Hello! The Colorado Independent is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- coloradoindependent.com Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- If the people get to vote on a gas tax increase, why don't they get to vote for a tax on our vehicles? Oh that's right, it's not a tax, it's a fee! Seriously, why does Kansas with...
- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title>Health Network Newsletter</title> <meta...
- <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html...
- <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html...
- Talk about the 19th century, my grandparents homesteaded in this state over 100 years ago, every farm and ranch had a windmill. They knew to harness the wind, it has taken us "urban"...
Jump to original thread »
A Denver Post column is on record referring to the outcome of a transgender workplace discrimination case as “government-backed blackmail” and “extra-constitutional protection.”
The article, written by Post staff columnist David Harsanyi, appe ... Continue reading »
The article, written by Post staff columnist David Harsanyi, appe ... Continue reading »
2 years ago
Both are absurd conslusions to draw in regard to how to apply the law. If we want to add "height" as a protected class, then so be it--let the legislature act. But don't conclude that transgendered people aren't discriminated because of sex (or because of their lack of conformity to sexual stereotypes) is an unconstitutional interpretation of the law.