New anti-discrimination law: Panorama: Rocky Mountain PBS: a1

Denver

48°

Blogs Health Care Tech Talk Green Living National Parks Super School News The 1930s

Facing the Mortgage Crisis
Colorado State of Mind - Budget Cuts to Higher Education
Women in power: what drives them to lead and what holds them back?
Public lands in the media spotlight
Native American Heritage Month
Health Care

Masterpiece Contemporary: Collision (Part 2 of 2)
Sunday at 9pm

Mystery of Chaco Canyon
Wednesday at 8pm

Movie: Harry and Tonto (1974)
Saturday at 8pm

True Whispers: The Story of the Navajo Code Talker
Tuesday at 8pm

Nova: Why Do We Dream?
Tuesday at 7pm

New anti-discrimination law

posted Friday, June 6, 2008 3:51pm

See more on: Colorado State of Mind, GLBT, Laws & Law Enforcement

From the June 6 program: Is Colorado's newest anti-discrimination law necessary, giving more protections for sexual orientation?

Tune In

Colorado State of Mind
"Unions"

Watch Colorado State of Mind
Complete episodes online. Watch now.

What's your point of view?

Richard Taylor
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 7:49pm
If I want to listen to four women yell and talk over each other, I'll watch "The View." I expect better from "Colorado State of Mind."

Leslie Hanks
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 7:50pm
Kudos to Kendall for holding her own against
the juggernaut of political correctness sweeping
our state, nation and your show.

God help our children!!

malcolm
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 7:56pm
The governer and democrat party is pandering to the homosexual agenda at the expense of too many unentended unexpected consequences. The two panelists who support the law DO NOT respect MY rights - pure and simple., I in turn DO NOT respect the two ladies.

Margaret Whitson
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8pm
I've NEVER seen anybody's genitals in a woman's bathroom. They are either single with locks or have stalls with doors. What a red herring!

Jim Hays
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:04pm
Rude people like Kendall should not be invited to appear on the show. She is obviously so insecure in her beliefs that she feels she must constantly interupt others when they are expressing their views.

Kaye Bisbee
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:05pm
I personally find this law an abomination. The State is telling me that if I do not go along with the attempt to make someone feel good about them selves that I can get fined. I will read this law that states anyone can go into the bathroom in a public place , I will not go there if a man can walk in. Its is not my place to judge him...however my right to be protected from fear has been viotated. I can not imagine how many boys in high school will want to pretend to be a girl for the day to go in. This la w it sound to me is an attempt to force those of us that have differing views of life and deciency to be required to change ...YOU can not legislate morality. I think this should come to a vote of the people. If indeed we are a goverment of the people for the people...then laws like this one should never have been passed by a group of representatives that did not take this to the people...We find out AFTER the fact...It has the exact same footprint of judges who legislate from the bench...I would never vote for this...I prefer to protect our children and women....and owners of businesses...I am politcally incorrect ...as I am sure I will be labled. Many people are outragged by this as I am.

carol
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:07pm
I agree that listening to these women try to out-yell each other was non-productive, especially with the ACLU woman and the single-minded Republican, neither of whom would give the other the courtesy of listening before interrupting. It was a non-productive "discussion" of an interesting topic.

I definitely would have a broader view of the law if restrooms were specifically excluded. I have been in countries with unisex restrooms, and was very uncomfortable using those facilities.

For the record, I am a Democrat.

Nancy Crafton
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:11pm
what a free for all! Who was moderating this discussion?? Kendall certainly does not represent Christianity...she represents HER interpretation of Christianity! How very SAD!

Ann Woods
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:13pm
Thank you for including the guests from the ACLU and Outfront on tonight's broadcast. As a member of the GLBT community, I can say that we have waited a long, long time for the state of Colorado to include us in the group of persons that cannot be discriminated against, no matter what your faith community believes. Religious dogma and human/civil rights are not one and the same!

Aaron Mac
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:16pm
I worry about people like Kendal, nothing but negatives to bring to the table,and instead of being insightful she was just trying to out argue.......

Jeanine Pow
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8:29pm
Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is a biological reality! Wow... I question the authenticity of the 'bathroom' argument re GLBT PEOPLE. The argument presumes that those different from these two fine Christian women threatens the sanctity of their godly (small 'g') families by the mere presence of people unlike themselves in a PUBLIC bathroom. Of course, the elephant in the living room is how do you know that the person is unlike you. Was there a dialogue, an inquiry, an interrogation, a biolocial inspection... or merely a disgust that someone who did not look as straight or as fem as these two women might have the audacity to need to pee?. Spare me! What an lame excuse for homophobia. I am a state employee who regularly shares a woman's bathroom with a PERSON whom, I presume, is a transgendered person. 1) I have never asked this person if they are transgendered although, if I chose to be so presumptuous, that person might confirm my conclusions; and 2) I have never been put in fear nor offended by that PERSON'S presence since a) we have separate and securable stalls and b) I empathysize with their biologically imposed situation (what a concept). It is so transparent to me that the 'religious freedom' promoted bu two of the women on your program were nothing more than bigotry and ignorance, shrouded in the cloak of 'religious rights.' These women do a disservice to the true message of Jesus (i.e. love and acceptance), have no understanding of our Constitutions (state or U.S.) and, through their ignorance, attempt to promote hatred and oppression in the world. A very un-Christian and un-American perspective. Kudos to Katherine Hazori and the articulate black woman who spoke for tolerance and equality FOR ALL under the law. P.S. Please list the name of the speakers more frequently during your programing as about half of them are people that I would like to contact and embrance!)

William Peterson
Saturday, June 7, 2008 › 1:27am
The opinion that I want to express is this - I was bothered GREATLY by the terrible demeanor exhibited on the June 6 program. I have never seen such coarse and unproductive interruption of the panel by one person on that panel. I watch every Friday with a friend and throw up our hands when there is useless argumentation on The McLaughlin Report - but this seemed to outstrip that program for rudeness.

John Casson
Saturday, June 7, 2008 › 8:44am
My wife and I have watched Colorado State of Mind for many years. Last night, we were disgusted by the rudeness of the lady from ACLU who monopolized the discussion. We felt that Greg Dobbs should have redirected and controlled the program much better. We could not hear or understand the different viewpoints.

Susie Adamson
Saturday, June 7, 2008 › 10:51am
First of all, as a woman who highly values privacy in a restroom, I totally resent the new law that will at penalty of law penalizes me for wanting what is a purely feminine requirement - separation and privacy. I'm afraid I will be hostile to this invasion at the hands of a dictatorial governor and his pandering legislature. They overstepped their bounds this time. It is obvious to me that our governance cares not a whit about the sensitivities of most women in this regard. Constant lobbying by special interest groups are increasingly causing laws to be created laws intended to forcibly fit us all into an identical mode of thinking against our wills. Enough is enough!

I am deeply offended by a law that could have unintentional consequences. How many people who are merely voyours or deviants could cross-dress and now legally have his access? This is not a fear reaction (as our dear governor contends) but a very possible reality that should have been considered. While the gay community as a whole might not be a threat, that issue alone is. Are we now to avoid the use of opublic restrooms to cater to the "special needs" of a group whose own choices created their this "need"?

In regard to the panelists, I found this discussion(?) to be nothing more than a yelling session monopolized by those who support the law in question. To describe the panelist from the ACLU who is frequently on the program as "passionate" is a missnomer. She is a loudmouth zealot who seeks to drown out others. PLEASE, Mr. Dobbs, be a good moderator and do not allow this type of rude, inconsiderate people on the program. I'm sure you can find people who can respectfully debate issues without using PBS as a forum for shoving their views down other's throats.

george
Saturday, June 7, 2008 › 1:55pm
What a minefield subject!
I am a gay male & i have some questions with this.
Kendall is masking her caustic bigotry behind her children, but a few of her poses have merit.

In a 'female' restroom with stalls there is little legitimate probability of people of any gender exposing themselves unless there is intent to do so.
So a provision against intentionally exposing oneself there, short of an emergency(?), would seem to make sense to me.
In 'male' restrooms, with urinals, i suppose inadvertent exposure is possible (natural?).

The locker-room is a real question.
I suppose if we had a more mature &/or subdued response to the sight of genitals, especially of the opposite sex, this shouldn't be an issue, but that isn't our reality.
I suppose here it is a matter of harassing through visual parading or proximity that might be a reasonable caveat. This would make sense even for people of the same gender. People should not be bothering people who don't want to be bothered. Probably some people do lounge around in a locker room, and it is casual in nature is suppose that should be legitimate. Standing on benches wagging your whatevers is not considered 'casual'.

It is a kind of delicate subject that should be handled with articulation & care,
not just a brain-dead reflex bludgeon in response to the pre-existing bigoted bludgeon.

It may be there won't be any significant events,
but rest assured if there i a SINGLE one,
religious zealot bigots like Kendal will overblow them into a political, social, religious crusade.
Population numerics favor traditional bigotry.
So for strategic reasons enlightened people must co-opt all thinking people with reasonable, well crafted statutes, otherwise it will just fall to the lowest, common, ignorant denominator.

The point of the left should not be to simply out-bigot the ignorant right,
it should be to bring true enlightenment & civility to society,
based on intellect & reason.

Steve Luera
Sunday, June 8, 2008 › 1:24pm
?Fine spot you?ve got us in now, Ollie!?

Oh the joy of politics!! Bullets whiz from the Right as bloodlust crazed patriots game at war, whilst from the Left crazed perverts play with their sexpistols while we whiz! Or worse, lurk in stalls of empty public restrooms, behind closed doors, waiting grab the unsuspecting. The old fox in the henhouse plan.

Conservatives conspire to keep our wages low but food, gas, medical and home prices high, with Liberal open borders leaving military and medical jobs the few remaining employment options, till faced with gun toting lesbians and squirrely docs asking ?please drop ?em and cough.?

Shipped to a distant desert to steal land and oil from indigenous peoples one is tempted to just wrap up in a sheet, jump on a camel and escape, then wait?.isn?t that a girlyboy out there cruising as Queen of the Sahara?

Not his brother?s keeper, Cain wants Arabs killed another hundred years. Hillary?s for before voting against, yet will in the end support her Jewish kin. Spinelessly, Obama merely claims he?ll join us with the largest coalition.

Explain again the greatness of Democracy? I was going to not vote for Hillary, now I get to not vote for Obama. I wasn?t ever going to vote for McCain anyway. Come election day I?m going back to bed!

Richard Taylor
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 7:49pm
If I want to listen to four women yell and talk over each other, I'll watch "The View." I expect better from "Colorado State of Mind."

Margaret Whitson
Friday, June 6, 2008 › 8pm
I've NEVER seen anybody's genitals in a woman's bathroom. They are either single with locks or have stalls with doors. What a red herring!