seeing the comments already posted I can only say, "wow, talk about bitter
labelers!"where is the bill to ban discrimination based on:hair - or lack thereof?right-handed vs left-handed?tall vs
short?ugly vs good looking?tenor vs bass, alto vs soprano?brass vs woodwinds vs percussion?warts?moles?tattoos?scars?shirts vs skins?red vs blue?squeaky voice?nasaly
voice?love of animated movies?love of violent movies?love of
violent animated movies?ABC vs NBC?Fox vs MSNBC?skirt vs
pants?bikini vs one-piece?SUV vs LEV? there is MANDATED
discrimination on that one!vegan vs carnivore?fur vs cotton?or
any percieved slight based on whatever affinity group suits your fancy?
The Sutherland Institute has spoken.
I guess they'e afraid that the animus that would be displayed during debate
on the bills would negate the (false) claim of no animus against GLBT people
which the state is trying to assert in its appeal arguments. If they but knew
it, the fact that they are refusing to protect the right of GLBT people to be
free from discrimination in housing and employment is showing their animus.
Closed door meetings?Wait, I thought repubs hated those!Interesting, how the people who scream loudest about these types of meetings
at the federal level are suddenly supportive of them at the local level.
"It's not an issue." The conservatives have spoken.