California Continues To Dig Its Own Grave. Companies Must Now Hire Transexuals

[p0ink]

Calif. Senate OKs transgender protections
Yahoo | July 25, 2003 | Ellen Maremont Silver

SUMMARY: The California Senate passed a groundbreaking bill on Thursday that makes it illegal to discriminate against transgender people in housing and employment.

The California Senate passed a groundbreaking bill on Thursday that makes it illegal to discriminate against transgender people in housing and employment. AB 196 adds "gender identity or expression" to sex and other characteristics that are already protected by the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The bill, passed by the Assembly in April by a 41-34 vote, now goes to Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites), who is expected to make a decision in approximately two weeks. The Senate vote was 23-11 along strict party lines: All in favor were Democrats, all opposed were Republicans.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authored the bill. Equality California, the state's GLBT advocacy organization, worked closely with the five-member legislative GLBT caucus to achieve passage of the bill.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, one of the bill's co-authors and a caucus member, called AB 196 "a simple matter of civil rights. California law already protects against hate crimes based on gender stereotyping, and protects students and teachers from discrimination or harassment on this basis. ... We should not tolerate such arbitrary discrimination that can lead to the problems of unemployment and homelessness among those who are perceived as different."

The San Francisco Department of Public Health (news - web sites) reported 70 percent unemployment among transgender people in 1999, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

AB 196 allows employees to dress consistent with their gender identity as long as they meet reasonable workplace appearance standards. It is endorsed by more than 50 business, religious and civil rights organizations, from the California Labor Federation to the California Apartment Association. As expected, conservatives have criticized the measure.

If Davis signs the bill into law, California will join Minnesota, New Mexico and Rhode Island in explicitly prohibiting gender identity-based discrimination. Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia have statutes that have been interpreted to protect transgender people in certain circumstances. No federal law protects GLBT individuals in the workplace, but activists and organizations including the Human Rights Campaign are developing one.

 

[p0ink]

way to go california! now christian schools, bible book stores, etc will all have to hire people like this:

 

[jerkbox]

man...what a freak show

 

[bwood]

its stuff like this that makes me consider giving
up what i am doing and starting a criminal enterprise...

society is a cesspool...

 

[atlantabiolab]

way to go california! now christian schools, bible book stores, etc will all have to hire people like this:

This would be the most far-fetched scenario, that a transgender/sexual/whatever-the-hell-the-PC-term-is would ever wish to work at a Christian store. But the idea still remains, that being forced to hire a person who is capable of conforming his/her attire to the anatomical/genetic gender that they were born, but wish not to, is deleterious to a business.

 

[fogg88]

Every day I thank God I don't live in California.

 

[Tarheel]

70% unemployment? Wow.

I thought all transgendered people worked in porn or were hookers.

 

[zingzingmaker]

70% is BS.

LOTS of transexuals work in CASH ONLY businesses. These include, but are not limited to, hooking, drag shows, working at "alternative" clubs, and selling drugs.

They are not unemployed, they are employed by the underworld...

 

[big4life]

70% is BS.

They are not unemployed, they are employed by the underworld...

Transexual hitmen? er women? what would they be called?

 

[zingzingmaker]

that would be a hitit

 

[Corey2007]

That is nazty...I cant believe that

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Now, that is fuckked!

 

[MarthaStewart]

I'm not entirely sure I see where it says that they have to hire transexuals.

It says that they can't discriminate against them.

Doesn't mean that every corner store and gas station needs to rush out and fill their ranks with drag queens and post op queens.

I can't possibly fathom how the hell this thing matters one way or the other to the general public.

 

[Robert Jan]

you mean that before, it was allowed to discriminate against transsexuals?

thats the weird part imo

 

[2Thick]

You people are such tools of the elite.

This does not dicate private business. It says that you cannot say "I am not hiring you because you are a trabsexual." Nothing else is intended. You can hire and fire anyone you want in a private compnay.

 

[2Thick]

yes it does legislate private business.

if an employer doesnt want some guy wearing fake tits, bad makeup, a dress, and using the women's bathroom, he has every god damn right not to hire him for those reasons.

if you dont thinka large percentage of 'transexuals' are going to start suing businesses because they didnt get the job, you are only kidding yourself.

You are mistaken. The US Constitution dicates that all people are created equal. This law is nothing new. It will not make any difference in hiring practices. People (mainly blacks and women) have been denied jobs for decades even with laws like this on the books so stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[p0ink]

yes it does legislate private business.

if an employer doesnt want some guy wearing fake tits, bad makeup, a dress, and using the women's bathroom, he has every god damn right not to hire him for those reasons.

if you dont thinka large percentage of 'transexuals' are going to start suing businesses because they didnt get the job, you are only kidding yourself.

 

[danielson]

they'll find ways round this, just like they do in other cases of dscrimination

though, yes, i see poinks point and agree with it.....a line does need to be drawn especally if a business person feels something is innapporpriate

 

[2Thick]

yes, all people are equal under the *law*. people are not equal in every sense of the word.

plus, your example of women and blacks being denied jobs doesnt fit into this equation, because women and blacks were more than willing to conform to the rules set by their employer and not ask for special exemptions, like transexuals will.

what about the businesses that are owned by religious people who see transexualism being incompatible with their beliefs? should they be forced by the state to do it anyways, even if it is in direct conflict with their religion? what about the women who do not want to share the bathroom with men? should they be told by the state to fuck off?

i dont think so.

I am not 100% familiar with the law. With that being said, if you are correct and all private businesses are bound by these laws, then this is going too far. But as most laws, they are a compramise and will not affect anyone but government affiliated businesses.

Plus, as long as you do not use the words, "I am not hiring you because you are a transexual," you will be fine.

 

[p0ink]

You are mistaken. The US Constitution dicates that all people are created equal. This law is nothing new. It will not make any difference in hiring practices. People (mainly blacks and women) have been denied jobs for decades even with laws like this on the books so stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

yes, all people are equal under the *law*. people are not equal in every sense of the word.

plus, your example of women and blacks being denied jobs doesnt fit into this equation, because women and blacks were more than willing to conform to the rules set by their employer and not ask for special exemptions, like transexuals will.

what about the businesses that are owned by religious people who see transexualism being incompatible with their beliefs? should they be forced by the state to do it anyways, even if it is in direct conflict with their religion? what about the women who do not want to share the bathroom with men? should they be told by the state to fuck off?

i dont think so.

 

[2Thick]

less governmental intervention is always the answer.

If this is your line of thought, then blacks and women would still be slaves.

 

[p0ink]

I am not 100% familiar with the law. With that being said, if you are correct and all private businesses are bound by these laws, then this is going too far. But as most laws, they are a compramise and will not affect anyone but government affiliated businesses.

Plus, as long as you do not use the words, "I am not hiring you because you are a transexual," you will be fine.

less governmental intervention is always the answer.

 

[2Thick]

slavery was definitely a black-eye for the US along with many other countries, and i'm glad the government stepped in to do something about it. however, things have changed drastically in terms of government needing to 'correct' certain problems since then.

Believe it or not, people felt the same way about anti-slavery laws as you do about this law.

 

[p0ink]

If this is your line of thought, then blacks and women would still be slaves.

slavery was definitely a black-eye for the US along with many other countries, and i'm glad the government stepped in to do something about it. however, things have changed drastically in terms of government needing to 'correct' certain problems since then.

 

[bwood]

You are mistaken. The US Constitution dicates that all people are created equal. This law is nothing new. It will not make any difference in hiring practices. People (mainly blacks and women) have been denied jobs for decades even with laws like this on the books so stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

ummm...no...

that was the declaration of independence, and it was not understood at the time of its drafting to promise equality of condition, not even among white males, its concept of equality was heavily modified by the the American ideals of reward according to individual achievement and reverence for private property ownership...

and it is a molehill that amounts to a mountain in its mindless promotion of individual rights...as long as the individual does not try to benefit from the fruits of his labor beyond what the left feels to be fair...

fair, of course, is a highly subjective term that will eventually be perverted until the government bureaucrats ultimately control each and every means of production...

a system that steps unstoppably toward a totalitarian regime...

2Thick loves me...

 

[bwood]

slavery was definitely a black-eye for the US along with many other countries, and i'm glad the government stepped in to do something about it. however, things have changed drastically in terms of government needing to 'correct' certain problems since then.

slavery was on its way out without the need for the civil war...

the economics on this point are clear...due to the advances in technology at that time and definitely in the 30 years after war...

the civil war was fought so that the wall street bankers would not lose their investments in southern property and not be usurped in their monopolies by the upstart south...

federalism at its ugliest...

 

[Frackal]

Interesting Bwood...that motivation for the Civil War was omitted from my class and books

 

[overhead]

I always find it funny people say the civil war was fought over slavery. If that were true than you would think Lincoln would have forced nothern states to free their slaves, which was not done until after the war. Unless they were willing to go fight.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Plus, as long as you do not use the words, "I am not hiring you because you are a transexual," you will be fine.

If you believe that objective evidence of discrimination is needed to sue, then you live in fantasy land.

 

[Tiervexx]

You people are such tools of the elite.

This does not dicate private business. It says that you cannot say "I am not hiring you because you are a trabsexual." Nothing else is intended. You can hire and fire anyone you want in a private compnay.

THANK YOU!!!

These shit heads act like they deserve better rights and that when ever someone is made equal, not better but equal, they act like something has been stolen from them.

 

[p0ink]

THANK YOU!!!

These shit heads act like they deserve better rights and that when ever someone is made equal, not better but equal, they act like something has been stolen from them.

something has been stolen from them, the ability to be a *PRIVATE* business and not have the government telling you who you can and cannot hire.