First, they're lying. A 1991 Colorado Springs proposed "Human Rights Ordinance" employed the term "protected status," and included gays under it, numerous times. The same ordinance draft includes all protected classes in the city's Affirmative Action Plan. A proposed Grand Rapids, Michigan, ordinance asks that city to recognize gays as a "protected class." Denver's recently-passed "gay rights" ordinance refers to gays as "a minority group," together with all classes protected under the ordinance. Boulder, Colorado's "gay rights" ordinance contains a clause clearly allowing the practice of affirmative action for all classes protected under the ordinance. Colorado gays would have been included in a proposed, but defeated "Ethnic Harassment Bill," increasing to felonies penalties against harassment of "ethnic groups," including gays.

On February 19, 1991, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission convened at City Council Chambers in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Among the agenda items for that evening, we read:

"VI.Public Hearing/Audience Participation

"The Commission will take public testimony to assist in determining its position on whether sexual orientation should be a protected class under Colorado civil rights laws. The Commission will consider such information in its support of legislation in the 59th General Assembly (1992)." (emphasis added)

Second, no persons who are not members of protected classes can make discrimination claims. To claim one doesn't want protected class status but does want to make anti-discrimination claims, or come under anti-discrimination laws is deceptive double- talk. To award any group anti-discrimination protections is to make that group a protected class, whether that status, and its privileges are named in a proposed "gay rights" ordinance or not. This "dodge" holds no water, and gay militants should not be allowed to use it unchallenged.