in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986), does not require a different result. In Hard-wick, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy statute against Hard-wick’s claim that it violated his fundamental right to privacy. However, the Court specifically noted that Hardwick did “not defend the judgment below based on ... the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 196 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. at 2847 n. 8, 92 L.Ed.2d at 149 n. 8. Therefore, it is inapposite. See Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 n. 8 (9th Cir.1991) (distinguishing equal protection from substantive due process challenge to military policy), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 112 S.Ct. 1514, 117 L.Ed.2d 650 (1992); Evans v. Romer, 882 P.2d 1335, 1349-50, *40-41 (Oct. 11, 1994) (<HOLDING>); Prof. Cass Sunstein, Sexual Orientation and
holding that michigan rule barring sitting judges from nonjudicial offices did not violate equal protection holding unconstitutional a state decision awarding damages against a broadcasting company for invasion of privacy by disclosing the name of a rape victim in violation of a state statute which prohibited such disclosures holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding state initiative barring protection against discrimination aimed at homosexuals unconstitutional and concluding that hardwick decision on right to privacy does not abate other rights of homosexuals holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business