2E82074964F702D58725825D006B74ED Hearing Summary

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present. Representative Humphrey, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1206, concerning the establishment of the "Live and Let Live Act" in Colorado. Representative Humphrey read a statement on the merits of the legislation, and explained the effect of the bill. Representative Humphrey responded to questions regarding the effect of the bill on those who have entered into a same-sex marriage, and the historical use of race for subjugation.  Discussion ensued regarding the effect of the bill on certain civil rights protections.

Discussion continued regarding past discrimination against certain protected classes, and the intent of HB 18-1206 in light of the bill's title.

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Discussion ensued regarding the types of discrimination that would be allowed under HB 18-1206, and the potential effect of the bill on certain populations. Discussion followed regarding federal preemption of the issues addressed by the bill, and what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief.

Mr. Matt Sharp, representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Mr. Sharp discussed religious universities that have faced censure for discrimination, and an attempt to strike a balance through the bill.  Mr. Sharp responded to questions regarding a case involving a university that prohibited interracial dating, and protections of right to conscience under the bill.

Ms. Jacki Melmed, representing the Governor's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Melmed discussed public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws, and the balance between protections and conscience in place under current law.  Ms. Melmed responded to questions regarding laws in other states similar to HB 18-1206, and bilateral protections under the bill.  Ms. Melmed responded to further questions regarding how a court might determine that a religious belief is sincerely held.

Justice Jean Dubofsky, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Justice Dubofsky discussed her efforts to overturn Amendment 2, a ballot issue passed in Colorado in 1992, and the scope of HB 18-1206.  She also discussed public accommodations laws.  Justice Dubofsky responded to questions regarding the compelling state interest invoked by the bill.

Ms. Dorothy Ostrogorki, representing the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition to the bill.  Ms. Ostrogorki discussed the message sent by the introduction of HB 18-1206.  She discussed discrimination, and potential economic and social impacts of the passage of the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of legislation similar to HB 18-1206 on the potential for businesses to move to or remain in the state. Discussion followed regarding a pair of cases that came before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in recent years.

Ms. Beth Woods, representing Hope's Promise, testified in support of the bill.  Ms. Woods discussed the work of her organization, and the importance of religious freedom. Ms. Woods responded to questions regarding the level of need of adoptive families for foster care children, and the position of Hope's Promise on facilitating adoptions to same-sex parents. Ms. Woods responded to questions regarding what would happen to Hope's Promise if HB 18-1206 were to not pass, and collaborative work between Hope's Promise and other adoption agencies.

Ms. Terri Sue Monark, representing herself, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Ms. Monark discussed her experiences in attempting to adopt a child.

Mr. Tom Wilkens, representing himself, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Mr. Wilkens discussed his experience in adopting a child. He asked that the adoption services similar to the one with which he worked in adopting a child be allowed to continue operating.

Reverend Doctor Paula Williams, representing the Interfaith Alliance, testified in opposition to the bill. Reverend Williams discussed the types of businesses she could be barred from if HB 18-1206 were to pass.  Reverend Williams responded to questions regarding the churches in which she has preached.

Reverend Jennifer Jepsen, representing the Interfaith Alliance, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206. Reverend Jepsen explained how the bill denies human dignity.

Rabbi Evette Lutman, representing the American Association of University Women, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.  Rabbi Lutman discussed discrimination she has experienced, and the discrimination that would be allowed under the bill.  Discussion ensued regarding tolerance among the Christian population.  Reverend Williams discussed the difference between an exegesis and hermeneutics.

Mr. Adam Hebener, representing himself, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Mr. Hebener discussed his attempts to have a family, and his experiences in adopting a child. He explained the potential effect on certain adoption agencies if HB 18-1206 is not passed, and responded to questions regarding why these agencies are necessary from a faith-based standpoint.

Ms. Autumn Leva, representing the Family Policy Alliance, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Committee members received a letter of support for the bill (Attachment A).  She discussed the importance of protecting religious freedom, and recently adopted regulations that are impacting faith-based adoption agencies. Discussion ensued regarding U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have impacted religious freedom. Ms. Leva responded to questions regarding the threat of closure of faith-based adoption agencies under recently adopted regulations.

Ms. Jenna Ellis, representing Colorado Family Action, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Ms. Ellis discussed the "two-way street" of tolerance and conscience, and noted some areas where professionals may legally deny service based on conscience. She also discussed laws in other states concerning same-sex marriage that have not been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Ellis responded to questions regarding the ability of a business to become a ministry to circumvent public accommodation laws, and separation of powers issues invoked by the laws she referenced previously.

Mr. Dave Mullens, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Mullens discussed his attempts to purchase a wedding cake, and the subsequent turning away of his business. He explained how that event impacted him, and the potential effect of HB 18-1206.

Mr. Mullens responded to questions regarding the events surrounding his attempt to purchase a wedding cake.

Ms. Sara Neal, representing the ACLU, made herself available to respond to questions regarding the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Ms. Neal responded to questions regarding solutions that accommodate religious conscience and the commercial activities of protected classes.

Ms. Yudid Gonzales, representing Planned Parenthood, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206. She explained how the bill would facilitate discrimination in health care.

Ms. Joyce Lisbin, representing the Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.

Mr. John McHugh, representing the Colorado LGBT Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. McHugh discussed the unconstitutionality of the bill. Mr. McHugh addressed claims and questions raised during earlier testimony.

Mr. Isaac Archuleta, representing the Interfaith Alliance, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206. Mr. Archuleta discussed discrimination he has experienced, and the impact discrimination has on certain populations.

Mr. Dilpreet Jammu, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Jammu discussed the tenets of his faith, and limitations on the concept of moral conviction by the bill.

Ms. Regina Kalacova, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed discrimination that she has experienced, and the potential impact of the bill on certain populations.

Mr. Stuart Pack, representing the Anti-Defamation League, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Pack discussed the types of services that could be denied under the bill.

Reverend Sam Lopez, representing the Amazing Love Sanctuary, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.  He spoke in opposition to discrimination.

Reverend Jessie Buchanan, representing the Amazing Love Sanctuary, testified in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Paul Maxon, representing the Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.  Mr. Maxon discussed the legalization of discrimination against the LGBT community by the bill.

Reverend Lopez and Reverend Buchanan answered questions from the committee.

Rachel Clark, representing the Women's Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the impacts the bill would have on transgendered persons.

Ms. Kim Cernac, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the impact the bill would have on transgendered and LGBT persons. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of a school to discriminate against certain populations under HB 18-1206.

Ms. Carolyn Martin, representing CHEC, testified in support of the bill. She explained how the bill protects the right of conscience of all.

Mr. Bill Jack, representing himself, testified in support of HB 18-1206. Mr. Jack discussed his attempt to purchase cakes adorned with religious writings, and quoted members of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments. Ms. Martin responded to questions regarding how the bill would impact home schooling.  Mr. Jack responded to questions regarding his case before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and its relevance to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Ms. Gail Klock, representing Old Lesbians Organizing for Change, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.  Ms. Klock discussed the discrimination that might be allowed under the bill, and the impact discrimination has had on her.

Ms. Betty Boyd, representing the American Association of University Women, testified against HB 18-1206.

Ms. Brianna Titone, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Nick LoVuolo, representing himself, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206. Mr. LoVuolo discussed the definition of "sex" in the bill. A religious discussion ensued.

Ms. Kristi Burton Brown, representing herself, testified in support of HB 18-1206. She rebutted certain claims made during earlier testimony, and quoted the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case.  Ms. Brown responded to questions about the operation of the bill.

Ms. Laura Reeves, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She criticized the bill from a religious perspective, and addressed the issue of adoption.  She also discussed a transgender student in her community.

Ms. Roxanne Garland, representing herself, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206.  She discussed the bill from a teenager's perspective.

Ms. Mary Parker, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Committee members received a letter from American Atheists in opposition to the bill (Attachment B).

Mr. Daniel Ramos, representing One Colorado, testified in opposition to HB 18-1206. Mr. Ramos discussed the protections that would be rolled back by the bill.

Ms. Emma Shinn, representing the Colorado LGBT Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the unconstitutionality of the bill, and addressed earlier discussion.

Representative Humphrey explained the effect of amendment L.001 (Attachment _). Discussion ensued regarding the merits of the amendment.

Various committee members provided their positions on HB 18-1206. Representative Humphrey provided closing remarks in support of the bill.