Replies

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.

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.

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.

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.

, 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.

In your very stupid comments you also mentioned the "behind closed doors" fatuosity. You are a shill for the homo agenda and that must be why you registered on FR. I'm going to be watching you.

And as far as your comment above, why the hell shouldn't an employer be allowed to have rules about what employees can wear? I supposed you're in favor of the "Naked Guy" in UC Berkely, too.