposed bill does it say that?

quote:

(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.

quote:

12-54-104. Unlawful acts. (1) It is unlawful:
PAGE 11-SENATE BILL 08-200
(b) To discriminate because of race, creed, color, or RELIGION,
DISABILITY, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MARITAL STATUS, national origin,
OR ANCESTRY in the provision of funeral services;

quote:

12-59-106. Minimum standards. (1) In establishing the criteria
required by section 12-59-105.3 (1) (a), (1) (b), and (1) (k), the board shall
observe and require compliance with at least the following minimum
standards for all schools:
(s) That the school shall not deny enrollment of a student or make
any distinction or classification of students on account of race, color, creed,
RELIGION, national origin, or ANCESTRY, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR
MARITAL STATUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

quote:

12-54-104. Unlawful acts. (1) It is unlawful:
PAGE 11-SENATE BILL 08-200
(b) To discriminate because of race, creed, color, or RELIGION,
DISABILITY, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MARITAL STATUS, national origin,
OR ANCESTRY in the provision of funeral services;

What if a preacher refuses to do a funeral for a homosexual?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

Also, in that bill, any school will have to accept homosexuals. Even a Christian academy would be required to do so.

quote:

12-59-106. Minimum standards. (1) In establishing the criteria
required by section 12-59-105.3 (1) (a), (1) (b), and (1) (k), the board shall
observe and require compliance with at least the following minimum
standards for all schools:
(s) That the school shall not deny enrollment of a student or make
any distinction or classification of students on account of race, color, creed,
RELIGION, national origin, or ANCESTRY, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR
MARITAL STATUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

cow,

The funeral section does not stipulate solely funeral homes. It only says services. A eulogy or a pastor's spoken words do qualify as a service conducted at a funeral.

Regarding the schools, I quoted the first declaration. It covers all schools. Read what I bolded.

quote:

To infringe upon a ministers right clearly contradicts the religious expression and worship provisions of this bill. You are quote-mining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

quote:

To infringe upon a ministers right clearly contradicts the religious expression and worship provisions of this bill. You are quote-mining.

I was just trying to show areas where the Church will lose out. I am not quote mining. BTW, the religious expression protection is guaranteed only within a building for the express purpose of religious expression, not in any other place. That is specified within this bill, too.

I agree. This bill needs some major clarification and redraft.

quote:

BTW, in scanning the web, nobody seems concerned about parochial schools. The Colorado education Association website summarized the education section as being specific to public schools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

quote:

BTW, in scanning the web, nobody seems concerned about parochial schools. The Colorado education Association website summarized the education section as being specific to public schools.

Therein lies the problem. This agency and that agency says yada yada, but the bill does not say what they claim it does. It is wide open.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP
(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.

What if someone is reading a flyer teaching that homosexuality is wrong, and a homosexual complains about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP
(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.

What if someone is reading a flyer teaching that homosexuality is wrong, and a homosexual complains about it?

The bill wouldn't limit preaching that homosexuality is wrong, or even spreading fliers or written material claiming homosexuality is wrong. It would only limit denying homosexuals the right to "goods, services, facilities, privileges" of a place of public accommodation, or written material which indicates that homosexuals will be refused the right of access to places of public accommodation.

This section of the bill specifically addresses just allowing access to public areas regardless of sexual orientation -things like speaking out in public against homosexuals would still be allowed. So a preacher speaking on a public street corner wouldn't be illegal, as he's not refusing homosexuals accommodation of said street corner.

A good example of a case where this might be applied is if a public swimming pool denied access to gays. Or if they posted a sign or written material stating that everyone could swim there except for gays, in an attempt to deny gays access or mislead them into thinking that they did not have access (and this provision about written material seems specifically designed to prevent people from misleading specific groups into the belief that they don't have access to something in order to prevent them from access -so it wouldn't cover political and religious speech/arguments, etc).

So I agree with cow that this seems to be just the latest Worldnetdaily attempt at creating hysteria where it's not warranted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels

[sm=shakinghead.gif]It became official here in my state this morning. The first homosexual couple in our state got married this morning.[:'(] It was two 80 year old females. I like California (it is geographically beautiful here), but today I'm feeling like if my family wasn't here and if I could afford it, I would consider moving.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

Homosexual Activists Oppose Medal for Retired General
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 19, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Two homosexual advocacy groups are criticizing the decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to retired General Peter Pace. He'll be honored on Thursday.

"Honoring General Pace with the country's highest civilian award is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops currently serving on active duty in the armed forces," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), in a news release on Wednesday.

Story continues

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

Will gay rights trample religious freedom?
By Marc D. Stern
June 17, 2008

Early this morning, gay and lesbian couples were surely lining up at county clerk's offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court.

In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

And yet there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion.

Story continues

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

The Christian news sites I start my news reading on have these as hot topics. It gets me all worked up too. Evil is struggling to gain the advantage in our legal and political institutions. And they are making headway.

This definitely isn't stuff to read when trying to go to sleep. It keeps the blood pressure up.