Posted on 04/30/2003 5:54:30 PM PDT by hotpotato
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)--Christian bookstores and other businesses in California could be required to hire "transsexuals" and "cross-dressers" -- for example, men wearing dresses -- if legislation that passed the California State Assembly April 21 becomes law.
The bill, which would outlaw employment and housing discrimination against "transsexuals" and "cross-dressers," passed the California Assembly 42-34. It now moves on to the state Senate, where it must pass in order to make it to the desk of California Gov. Gray Davis, who has yet to take a public position on the bill.
The new legislation would allow an employer to enforce "reasonable" dress codes, as long as those rules allow the employee "to appear or dress consistently with" his or her "gender identity." California law already prohibits discrimination based on "sexual orientation." The new bill would protect those who are undergoing sex-change operations -- known as "transsexuals" -- as well as men who wear women's clothes, and vice versa.
The bill would exempt businesses with fewer than five employees. Employers and landlords who discriminate could face fines up to $150,000.
Democrats provided all of the "yes" votes, while most of the "no" votes came from Republicans.
"This is a very intolerant and dangerous bill," said Randy Thomasson, founder and executive director of the Campaign for California Families. "... It's outrageous that this bill was even introduced. But it's understandable when you realize that the emerging faith of the Democratic Party is entirely in favor of the homosexual and transsexual agenda."
Similar legislation has passed twice before in the assembly, but was stalled in the Senate when Davis became "nervous about this bill arriving on his desk," Thomasson told Baptist Press.
"The bill actually claims that what is unnatural is natural," he said. "Traditionally, civil rights are based on immutable characteristics -- things you can't change, like skin color. Now to place obviously changeable things [alongside race] ... makes a mockery of everything that Martin Luther King marched for."
The bill can be defeated, Thomasson said, if "people of faith" get involved by pressuring their state senator and the governor. Thomasson's organization is out front in the "Recall Gray Davis" campaign, a grassroots effort that is attempting to gain approximately 1 million signatures by Aug. 29 to remove the California governor. If they reach their goal, a special election would be held and voters would vote up or down on Davis. They had fewer than 100,000 signatures in late April, although the backing of U.S. Representative Darrell Issa gave supporters hope.
"People need to get involved," Thomasson said of defeating the legislation.
Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco is the bill's sponsor.
The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Leno as saying, "I cannot imagine anything more fundamental to liberty and freedom than being allowed to peacefully go about one's day, to get up in the morning, get dressed, go to work and come home to one's family without harassment, without discrimination and without intimidation."
The bill is about fairness, assemblyman Darrell Steinberg argued.
"It's about judging people by the content of their character, not by external or immutable characteristics," he said, according to The Sacramento Bee.
But other assembly members said the bill would infringe on citizens' religious liberties.
"If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy asked during debate, according to WorldNetDaily.com. "How could I possibly have an employee that's here today in a dress, tomorrow may come in a suit, and then stay in a dress? How can I possibly employ this employee and still have the Christian bookstore and live by my faith?"
Some agreed with Mountjoy.
"I believe that religious liberty is the most important liberty," assemblyman Ray Haynes said, according to the Chronicle, "because you are messing with people's perceptions of their souls and the afterlife."
Another assembly member called the bill "kooky."
"We do some real kooky things out here. Really weird stuff," assemblyman Jay LaSuer said in the Chronicle story. "As a kid, I even heard about California, how kooky we were. But this, my friends, is making it even worse for business. Let's not forget what message this sends to the rest of the nation but also our kids."
The bill is AB 196. --30--
To make his point that we need this legislation, Leno argues that it's been on the books in Minnesota for ten years. Minnesota courts awarded a heterosexual crossdresser librarian the right to use female restrooms in his highschool where (since retired) *including* the restrooms for highschool girls. Part of the sexual gratification or titillation of heterosexual crossdressers and transsexuals is to enter traditionally private spaces of females such as public restrooms and gym locker/dressing rooms. There are also heterosexual men whose fetish is to dress as little girls. Their photos can be found on the internet along with sexually descriptive stories about children. I'm not making this up. Search google for "sissy boys girls crossdresser transvestite transgender" This should alarm everyone. This bill does not prevent a heterosexual male expressing his "inner girl-child" at the school where he teaches.
What Leno ignores is that his 70% umemployment figure among the transgendered/transsexual community has much to do with prostitution and drugs, a commonly acknowledge problem in the transgendered community which exists before sex reassignment surgery and is indicative of people who are troubled emotionally and mentally... and NOT a 70% umemployment due to losing a current job.
Another misleading argument is that "women crossdress all the time so why can't a man?" This is completely disingenuous. Women wearing slacks are *not* attempting to pass themselves off as men and certainly are not doing so for sexual gratification.
Folks, this needs to be stopped. It will open a pandora's box of requiring businesses to provide transgenders with separate bathroom facitilites because women will not want heterosexual men in their restrooms. Mark Leno says his legislation doesn't cover that. Of course not! He's going to leave that up to individuals to fight out in the courts. Businesses are being run out of California because of it's hostile environment towards businesses. This is just one more nail in the coffin of California economics.
If an employer wants to hire a trasvestite or transsexual, it should be their right to do so but it is *wrong* to push a sexual deviancy as a civil rights issue. What consenting adults do in their own homes is their business but the public should not be forced to not only accept this behavior in their public life but to also be subjected to state-forced voyeruism especially upon children.
I will look for contact info for Californians to write their state sentator. Gray Davis has yet to make a public stand on this. WE NEED TO LET HIM KNOW THIS IS NOT OK.
... What consenting adults do in their own homes is their business ...So no anti-sodomy laws, right?--you'll join with your homosexual brothers and sisters who want to strike them down etc.?
Don't want to sound like a broken record, but it's the number one reason they want illegal aliens pouring into the country, they can't win elections anymore with just Americans, they're loonies and anyone with half a brain knows it.
All Hail the New Paganism.
What an idiotic and non-productive response. Or are you uncomfortable with the objective of my post and are attempting to divert the topic from stopping legislation that declares transgenderism a civil rights issue by making ridiculous accusations towards me?
< What an idiotic and non-productive response. Or are you uncomfortable with the objective of my post and are attempting to divert the topic from stopping legislation that declares transgenderism a civil rights issue by making ridiculous accusations towards me?Chill, dude. You're the one wrote that what one does in ones own bedroom is ones own business: hence, by your own reasoning, sodomy laws are unjust. Are you unwilling to take responsibility for your own words? Or were you stone cold drunk when you wrote this so you're not responsible, or what?
Seriously, it's all pretty perverse!
Look for it within a decade. Some "expert" will come out with a study saying that a child becomes sexually aware at four years old, thus making it okay for said child to have sex with some pervert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.