Calif. Senate OKs transgender protections (Companies MUST hire transgenders)

Yahoo ^ | July 25, 2003 | Ellen Maremont Silver

[ScrtAccess]

What one chooses to wear to represent themselves alone does not make one a pervert.

Programs designed to protect one from narrow minded people most likely ain't goofy.

How do you define "regular folk"? The drug dealer around the corner? The drunk at the end of the block? The homeless man standing in the middle of the intersection? The lady that cheats on her husband? "Regular folk" is a subjective term. Everyone pays taxes for these programs.

[jwalsh07]

What one chooses to wear to represent themselves alone does not make one a pervert.

One can choose to wear whatever he or she wants.

One may not force me to hire them unless the government controls the means of production across the board.

Choices have consequences, or at least they used to.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Wow. Just wow.

[speekinout]

One may not force me to hire them unless the government controls the means of production across the board.

How many discrination lawsuits can you afford to fight before you give up?
It's the cost of litigation that usually wins the fight with these nutty laws.

[the Deejay]

"Everyone pays taxes for these programs."

Not if "everyone" isn't working. And if they want "protection" by FORCING an employer to hire them, I don't think that's right. Supposing someone FORCED you to WORK & you didn't need or want to work? Would that be fair?

[the Deejay]

Where, in the US Constitution, or Bill of Rights, is it written, that everyone is "entitled" to a job, house, car, welfare, sex preferences, etc., etc.?

[MonroeDNA]

And the reason anyone would move to CA and start a new business is?

[MonroeDNA]

That scarf clashes with your dress.

[Brad’s Gramma]

And the reason anyone would move to CA and start a new business is?

To meet me? Heheeeeeeeee

[Hildy]

It's worse than you can imagine. A Rep. Congressman on Roger Hedgecock's show yesterday said that within the bill is another clause...you won't believe. If a customer comes in and says to your transgendered dress wearing freak of an employee ANYTHING that OFFENDS him, the freak can sue you, the employer.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Oh. Yippeee.

[ScrtAccess]

I still haven't seen anything but the headline that says anyone will be forced to hire anyone. The only thing I read was that one could not be fired or evicted because of it.

Employers should have the right to hire whoever, and hopefully they will hire the best qualified regardless of dress, but they should not be able to tell someone already employed what they can or cannot wear on or off the job, unless it is a condition of employment such as where a uniform is called for or where safety is a concern.

My guess is, and I don't know this with certainty, is the protections are probably more directed at employers and renters who choose to fire or evict someone for what they wear behind closed doors (in the home) after bing told by someone rather than what is worn to work or in public.

[jwalsh07]

Vote with your feet. Get you, your family and your business the hell out of California.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Dahlink, I realize you're new to Free Republic. Or at least, just signed on under this name.

If you look at the top of the page, by the headline that you speak of, you will see a link that says "Yahoo". You click onto that. You will then find an article regarding this whole issue.

I am not sure about the procedures here on Free Republic about copying from Yahoo, so I'll add a sentence only. Fine. Two sentences.


Ellen Maremont Silver, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

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

Now, what you do is you use common sense. The summary says it will make it ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST...blah blah blah.

That would mean, again using common sense, that if a girly boy wanted to get all gussied up and apply for a job and you found it most disgusting and chose not to hire said girly boy, you'd be in deep doo doo with the law.

That is in laymen's terms.

And welcome to Free Republic.

[xzins]

People don't need to discriminate. They just need a list on which they give points to prospective employees/renters based on a variety of categories.

Income, collateral, years employed, veteran, test scores,transcripts, interests that will make the place more interesting for other employees/occupants, and, of course, that all important interview.

Like with college admissions at Michigan Law School, you're looking for those things which will enhance your overall situation.

(As defined by you.)

[MonroeDNA]

I have to be honest. So called, "tansgendered" people are even more mentally disturbed than homosexuals. If I found out one was working for me, I'd fire him/her/it in a second. Sue me.

Nobody feels comfortable around such creatures. How warped a person's mind must be to do such a thing. Geeze. Repulsive.

[PFKEY]

It's the sick f--- democrats who are pushing deviancy forward.

And not too many years ago such language was considered deviant.

Are you part of the problem too?

[the Deejay]

Really makes one want to rush to Kalifornia and start up a business or two, doesn't it? How encouraging! LOL! (Sooo glad I don't live in that state and never have.)

[the Deejay]

But the second one of them gets fired, they will scream at is because of their sexual preference. If someone has spent the money for a property/business, they should have ALL RIGHTS to say who stays, who goes. Be it a home or business.

[the Deejay]

"tansgendered" people are even more mentally disturbed than homosexuals. If I found out one was working for me, I'd fire him/her/it in a second. Sue me."

Here! Here! Same here! You go, Monroe! You rock!