Colorado Opens Women’s Room to Men, Predators

How can any logical person think this is a good idea?

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat, signed Senate Bill 200, which essentially let’s any man who says he’s really a woman, use the women’s facilities in public places. By facilities, I mean the restroom and locker room:

The bill initially outlines requirements for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation for things like housing, car insurance, funeral services and public accommodation.

The bill also extends bans on discrimination, where previously unwritten, for things like race, creed, color, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status and national origin or ancestry.

So what? Is it that bad? Yeah, it’s that bad. In the mind of the Colorado left, separate bathrooms for men and women are as awful as separate bathrooms for blacks and whites:

There are multiple problems with this legislation, but the problem of restrooms is the most breathtaking one. Until now, establishments open to the public have been allowed to restrict certain restrooms and locker rooms to one sex if it made sense to do so, as it almost always does. With SB 200, however, we no longer have two “sexes”; we enter a brave new world with a myriad of “sexual orientations” that must not be discriminated against, upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalties contained in the bill.

Woe to the first women’s fitness facility or mall owner who objects to a man dressed as a woman who wants to enter previously forbidden territory. And what an opportunity for sexual predators to use this law as “cover” to enter intimate areas in search of a victim.

A big part of the law is how “sexual orientation is defined,” as that will have a big impact on the application of the law:

In the bill, “sexual orientation” is defined as “a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.” This latter term includes cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who are in the process of deciding.

So it pretty much means nothing and everything. It has no definition. You could wake up and say, “Hmm. I feel like a pretty little school girl. I think I’ll use the ladies facilities today.” And no one legally could stop you. If they did, they would be discriminating against your “sexual orientation.” After all, you are “in the process of deciding.”

So what if you are a Christian who says that this type of behavior is a sin? So what is right. You have to either violate your own beliefs or suffer the consequences:

SB 200 threatens religious liberty. That’s because Colorado’s broadly defined “public accommodations” law includes not just hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, and all the usual places you’d think of, but also every small business, even a home-based business, that offers “goods or services” to the public.

A refusal to do business with someone based on a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong would violate the law. That threatens the religious liberties of every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles.

This is not a hypothetical threat. In Albuquerque, which has a similar law, a Christian husband and wife who own and operate their own photography studio were recently hauled before that state’s human rights commission and fined more than $6,600 for politely refusing, on religious grounds, to photograph a lesbian “commitment ceremony.”

Yeah, you read that right. A private photographer refused business to a gay couple because the couple was living in a manner contrary to their beliefs. Never mind the Christian’s beliefs, this is discrimination, so they have to stand tall before the state’s human rights commission. Here’s the story as Volokh (via Velvet Hammer and Stop the ACLU) reported it:

Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane’s work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a “photojournalist” approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.

Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create.

Woe to the Christian, Muslim or Jewish business owner who refuses to let a man use the women’s room.

How can the morons running Colorado not see this as a threat to women and children in the bathroom? How can they not know that this law will be taken advantage of by predators. Not only in the act of using the women’s room to troll for victim’s, but in furthering the pro-pedophile agenda. As I wrote before in “The Shadow Sexual Revolution - The Push to Legalize Pedophilia”:

The current movement to legalize and normalize pedophilia may seem unrealistic to some. I have yet to have someone agree with me when I claim that it will be legal in the next 25-30 years. But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority. They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered. Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of America’s tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt.

Maybe my estimation of 25-30 years was too generous.