Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 28, 2009, 01:09:40 PM
-
Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:10 PM
Momentum is building for Congress to pass the first major civil rights act protecting gays and transsexuals, supporters say, and one of the stars in the debate is a barrier-breaking transgender staffer on Capitol Hill.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit workplace discrimination, including decisions about hiring, firing and wages, based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would exempt religious organizations, the military and businesses with less than 15 workers.
The driving force behind the bill has been Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the longest-serving of the three openly gay members of Congress. He expects hearings on the measure to be held this fall.
Frank pushed the nondiscrimination act in 2007, but it foundered because of insufficient backing in the Senate and a split within the gay and transgender communities. Many activists were irate because Frank, seeking support from wavering colleagues, was open to covering sexual orientation but not gender identity, excluding transgender people from protection.
This time around, several factors have changed:
Barack Obama is president and on record supporting the act. A veto was considered possible if the 2007 bill had reached then-President George W. Bush.
The act's core supporters, including Frank, have agreed they will push only for a bill that includes gender identity.
The bill has picked up key support in the Senate, where it was introduced this month by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Even without other GOP senators, Merkley believes it has a good chance of obtaining the 60 votes that probably will be needed to pass the Senate.
The main Senate champion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the past had been Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who died Tuesday. That role was passed on to Merkley this year.
There is another difference from 2007. Frank now has a policy adviser who is a female-to-male transsexual. Diego Sanchez is the first transgender person hired for a senior congressional staff position on Capitol Hill.
Sanchez has done extensive face-to-face lobbying for the act, and Frank says that's enabled some members of Congress to get to know a transsexual for the first time.
"He interacts with a lot of people," Frank said. "Prejudice is literally ignorance."
Frank says he now doubts votes will be cast against the act solely because it extends to transgender people.
Sanchez is a longtime activist who worked for the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts and was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention last year before joining Frank's staff. Back in 2007, he was among a minority of transgender activists who accepted Frank's tactical decision to drop gender identity from that version of the act.
"He's called on the entire community since then to lobby, work — and the community has said, 'OK, we've got one game plan, and it's Barney,'" Sanchez said. "There's broader support this time."
The act's opponents, led by several national conservative groups, concede that the bill has enough support to clear the House and expect a closely fought battle in the Senate.
Ashley Horne, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, promised that her conservative Christian ministry would encourage tough opposition.
"It's definitely a bill we will put a lot of resources toward fighting," she said. "Our primary concern is the chipping away of religious liberties."
Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender.
The experience of these states shows that passage a federal law is unlikely to unleash a flood of litigation and conflict, Frank and Merkley say.
Minnesota, for example, has had a nondiscrimination law covering transgender people since 1993 that rarely triggers controversies. Oregon passed a comparable bill in 2007.
"There were concerns there'd be a huge number of lawsuits _ it simply didn't materialize," Merkley said.
However, attorney Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, said the act would impose its provisions on more conservative states with more business owners who have religious objections to hiring gays and transsexuals.
Campbell also worries that the act will serve gay-rights activists' long-term strategic interests.
"One of the really big problems with enacting ENDA is in the future litigation battles dealing with same-sex marriage," Campbell said. "It will provide ammunition for homosexual activists in the future to push their agenda in the court system throughout the country."
Some conservatives say the act is unnecessary.
"There is no epidemic of homosexuals being fired; in fact, they are increasingly being courted by major corporations," contends Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. "It's religiously devout employees . . . who face reprisals for opposing homosexuality."
The National Center for Transgender Equality disagrees. It recently released a survey of 6,500 transgender Americans that said 91 percent had faced bias at work.
Among those claiming harassment is Toni Maviki, a former corrections officer in New Hampshire who said another guard pummeled her after learning she was transitioning from being a man to being a woman.
"I carried a badge and I protected all you people and there was no law to protect me from harm," Maviki testified this year.
Maviki said she filed complaints that led to further harassment, and finally quit her job. Her testimony failed to sway a state Senate committee, which voted against extending anti-bias provisions to transgender people.
National gay-rights groups will be watching how the act fares this year this year.
"We're further than we've ever been, but there is certainly still work to be done," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "It is frustrating sometimes, having to explain to the community that there are so many procedural hurdles in our way."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_gay_rights_bill/2009/08/27/253194.html
-
why does it not suprise me that a fucktard like frank would be the driving force behind this idiocy
-
One of the problems with this is the attempt to include "gender identity." If they want to make transvestites and transsexuals a protected class, they should simply say so instead legislatively creating a new "gender" category.
-
Just pretend to be a fag and now you cant get fired.
-
More stupid bullshit,
Affirmative action for gays and transvestites next?
-
You guys DO realize that it is very important to protect attention-seeking behavior in the workplace these days don't you? Matter of fact... it's probably the most important issue we have in this country these days.
::)
-
i love this country. Equal Justice Under Law. don't like it? Go fuck youself :)
-
Maybe they'll protect people's right to blog, facebook, myspace, etc.. while working on someone else's dime next. :)
-
Maybe they'll protect people's right to blog, facebook, myspace, etc.. while working on someone else's dime next. :)
individual rights on private property(facebook, myspace, certain blogs)?
-
i love this country. Equal Justice Under Law. don't like it? Go fuck youself :)
;D
-
i love this country. Equal Justice Under Law. don't like it? Go fuck youself :)
yes b/c Affirmative action etc...doesnt discriminate
-
How dare these militant homosexual recruiters/activists dare to ask for protection from discrimination in the work place? Don't they know they might offend the homophobic sensitivities of "Ninny Ninmaugh" and other neanderthals? >:( >:( >:(
:P
-
individual rights on private property(facebook, myspace, certain blogs)?
No. The right to not conform to company policy.
I mean really... be as gay as you like but no one should have to suffer seeing a dude in drag just so his feelings won't be hurt. Most people don't even give a fuck if someone's gay unless forced to.
Most of it is attention seeking and people should grow the fuck up and concentrate on things other than their sexual identity throughout the day.
-
Just pretend to be a fag and now you cant get fired.
not too many years ago, women could get fired for getting married, or getting pregnant. or employers could choose not to hire single men or women. it was perfectly legal for an employer to say that now that you're going to have children, you're not going to be as committed to this job as we need, so goodbye. then various states and finally Congress passed a law that outlawed discrimination based on gender or marital status. plenty of women still get fired, just not for deciding to get married or have children. And like all anti-discrimination laws, it works both ways. Employers can't hire/not hire/fire/promote a male because they are single, or married, or have children, or don't have children.
this new federal law would make it illegal to use sexual orientation or gender identity when deciding whether to hire/not hire/fire/promote anyone. it would make it just as illegal for an employer to not hire an otherwise qualified person because they're straight as it would be to not hire someone because they're gay. many states already have this law
you can hire and fire people all you want. you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.
-
not too many years ago, women could get fired for getting married, or getting pregnant. or employers could choose not to hire single men or women. it was perfectly legal for an employer to say that now that you're going to have children, you're not going to be as committed to this job as we need, so goodbye. then various states and finally Congress passed a law that outlawed discrimination based on gender or marital status. plenty of women still get fired, just not for deciding to get married or have children. And like all anti-discrimination laws, it works both ways. Employers can't hire/not hire/fire/promote a male because they are single, or married, or have children, or don't have children.
this new federal law would make it illegal to use sexual orientation or gender identity when deciding whether to hire/not hire/fire/promote anyone. it would make it just as illegal for an employer to not hire an otherwise qualified person because they're straight as it would be to not hire someone because they're gay. many states already have this law
you can hire and fire people all you want. you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.
Companies should be able to hire and fire as they please.
-
How many companies are really going to hire a dude that shows up for an interview dressed in drag?
-
you can hire and fire people all you want. you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.
I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.
-
I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.
Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.
-
Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.
Don't get me wrong I agree with you, but in the brave new world it just doesn't work that way.
-
I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.
dressing in drag is not the same as gender identity. dressing in drag is taking on a persona for a short period of time. this is more living their whole life as a male or a female, sometimes as part of sexual reassignment hormone therapy and/or surgery.
the thing is, you probably run into butch females living their lives as male all the time, and you don't really have a problem with it. these females don't sometimes dress feminine and sometimes masculine. They're not 'sometimes in drag' or 'can wear drag on their own time'. Every day they wear short hair, no makeup, only wear clothes they bought in the men's section of the department store. You may think it out of the ordinary, but you're not threatened by it. you really don't feel they should be forced to wear dresses and makeup. But a male in that situation, one who wants to wear makeup or wear frilly things, that makes you feel threatened.
-
Threatened? Sorry but just because I find a man wearing makeup and dressing in "frilly" things abnormal doesn't mean I am threatened by it.
-
Threatened? Sorry but just because I find a man wearing makeup and dressing in "frilly" things abnormal doesn't mean I am threatened by it.
then why do you think it should be ok to discriminate against such people in the workplace?
-
then why do you think it should be ok to discriminate against such people in the workplace?
Never did I said cross dressing. Some men are just more "feminie", doesn't have to mean they are gay either. I work with people from many coutries, religions, creeds, sexual orientation and I don't have a problem with them as long as they do their job and keep their personal life personal.
-
dressing in drag is not the same as gender identity. dressing in drag is taking on a persona for a short period of time. this is more living their whole life as a male or a female, sometimes as part of sexual reassignment hormone therapy and/or surgery.
the thing is, you probably run into butch females living their lives as male all the time, and you don't really have a problem with it. these females don't sometimes dress feminine and sometimes masculine. They're not 'sometimes in drag' or 'can wear drag on their own time'. Every day they wear short hair, no makeup, only wear clothes they bought in the men's section of the department store. You may think it out of the ordinary, but you're not threatened by it. you really don't feel they should be forced to wear dresses and makeup. But a male in that situation, one who wants to wear makeup or wear frilly things, that makes you feel threatened.
Pleas don't take this the wrong way, Tim.
You're full of shit.
Any time someone disagrees over something trivial you really can't argue they "feel threatened", are "secretly gay" or a "bigot" and expect to be taken seriously. I really respect you as a poster but can't abide this degree of intellectual laziness. :P
-
Pleas don't take this the wrong way, Tim.
You're full of shit.
Any time someone disagrees over something trivial you really can't argue they "feel threatened", are "secretly gay" or a "bigot" and expect to be taken seriously. I really respect you as a poster but can't abide this degree of intellectual laziness. :P
don't confuse your gays. Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.
and I'm not arguing individuals 'feel threatened', but I think there is plenty of evidence that society is much more tolerant of females taking on non-standard characteristics than they are of males, that society 'feels threatened' when ever masculinity is challenged. Why is it easier for women celebrities to be open about their sexuality? Why is it hardest for men in hyper-masculine cultures like pro sports and hip-hop music?
-
firing someone just because they're gay is just plain stupid.
-
firing someone just because they're gay is just plain stupid.
It may be stupid, but at the end of the day, if I own a business I should be able to fire for whatever basis I want.
-
Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.
Absolutley.
However the left thinks not hurting someones feelings is more important than your business.
-
It may be stupid, but at the end of the day, if I own a business I should be able to fire for whatever basis I want.
about as moral as firing someone because they ate a turkey sandwitch for dinner at home. you fire someone because they can't do the job you hired them to do, not for what they do at home. employers that think they own you because they pay you to do a job are mentally ill.
-
about as moral as firing someone because they ate a turkey sandwitch for dinner at home. you fire someone because they can't do the job you hired them to do, not for what they do at home. employers that think they own you because they pay you to do a job are mentally ill.
While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.
-
While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.
employers always want all the rights and usually don't think any rights belong to the employee. all they figure is that they're paying you, fuck the rest, they own your ass. most employers have a god complex over their employees. the thought that someone is giving the bulk of the best years of their life so the company can cash in on their work would never enter their heads. It's in every aspect of how they prefer to treat people. you quit, you better give notice. they fire you, unless there is no choice, you're gone that day. it's always about them, not you.
-
While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.
what about other 'protected classes' ? should the employer be able to hire only whites or only blacks? Only men? Fire you if you get pregnant? if your wife gets pregnant? what about if you come down with cancer? marry outside your race or religion? these were all legal things to do at one time.
-
what about other 'protected classes' ? should the employer be able to hire only whites or only blacks? Only men? Fire you if you get pregnant? if your wife gets pregnant? what about if you come down with cancer? marry outside your race or religion? these were all legal things to do at one time.
If the employer only wants to hire black people, fine. If the employer wants only women, cool by me.
Go to hooters and see if you can be a waiter tim.
-
If the employer only wants to hire black people, fine. If the employer wants only women, cool by me.
Go to hooters and see if you can be a waiter tim.
the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...
-
the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...
Discrimination though.
-
Discrimination though.
kind of a change in topic. to bring it on we'd be talking about a hooters girl getting fired when it got back to the manager that she kissed a girl :D sounds absurd to me. and then the manager being fired for being gay enough to shun girl on girl action :D
-
kind of a change in topic. to bring it on we'd be talking about a hooters girl getting fired when it got back to the manager that she kissed a girl :D sounds absurd to me. and then the manager being fired for being gay enough to shun girl on girl action :D
You drinkin again?
-
You drinkin again?
wtf? nope. i'll probably have few beers in about a week if you feel the need to avoid me then.
-
i am typing with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other.
-
All this is, is a give away to the plaintiffs bar.
What nonsense.
-
Until their merger, TBS in Atlanta could legally fire someone for smoking.
They had a non smoking policy in effect and anyone that was a smoker was given 90 days to stop. You were not even allowed to smoke in your own home after hours. If you smelled like smoke after the 90 days, you were given a warning and probation, if it happened again, you were axed.
-
don't confuse your gays. Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.
and I'm not arguing individuals 'feel threatened', but I think there is plenty of evidence that society is much more tolerant of females taking on non-standard characteristics than they are of males, that society 'feels threatened' when ever masculinity is challenged. Why is it easier for women celebrities to be open about their sexuality? Why is it hardest for men in hyper-masculine cultures like pro sports and hip-hop music?
Stop giving similar answers, LOL!
Men love women because they have pussies. Even Lesbians have pussies so there's always a context in which men can relate to them. :)
-
the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...
this is true and the same can be said for other types of business most financial institutions are very conservative and have very conservative clients you think they want to walk in and see some flamboyantly gay person? how about a person with gender identity problems?
If they do their jobs right their personal life would never come into play in the first place and this shit wouldnt be needed. If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against them?
-
If they do their jobs right their personal life would never come into play in the first place and this shit wouldnt be needed. If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against them?
And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.
-
And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.
the military is completely different bro apples and freaking oranges, they sleep together, shower together, spend extended time weeks/months with one another.
Sorry tim thats a very invalid comparison
sorry bro but id get thrown out if i went and tried to shower with women and sleep with them but its ok for a gay man to shower with another man? no bro completely different
-
don't confuse your gays. Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.
lol. :)
-
And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.
It does work.
Regarding ENDA, I think the problem is primarily with the whole gender identity thing. I think that is a quagmire. (Giggity. drkaje that was for you. :))
-
Sorry tim thats a very invalid comparison
you misunderstood the comparison. Powell really believed that DADT would allow gays to serve, would reduce the witch hunts, reduce the discharges. Instead it gave fuel to the witch hunts. you wrote
"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against you?"
which is no different than
"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the military know to kick you out?"
-
It does work.
Powell said he though DADT would drastically reduce the number of discharges. Instead they're way up.
Regarding ENDA, I think the problem is primarily with whole gender identity thing. I think that is a quagmire.
that's the great thing about the USofA, we have the ability to try things in different states before trying them at the national level.
"Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender."
there has been no significant problems in any of these states
-
Powell said he though DADT would drastically reduce the number of discharges. Instead they're way up.
that's the great thing about the USofA, we have the ability to try things in different states before trying them at the national level.
"Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender."
there has been no significant problems in any of these states
If discharges are up that's the fault of people who don't keep their private sexual conduct to themselves, as the policy requires. That doesn't mean the policy doesn't work. It actually allows homosexuals to serve, despite the fact their private conduct violates military law. Pretty amazing if you ask me.
How can you be certain there have been no significant problems in states where they have redefined gender by statute? I think you'd need to talk to business owners and determine how it has affected them.
Part of the reason this may not make large ripples is cross-dressers, etc. are such a small percentage of the population. But that doesn't change the fact that it is dangerous precedent (redefining gender). I'm not even sure how to address "gender identity" in the workplace, particularly with the bathroom issue.
-
you misunderstood the comparison. Powell really believed that DADT would allow gays to serve, would reduce the witch hunts, reduce the discharges. Instead it gave fuel to the witch hunts. you wrote
"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against you?"
which is no different than
"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the military know to kick you out?"
the problem is tim that the military is a 24 hour a day job a regular job here in civilian life is so many hours a day thats the difference...
In the military your personal life and professional life coincide with one another, why does somebody working a civilian job need to let somebody else know they are gay or straight?
-
If discharges are up that's the fault of people who don't keep their private sexual conduct to themselves, as the policy requires.
the DT part is working as expected, the DA part is not. The military is not suppose to ask, but witch hunts are still going on.
Part of the reason this may not make large ripples is cross-dressers, etc. are such a small percentage of the population. But that doesn't change the fact that it is dangerous precedent (redefining gender). I'm not even sure how to address "gender identity" in the workplace, particularly with the bathroom issue.
I don't think you understand gender identity. Its not today I'm dressing as a man, tomorrow I'm dressing as a woman. Once they make that choice, they live every aspect of their lives as the gender they identify with, and almost no one ever goes back.
regarding bathrooms, there are lots of transgendered people already out there, already using public bathrooms. that rather feminine looking young guy going into the stall may not have a penis. big deal.
-
why does somebody working a civilian job need to let somebody else know they are gay or straight?
so, you have no photos of your partner or children on your desk, don't ever bring a date to a company event, talk about what you did this weekend or during your vacation, never socialize with coworkers and their spouses?
-
the DT part is working as expected, the DA part is not. The military is not suppose to ask, but witch hunts are still going on.
I don't think you understand gender identity. Its not today I'm dressing as a man, tomorrow I'm dressing as a woman. Once they make that choice, they live every aspect of their lives as the gender they identify with, and almost no one ever goes back.
regarding bathrooms, there are lots of transgendered people already out there, already using public bathrooms. that rather feminine looking young guy going into the stall may not have a penis. big deal.
You are absolutely right that I don't understand gender identity. Here is the definition that's on the books here (though not in the employment context):
"gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.
What the heck does that mean? Your gender-related self-image??
I do know that "gender-related appearance" means means hair, makeup, and clothes. It absolutely means a man can dress as a woman one day and a man the next.
I wasn't talking about public bathrooms. I was talking about the bathrooms in private businesses. Wouldn't a unisex bathroom be required?
-
so, you have no photos of your partner or children on your desk, don't ever bring a date to a company event, talk about what you did this weekend or during your vacation, never socialize with coworkers and their spouses?
yes tim and I completely understand that what Im saying is thats optional in the civilian world in the military world its not optional as you live with these ppl again apples and oranges.
I agree that ppl shouldnt be discriminated against b/c of their sexual orientation or gender but again in certain arenas its whats best for business. The hooters example for one and like I said alot of financial institutions are very conservative.
The problem is where do we stop, perhaps we should protect ppl with facial piercings too? I mean its just an expression of who they are isnt it? Tattoos? fat ass uglies? ever notice how the good looking ppl are generally out front? hahaha next ppl will be asking for protection against obesity discrimination...
If your business model caters to a certain clientel like most businesses do they should have the right to hire who they want.
bottom line is business is about making profit if these ppl(i dont mean gays just the discriminated ppl in general) are able to add to that in such a way that surpasses the adverse effects they may have then they will get hired or not fired.
-
beach "gender" is what you see yourself as either male, female or what have you...
alot of ppl get "sex" and "gender" confused and use them interchangable but they are different
"sex" is biological
"gender" is psychological its what you view yourself as
a person can be a male biologically but of the female gender and vice versa
-
What the heck does that mean? Your gender-related self-image??
that you feel that you're a man trapped in a woman's body, or a women trapped in a man's body. as mentioned in the thread about that women track and field star, 65000 children are born each year with both male and female genitalia, or indeterminate genitalia. but there are many others who are born with in tact genitalia, but for some other reason such as exposure to hormones in the womb, or the hormones their own body creates, are 'wired' opposite of their gender.
I do know that "gender-related appearance" means means hair, makeup, and clothes. It absolutely means a man can dress as a woman one day and a man the next.
but they don't. there are people who have fetishes, but those are sexual fetishes, when they're being sexual. Most people are not being sexual throughout the day at their 9-5 office job. These gender identity anti-discrimination laws are about people who live their whole lives as a certain gender.
-
beach "gender" is what you see yourself as either male, female or what have you...
alot of ppl get "sex" and "gender" confused and use them interchangable but they are different
"sex" is biological
"gender" is psychological its what you view yourself as
a person can be a male biologically but of the female gender and vice versa
It used to be a lot simpler than this. It used to be, absent the rare abnormalities, that if you were born with a twig and berries you were guy and if you were born with boobs and a beaver you were a girl. Now it's people sitting around tables crafting language that defines a guy, a gal, and everything in between. Utter confusion.
-
yes tim and I completely understand that what Im saying is thats optional in the civilian world in the military world its not optional as you live with these ppl again apples and oranges.
You said if people kept their private lives private, then there would be no chance of discrimination. I said that didn't work in the military. this is not a debate on whether gays should be allowed in the military.
I agree that ppl shouldnt be discriminated against b/c of their sexual orientation or gender but again in certain arenas its whats best for business. The hooters example for one and like I said alot of financial institutions are very conservative.
If your business model caters to a certain clientel like most businesses do they should have the right to hire who they want.
blacks, jews, married women, disabled, republicans
-
that you feel that you're a man trapped in a woman's body, or a women trapped in a man's body. as mentioned in the thread about that women track and field star, 65000 children are born each year with both male and female genitalia, or indeterminate genitalia. but there are many others who are born with in tact genitalia, but for some other reason such as exposure to hormones in the womb, or the hormones their own body creates, are 'wired' opposite of their gender.
but they don't. there are people who have fetishes, but those are sexual fetishes, when they're being sexual. Most people are not being sexual throughout the day at their 9-5 office job. These gender identity anti-discrimination laws are about people who live their whole lives as a certain gender.
I understand your point Tim, but if you read the gender identity definition it's extremely broad. It includes not just the "woman trapped in a man's body," but the "sexual fetishes" people too.
-
It used to be a lot simpler than this. It used to be, absent the rare abnormalities, that if you were born with a twig and berries you were guy and if you were born with boobs and a beaver you were a girl. Now it's people sitting around tables crafting language that defines a guy, a gal, and everything in between. Utter confusion.
LOL actually its been like this for some time just never language that has been used in the public arena the changing of society brought alot of this out of text books and out of the closet(no pun intended, lol alright maybe a little bit) and to the public spot light.
but yes I agree it used to be much simplier...
-
It used to be a lot simpler than this.
No, it didn't. there have always been transgendered people. its just that it was acceptable to discriminate against them.
-
I understand your point Tim, but if you read the gender identity definition it's extremely broad. It includes not just the "woman trapped in a man's body," but the "sexual fetishes" people too.
in the 12 states where gender identity has been a protected class, it has not been an issue.
-
You said if people kept their private lives private, then there would be no chance of discrimination. I said that didn't work in the military. this is not a debate on whether gays should be allowed in the military.
blacks, jews, married women, disabled, republicans
Perhaps I should have made it more clear then tim if in civilian jobs you kept your private life private then there would be no need for protective laws for the most part.
Well tim if your business caters to men its probably best to have good looking women, if you business caters to racist white why would you have a black/asian/mexican man working for you?
You see what Im saying the area of business has alot to do with who gets hired. If your business caters to a certain clientel you need to hire ppl that attract that certain clientel or that their target clientel feels comfortable around and their shouldnt be anything wrong with that.
again the main goal of business is to make profit
-
in the 12 states where gender identity has been a protected class, it has not been an issue.
How do you know this?
-
this is true and the same can be said for other types of business most financial institutions are very conservative and have very conservative clients you think they want to walk in and see some flamboyantly gay person? how about a person with gender identity problems?
If they do their jobs right their personal life would never come into play in the first place and this shit wouldnt be needed. If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against them?
you're twisting what I said. I was talking about what happens at home which is going to be the case 99% of the time, you're talking about when they bring it into the workplace. IMO that's disruptive as you've pointed out and grounds for dismisal for reasons having nothing to do with them being gay. What I'm talking about is nothing but a hate based firing.
-
And, on a somewhat related topic, it appears that the foks in Washington state have enough signatures to put an amendment on the ballot, reversing its gay partnership law.
Wash. gay partnership ref. makes ballot
Voters in Washington state this November apparently will get to decide whether to keep or overturn the state's same-sex "everything but marriage" law, which grants homosexual couples all the legal benefits of marriage and which conservatives warn will lead to the legalization of full-fledged "gay marriage" in the state.
The Washington secretary of state announced Monday that organizers of Referendum 71 had collected enough valid signatures to place it on the November ballot, capping a pro-family effort that surprised liberals and even some conservatives in its success. Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law in May, but it won't go into effect until voters have a say. Meanwhile, supporters of the new law have filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the signatures as illegal and keep the referendum off the ballot.
Washington state is one of five states to grant same-sex couples all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. It would be the first, though, to enact such a law and then reverse course.
Both sides expect an expensive, tough campaign -- a campaign that will start with supporters and opponents clearing up confusion as to how their constituents should vote. A vote to "approve" Referendum 71 would keep the domestic partnerships law. A vote to "reject" the referendum would overturn the law. The confusion stems from the fact that the law (S.B. 5688) itself is on the ballot, and voters are being asked if they want to keep it. In other words, the same group that put the referendum on the ballot is now urging a "no" vote........
Scott Brewer of Redmond, Wash., said he will be voting to reject the new law because the issue is "not about bigotry against gays but about support for traditional marriage." Brewer is pastor of Meadowbrook Church, a congregation in Redmond affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Washington State's recent legislative effort known as S.B. 5688 claims that the intent is to expand benefits for domestic partnerships," Brewer told Baptist Press in an e-mail interview. "Many fair-minded citizens would agree that both heterosexual and homosexual relationships should enjoy the rights to visit a sick loved one in the intensive care unit of a hospital or pass on shared assets at the time of death. … ut S.B. 5688 goes beyond these ideas and contends (180 times in 112 pages) that 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships.' In other words this is a redefinition of marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31178 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31178)
-
MCWAY,
Wouldn't that essentially be pushing long term straight couples into an uncomfortable/expensive Common Law Marriage category?
-
And, on a somewhat related topic, it appears that the foks in Washington state have enough signatures to put an amendment on the ballot, reversing its gay partnership law.
Wash. gay partnership ref. makes ballot
Voters in Washington state this November apparently will get to decide whether to keep or overturn the state's same-sex "everything but marriage" law, which grants homosexual couples all the legal benefits of marriage and which conservatives warn will lead to the legalization of full-fledged "gay marriage" in the state.
The Washington secretary of state announced Monday that organizers of Referendum 71 had collected enough valid signatures to place it on the November ballot, capping a pro-family effort that surprised liberals and even some conservatives in its success. Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law in May, but it won't go into effect until voters have a say. Meanwhile, supporters of the new law have filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the signatures as illegal and keep the referendum off the ballot.
Washington state is one of five states to grant same-sex couples all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. It would be the first, though, to enact such a law and then reverse course.
Both sides expect an expensive, tough campaign -- a campaign that will start with supporters and opponents clearing up confusion as to how their constituents should vote. A vote to "approve" Referendum 71 would keep the domestic partnerships law. A vote to "reject" the referendum would overturn the law. The confusion stems from the fact that the law (S.B. 5688) itself is on the ballot, and voters are being asked if they want to keep it. In other words, the same group that put the referendum on the ballot is now urging a "no" vote........
Scott Brewer of Redmond, Wash., said he will be voting to reject the new law because the issue is "not about bigotry against gays but about support for traditional marriage." Brewer is pastor of Meadowbrook Church, a congregation in Redmond affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Washington State's recent legislative effort known as S.B. 5688 claims that the intent is to expand benefits for domestic partnerships," Brewer told Baptist Press in an e-mail interview. "Many fair-minded citizens would agree that both heterosexual and homosexual relationships should enjoy the rights to visit a sick loved one in the intensive care unit of a hospital or pass on shared assets at the time of death. … ut S.B. 5688 goes beyond these ideas and contends (180 times in 112 pages) that 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships.' In other words this is a redefinition of marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31178 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31178)
I'm interested to hear your personal opinion on this. You've openly admitted that you could have sex with a man and only remain hetero because the bible tells you to. As a bisexual man, your opinion is very entrenched in this manner.
-
I'm interested to hear your personal opinion on this. You've openly admitted that you could have sex with a man and only remain hetero because the bible tells you to. As a bisexual man, your opinion is very entrenched in this manner.
First of all, I said no such thing. Get your facts, straight. That foolishness started, as a result of a couple of posters attempting to insult me, by twisting a statement I made, which I find rather ironic (considering that half the people here who consider nothing wrong with homosexuality insult people by inferring that they're closet homosexuals).
You could be a child molester. But have you actually ever molested a child?
You could be an axe murderer. But have you actually hacked someone to pieces with such an object?
-
MCWAY,
Wouldn't that essentially be pushing long term straight couples into an uncomfortable/expensive Common Law Marriage category?
I'm not sure. Refresh my memory on the common law thing. Doesn't it go that, if you've been shacking up with a woman for over 7 years, you're effectively married?
And, is the expensive part with regards to taxes and so forth?