Thank you, Afleitch.
Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here? This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction? If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.
Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term. Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'
Well that shows the complexity of the issue, since transgender isn't an attraction or a behavior but a gender identity. I think it makes sense to spell out as best as possible what sort of discrimination this amendment seeks to counter.
