This bill has had almost universal support from civil rights and humanist organizations. In fact the only voice raised in lukewarm opposition was John Markin, attorney from the Minnesota Catholic Conference.

Markin said the term “discrimination” should not be confused with “discretion”. To deprive persons or groups of their right to exercise discretion, he said, would be just as discriminatory as to deprive homosexuals of employment. He likened the gay rights bill to a tacit acceptance of what he called the “immorality of alcoholism”. The amendment offered by Robert Vanasek of New Prague was a political accommodation to those who felt the bill never would pass without it, that is, the deletion of public accommodations and public services from the categories in which discrimination is unlawful. This leaves employment, housing and education the three areas considered most crucial in the enforcement of human rights for gay people.

Tim Campbell, representing Gay Educational Consultants, said the amendment would make the law almost meaningless because it would take all the teeth out of government enforcement in common services such as welfare relief and affirmative action.

Included are remarks by John Markin and Tim Campbell.