ACCOMMODATING OUTNESS: HURLEY, FREE SPEECH, AND GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALIIY Darren

Unelected heads of city departments and agencies, who are in other respects (as democratic theory requires) subject to the control of the people, must, where special protection for homosexuals are [sic] concerned, be permitted to do what they please. In Romerv. Evans,2 the Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 to the Colorado constitution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amendment 2 repealed then-existing ordinances in Colorado municipalities that afforded civil rights protection to individuals who face discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.' In addition to invalidating existing legal protections for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, Amendment 2 prohibited any state or local governmental entity from enacting legislation or regulations that would give gays, lesbians, and bisexuals a "protected status or claim of discrimination." The Court, with three Justices dissenting,' found that Amendment 2 "impos[ed] a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group" and "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects."6 Based on these two findings, the Court concluded that Amendment 2 lacked a ra-