Failure to do so resulted in forced appearance before a "Valuing of Differences Committee," and sensitivity training designed to encourage acceptance of gay sexual behavior. Protecting gay status thus led this firm to defy clear Policy Statements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protect the right to private conscience. We fear many other such civil rights abuses would ensue from legislation granting protected class status to gays.

Gay special advantage legislation's economic impact on states' business community and economy would doubtless be devastating. California governor Pete Wilson acknowledged this probability in recently vetoing such legislation.

Contributing mightily to Wilson's veto was tremendous pressure from the business community, which saw the likelihood of an avalanche of nuisance litigation that would further complicate doing business in an already ailing economy. (Legal costs of taking a single special gay advantage "discrimination" case to the U.S. Supreme Court are estimated in excess of $250,000.)

The Chamber of Commerce of Colorado Springs also recognized the possible negative impact of special gay advantage legislation during a recent battle in that city over a proposed Human Rights Ordinance. In a position paper on the issue, the Chamber stated unanimously:

"The proposed city ordinance grants additional, broad, investigative and enforcement powers to an expanded commission on the local level, which are unnecessarily duplicative and costly.

"The ordinance would add another layer of regulatory bureaucracy with which employers and virtually every business enterprise must comply, increasing the likelihood of interagency conflict, added costs and confusion on the part of employers, and litigation.

"It is unlikely that existing Federal and State agencies' regulatory powers would be eliminated or diminished in favor of local jurisdiction in such cases; rather the creation of the City Human Rights Commission [a new bureaucracy charged to enforce the "gay special advantage" provisions of the proposed ordinance] would add to the burden of employers, property owners and business operators to comply with additional regulations, broad policing powers, and little recourse for frivolous actions or complaints. Moreover, the expanded Commission represents a costly addition to the city budget that is not justified by current or past experience."