A July 1 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh uncritically repeats false claims that a new Colorado law bans the Bible.
Unruh writes that the law, SB 200, bans "the publication of discriminatory material." He cites state Rep. Kevin Lundberg claiming that the law is "written in an open-ended fashion," and quotes Steve Crampton, general counsel of Liberty Counsel, as saying, "I do believe that the Bible is banned, under the plain language of this new statute."
In fact, the law merely adds "sexual orientation" to state anti-discrimination law, and the specific section regarding "the publication of discriminatory material" (Section 8) specifically addresses only housing and other businesses:
24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden.
No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement, directly or indirectly, by himself or herself or through another person shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against any disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION , marital status, national origin, or ancestry or against any of the members thereof in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right, privilege, advantage, or convenience offered to or enjoyed by the general public or which states that any of the accommodations, rights, privileges, advantages, or conveniences of any such place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall or will be refused, withheld from, or denied to any person or class of persons on account of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION , marital status, national origin, or ancestry or that the patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging at such place by any person or class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION ,marital status, national origin,or ancestry is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited.
Unruh not only makes no effort to allow supporters of the law to rebut critics -- a longtime Unruh journalistic failing -- he also throws in the views of an anonymous "WND reader" on the subject without offering any reason for doing so; the reader offers no insight to the discussion but instead rants against the law on the same false premise that Unruh has presented it: "What is it called when you are forced, against your will, to participate in a sexual lifestyle that you find objectionable? I believe that is called 'rape.' My state legislature has 'violated' me and charged me with the crime."
This means that Unruh is lying to his readers by falsely presenting this law as something it's not. Of course, WND columnist Janet Folger did the same thing. Which is yet another indication of WND's exponentially increasing lack of credibility.