Colorado Senate Bill 200

On Friday, Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) signed into law Senate Bill 200, which is a revision of a previous anti-discrimination law. Opponents of the bill, led by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, argued that it would allow for any transgender man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa at all public places (including schools), and that proprietors have no legal recourse. Furthermore, any proprietor who tries to prevent this behavior would find himself or herself sitting in jail for a year. I have to admit, legalizing such a specific law on who can use which bathrooms with such a stringent penalty seemed like an awfully silly thing to do. So I found the text of the law (hyperlinked above) and read it for myself.

What I found was interesting. The existing law made acts of discrimination with respect to housing practices, public places (not including churches), publication of written or other materials, and so on, illegal. A majority of what was changed was the addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes’ characteristics, which already included race, religion, ethnicity and the like. SB 200 basically says, “You can’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.” I would wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, it is wrong to discriminate against anyone, and as a follower of Christ, why would I do that anyway?

The section about which Focus on the Family took issue was Section 6: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, which reads in part (I have emboldened relevant text):

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

From this reading, it does seem like Focus has a valid argument. If someone is transgendered, then he/she legally could use the bathroom he/she finds most applicable, right? Wrong. Take a look at part of Section 7: Penalty and Civil Liability (again, relevant text is emboldened):

Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to
any citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every
disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in
said section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved

Apparently Dr. Dobson didn’t read this particular clause. With respect to the bathroom issue, I would think that the age-old gender division of bathrooms would be a perfect example of an exemption of this type. All citizens of the country understand that their bathroom choice in a public place is based on their physical “plumbing” as it were. That is how society functions, regardless of one’s creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. The intent of this law, therefore, was not to allow for crazy bathroom switching but to protect a group of people from discrimination.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. I could be mistaken with my interpretation. Maybe she-males are secretly plotting how they are going to infiltrate men’s restrooms around the state. I would encourage you, therefore, to read SB 200 yourself, and come to your own conclusions.