Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections

[tonymctones]

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?

[timfogarty]

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.

[timfogarty]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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?   

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[timfogarty]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[timfogarty]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[tonymctones]

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...

[timfogarty]

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.

[timfogarty]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[Dos Equis]

in the 12 states where gender identity has been a protected class, it has not been an issue.

How do you know this? 

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

[MCWAY]

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

[drkaje]

MCWAY,

Wouldn't that essentially be pushing long term straight couples into an uncomfortable/expensive Common Law Marriage category?

[doison]

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

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. 

[MCWAY]

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]

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?