Boulder law discriminates, prof testifies Protections are "reckless" to landlords, he asserts By Chris Wolf Colorado Daily Staff Writer DENVER -- City ordinances prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in housing, employment and public accommodations are "reckless" in their disregard for the Constitution's protections of freedom of association and religion, according to a George Mason University law professor who testified regarding Amendment 2 in Denver District Court Tuesday. Professor Joseph Broadus, who was called by attorneys for the state in their efforts to defend Colorado's anti-gay-rights amendment, said he was "greatly concerned" by the Boulder, Denver and Aspen human-rights ordinances' likelihood of undermining an individual's right to choose whom they need associate with in the hypothetical case of a room for rent. But under aggressive cross-examination by plaintiff's attorney Greg Eurich, Broadus admitted that he had not asked city officials in these or other cities that extend specific protections to many groups, including homosexuals, if such problems had arisen because of the laws. "While each of the ordinances vary in their terms, each have terms that are deeply disturbing in their ability to impinge upon the rights and freedom of association," Broadus told Assistant Attorney General Gregg Kay [may he burn in hell]. "The ordinances amount to violations of both the freedom of religion and the freedom of intimate association, if you're in the position where you need to rent out a room in your home," he said. Likewise, Broadus said, if a homosexual sought said hypothetical room [any of you homos out there ever sought a hypothetical room?], and homosexuality was [sic] offensive on religious grounds to the landlord, a legal right to recourse on the grounds of sexual-orientation discrimination would countermand the essential First Amendment freedom [right, there is no right to housing in this country]. Asked by Kay to summarize the message of Amendment 2, Broadus said, "Amendment 2 says to these local governments that have been so completely reckless in passing these ordinances, that if you don't know how to play with your toys, then we're going to take them away from you." In cross-examination, however, Eurich asked Broadus if he know of any case in which a landlord faced a lawsuit because he or she refused to rent to an applicant on the basis of sexual orientation. Broadus said he had not, and Eurich submitted that such a case is, at least, very rare. Additionally, Eurich asked Broadus if Amendment 2 couldn't easily have adopted clauses excluding situations broaching intimate association and religion from its purview, thereby maintaining for homosexuals their basic civil rights, while still assuaging Broadus's states concerns. "Amendment 2 could have contained an exemption saying,'We're going to exclude Mrs. Murphy's boarding house, and religious organizations,'" said Eurich. "It could have done that and still addressed your concerns. It could have done that instead of excluding gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from civil rights protections of any kind, couldn't it have?" "Yes," Broadus answered. When state attorney Kay [may he burn in hell] resumed his questioning of Broadus, however, the witness had different answers. Asked if he believed that Amendment 2 really "swept away" all homosexuals' basic civil rights, as Eurich had said, Broadus said he didn't. "No. What it does do is remove a kind of privilege in questions concerning civil rights laws," Broadus said. "Attorneys for the state also brought Robert Knight, the director of cultural studies for the Family Research Council, a "pro-family" [NOT] think tank, to testify in defense of Amendment 2. [Did he shed any tears for the destruction of Sharon Bottoms' family?] Knight told the court that, as an observer of the American political system and especially of "the media," that he has witnessed the growing power of the gay agenda. "We believe that the gay-rights movement is seeking to fundamentally alter the social mores of this country, and to take away the family's legitimacy as the fundamental building block of society." Knight said television, movies, and afternoon talk shows are "systematically stacked to present pro-gay bias," and that "openly gay" reporters and editors work in many of the nation's daily newspapers, including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, "were the pro-gay agenda is a palpable force," he said. But, such bias in not because of "malfeasance" or "conspiracy" on the parts of journalists, he said. "I think they sincerely believe that the gay rights issue is a civil rights issue," Knight said. [Imagine that!]