We hoped that we were wrong. Unfortunately, we were not: SB200 was about restrooms after all.
Last summer, the liberals in the Colorado legislature passed a new “non-discrimination” law that added “sexual orientation” — a phrase that includes “transgender status” — to a host of Colorado statutes, including the state “public accommodations” law.
That statute prohibits discrimination by anyone who offers goods and services to the public, and applies to almost every entity you can think of, from fitness centers and sports stadiums to schools and department stores.
Among other things, SB200 made it legal for a man to enter a women’s restroom or locker room by claiming that his “gender identity” was that of a woman. That’s all he needs to say. No evidence required.
At the time, Focus on the Family stood virtually alone as we warned the public that this type of law might provide the perfect cover for peeping toms, pedophiles and sexual predators to enter intimate public areas in search of prey, while tying the hands of business owners trying to protect their customers” privacy.
We urged citizens to call Gov. Ritter and ask him not to sign the bill into law. The Governor signed it anyway, despite what he later told gay activists at a fund-raising dinner was “overwhelming” public opposition to it.
Democratic bill supporters who promptly claimed that SB200 “had nothing to do with restrooms” included Gov. Ritter’s press secretary Evan Dreyer and former State Rep. and incoming Secretary of State Bernie Buescher.
On June 26, 2008, Buescher even told the Grand Junction Free Press, “(SB200) prohibits discrimination — it says nothing about men using women’s bathrooms. Should it be interpreted that way, I’d be the first to lead an effort to modify it.”
But then an interesting thing happened. The Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) announced a January 23 public hearing on proposed administrative rules to guide the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in enforcing SB200.
Guess what? Out of the 13 rules, three of them, with a total of 7 subparts, deal entirely with restrooms, locker rooms and the like! So much for “it’s not about restrooms.”
In fact, DORA’s proposed rules make a risky law potentially even more dangerous. It directs that “owners shall allow” the use of restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities to anyone “consistent with their transgender status.”
Who decides what someone’s “transgender status” is? The person demanding access. And, any business owner who questions a man entering the woman’s restroom commits an act that “suggests discriminatory conduct,” according to the new rules.
What incentive do business owners have to protect their patron’s privacy and safety if they risk fines or (yes) jail time for doing so? What legal liability will owners incur if a patron is victimized and the owner could have prevented it but was frightened into inaction by this law?
Pledges from the Governor and legislators that crimes committed by peeping toms, pedophiles and sexual predators in women’s locker rooms will be fully prosecuted miss the point.
Do we need a heinous crime to be committed before elected officials realize that public safety is potentially sacrificed by this new law?
By the way, the public hearing on the proposed rules was canceled earlier this month when DORA apparently realized it should research the potential financial cost to business owners who follow DORA’s “recommendation” to remodel their restrooms and locker rooms to “create private spaces.”
The proposed rules were removed from DORA’s website when the public hearing was canceled, but we downloaded a copy at our Web site, . Curiously, DORA created a full-color brochure explaining how the new restroom rules will work. So much for waiting for public input.
Enough is enough. The first duty of government is to protect the safety of its citizens. So, who is going to remedy this legislative blunder? Gov. Ritter? State legislators? Or perhaps newly designated Secretary of State Buescher? Someone must take the lead.
Bruce Hausknecht is a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
