The state Legislature has sent a bill to the governor aimed at prohibiting stores, restaurants, hotels and other such establishments from discriminating against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Gov. Linda Lingle has until Tuesday to veto the bill or allow it to become law.

The bill is not meant to punish anyone's conduct but is intended to extend the present discrimination law by preventing businesses from creating artificial barriers based on sexual orientation or expression, according to House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Blake Oshiro.

The bill would allow people who feel they were refused service based on sexual orientation to bring a claim to the Civil Rights Commission.

House Republicans have objected to the bill, in part based on the ambiguity of the "gender expression" definition, and have raised hypothetical questions about whether a man with an earring might be able to make a discrimination claim if he was refused service because of his conduct.

While conservative groups and others have complained that this will lead to unisex restrooms, Oshiro, D-33rd (Halawa, 'Aiea, Pearlridge), said assigning bathrooms based on gender is a privacy issue and does not constitute discrimination under state law.

"The bathroom thing is kind of a red herring," he said.

The law would allow transgendered individuals to use the restrooms designated for their chosen sex, but that was not the focus or intent of the legislation.

Oshiro also pointed out that regardless of the discrimination law, sex crimes and invasion of privacy are illegal no matter which restroom an individual is using.

"That's not something that people need to start worrying about," Oshiro said. "That's already something that's prohibited."

House Minority Leader Rep. Lynn Finnegan, R-32nd (Aliamanu, Airport, Mapunapuna), was one of eight representatives to vote against the measure at final reading.

She is satisfied that the bill would not immediately lead to unisex restrooms, but she does worry that it opens the door to that possibility in the future. "You just don't know where it's going to go," she said.

According to Finnegan, the law sets the foundation for bad public policy, since it ties businesses' hands if they want to refuse service to someone based on conduct but have to worry about whether it could lead to a discrimination complaint.

"It's very muddy waters in my opinion and makes it difficult to handle," she said.

"With gender identity or expression, it's really difficult to explain. What if it's the conduct you don't like and don't want to serve?"