Thomas, you are correct about the US Supreme Court decision. The decision was decided on the basis of the equal protection clause. If Colorado had chosen to ban localities from having nondiscrimination ordinances of any kind, the referenda liklely would have been legal. The referenda singled out only one category of people and denied them the right to seek to have their grievances addressed on the local level. That is where the constitutional argument lies.
The fact that Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, Pueblo, Telluride, Aspen, and a host of other cities had or have sexual orientation in their local ordinances(several have gender identity as well) show that what was politically impossible on a state level was possible on a local level. This has been true with just about every social justice movement in US history including the right to vote for women, the abolition of slavery, and previous to the US constitution only Rhode Island guaranteed freedom of religion. Change begins on the local level. I am proud to live in Minneapolis, the second city in the United States to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the first city in North America to provide protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity(1973). I believe that Minneapolis is a better place today for everyone who lives here due to the contributions of the talented people that those groundbreaking protections drew to this city. While nation wide the average gay man made a third less than his heterosexual counterpart with the same level of education and work experience due to discrimination in the workplace as recently as four years ago, Minneapolis has benefited from many of the best and brightest of glbt people who were able and knew to immigrate to Minneapolis-a place where glbt people were(are) far less subject to disrimination. This is part of the reason the average gay household in the Twin Cities area has a higher income than the general average(the obverse is true on a national level). Exceptional people came here to take advantage of the exceptional social environment and legal protections here. This effect has less and less impact as acceptance of glbt people becomes more mainstream and spread across the landscape. Needless to say, I believe it was positive for the city to have been an innovator in this area and not leave all nondiscimination laws to the state(1993 sexual orientation was added in MN) or the federal government(yet to be enacted). Everyone has a sexual orientation. I know some believe that an individual can change their sexual orientation and say therefore it should not be a protected class. Can people change their religion? The same ordinance protects people from discrimination on the basis of their religion. I say our community should continue to say no to the "Bring Back the Lions Committee" whatever the basis is that some folks want us to use to determine that other folks are lion chow. Thanks, David Strand Loring Park __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
