Stefanie wrote:

Dead on! ...and legislators wonder why their collective approval rating is lower than the President's. Here's a related San Francisco Chronicle article: Many in Bay Area call anti-bias measure an act of betrayal. Betrayal is an accurate way to describe it, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

The democrats think some type of queering is better than others i suppose...

Shannon wrote:
The democrats think some type of queering is better than others i suppose...

Yes, apparently civil rights are still reserved only for the chosen few, and "our kind" simply aren't allowed in that club. Besides, you know something's amiss when conservative talk show hosts have to scold liberal legislators for not being inclusive. LOL

Stefanie wrote:

Shannon wrote:
The democrats think some type of queering is better than others i suppose...

Yes, apparently civil rights are still reserved only for the chosen few, and "our kind" simply aren't allowed in that club. Besides, you know something's amiss when conservative talk show hosts have to scold liberal legislators for not being inclusive. LOL

I appreciate the irony though... When you need to discriminate on an anti-discrimination bill, its shows how much integrity our law makers have.

Shannon wrote:
I appreciate the irony though... When you need to discriminate on an anti-discrimination bill, its shows how much integrity our law makers have.

Well said. It will be of little comfort to know that I'm being fired because I'm trans, not because I'm bi.

Stefanie wrote:

Shannon wrote:
The democrats think some type of queering is better than others i suppose...

Yes, apparently civil rights are still reserved only for the chosen few, and "our kind" simply aren't allowed in that club. Besides, you know something's amiss when conservative talk show hosts have to scold liberal legislators for not being inclusive. LOL

The gay rights bill is passable. When transgendered rights are included, the bill is not passable. Calling pragmatists bigots is not very nice.

Two options here: Plus Gay Rights, or Plus No Rights.

You prefer to choose Plus No Rights. That doesn't mean anyone who prefers incremental progress is a bigot.

Jello wrote:

Stefanie wrote:

Shannon wrote:
The democrats think some type of queering is better than others i suppose...

Yes, apparently civil rights are still reserved only for the chosen few, and "our kind" simply aren't allowed in that club. Besides, you know something's amiss when conservative talk show hosts have to scold liberal legislators for not being inclusive. LOL

The gay rights bill is passable. When transgendered rights are included, the bill is not passable. Calling pragmatists bigots is not very nice.

Two options here: Plus Gay Rights, or Plus No Rights.

You prefer to choose Plus No Rights. That doesn't mean anyone who prefers incremental progress is a bigot.

It's not passable because the democrats are bigots. If they really believed people should be hired on the basis of how they work regardless of how they want to live, the bill would be a sure pass. Equal rights for some and not for others is by definition bullshit.

Jello wrote:
The gay rights bill is passable. When transgendered rights are included, the bill is not passable. Calling pragmatists bigots is not very nice.

Two options here: Plus Gay Rights, or Plus No Rights.

You prefer to choose Plus No Rights. That doesn't mean anyone who prefers incremental progress is a bigot.

I do understand the practical approach of passing the watered-down bill; I simply disagree with it, and I disagree with the premise that trans inclusion was not an option, as I explained here. The sponsors didn't want to fight for inclusion, because they got what they wanted. Besides, the bill won't become law, anyway. The Senate will probably vote against it, and even if it passed, the President would veto it.

So, while I understand your support for incrementalism, I can't support any attempt to recognize rights for some citizens, but not others. It's not supposed to be that way in this country. Passing a bill like this sends the wrong message.

FYI:
Total House Vote 235-184
Democrats 200-25
Republicans 35-159
Congressmen Who Broke with Party on ENDA Vote

Stefanie wrote:

Jello wrote:
The gay rights bill is passable. When transgendered rights are included, the bill is not passable. Calling pragmatists bigots is not very nice.

Two options here: Plus Gay Rights, or Plus No Rights.

You prefer to choose Plus No Rights. That doesn't mean anyone who prefers incremental progress is a bigot.

I do understand the practical approach of passing the watered-down bill; I simply disagree with it, and I disagree with the premise that trans inclusion was not an option, as I explained here. The sponsors didn't want to fight for inclusion, because they got what they wanted. Besides, the bill won't become law, anyway. The Senate will probably vote against it, and even if it passed, the President would veto it.

So, while I understand your support for incrementalism, I can't support any attempt to recognize rights for some citizens, but not others. It's not supposed to be that way in this country. Passing a bill like this sends the wrong message.

FYI:
Total House Vote 235-184
Democrats 200-25
Republicans 35-159

This is a country in which open discrimination against gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people is constant, and one of the parties wins elections campaigning against gay marriage. Getting any kind of bill through is an achievement. The mere fact that there is an open debate about this is huge.

Stefanie wrote:

Dead on! ...and legislators wonder why their collective approval rating is lower than the President's. Here's a related San Francisco Chronicle article: Many in Bay Area call anti-bias measure an act of betrayal. Betrayal is an accurate way to describe it, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

Sorry, not seeing this one. Discrimination based on gender is already barred. With this adding discrimination based on orientation as protected, what then is not covered? As far as I can tell, this sounds like an issue where the TS/TG community is screaming bloody murder because they didn't get their own special section of the bill. Now, if you'd like to explain how having gender protected and orientation protected fails to protect TG/TS, I'm all ears, but at the moment I'm hearing "look at me! I'm an attention whore!"

(that is more sarcastic than normal, I'm never up this early and don't like it much)

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Stefanie wrote:

Dead on! ...and legislators wonder why their collective approval rating is lower than the President's. Here's a related San Francisco Chronicle article: Many in Bay Area call anti-bias measure an act of betrayal. Betrayal is an accurate way to describe it, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

Sorry, not seeing this one. Discrimination based on gender is already barred. With this adding discrimination based on orientation as protected, what then is not covered? As far as I can tell, this sounds like an issue where the TS/TG community is screaming bloody murder because they didn't get their own special section of the bill. Now, if you'd like to explain how having gender protected and orientation protected fails to protect TG/TS, I'm all ears, but at the moment I'm hearing "look at me! I'm an attention whore!"

(that is more sarcastic than normal, I'm never up this early and don't like it much)

You're also not supposed to discriminate based on creed, but I doubt a satanist would have a very strong case unless the bill said satanist. The bill says "gender" not changing gender. Thats enough of a difference.

Soon they're going to start discriminating against fat people. Your weight is largely determined by genetics, so this borders on eugenics . We need comprehensive equal rights to preserve and alloow for cultural enrichment in our country. The law should have been more inclusive. Not oonly for transgender but for fat people, smokers, people who like to paint themselves blue for that matter. Your job worthiness should be determined by your relevant background and everyone with equal qualifications deserves a fair shot no matter what their habits are. Anything else is not fair.

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Stefanie wrote:

Dead on! ...and legislators wonder why their collective approval rating is lower than the President's. Here's a related San Francisco Chronicle article: Many in Bay Area call anti-bias measure an act of betrayal. Betrayal is an accurate way to describe it, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

Sorry, not seeing this one. Discrimination based on gender is already barred. With this adding discrimination based on orientation as protected, what then is not covered? As far as I can tell, this sounds like an issue where the TS/TG community is screaming bloody murder because they didn't get their own special section of the bill. Now, if you'd like to explain how having gender protected and orientation protected fails to protect TG/TS, I'm all ears, but at the moment I'm hearing "look at me! I'm an attention whore!"

(that is more sarcastic than normal, I'm never up this early and don't like it much)

You're also not supposed to discriminate based on creed, but I doubt a satanist would have a very strong case unless the bill said satanist. The bill says "gender" not changing gender. Thats enough of a difference.

Soon they're going to start discriminating against fat people. Your weight is largely determined by genetics, so this borders on eugenics . We need comprehensive equal rights to preserve and alloow for cultural enrichment in our country. The law should have been more inclusive. Not oonly for transgender but for fat people, smokers, people who like to paint themselves blue for that matter. Your job worthiness should be determined by your relevant background and everyone with equal qualifications deserves a fair shot no matter what their habits are. Anything else is not fair.

And to this I will say, "No. A thousand times no!" This sort of argument is exactly how we got where we are with the issue. By doing a breakdown like this, the jackasses responded with, "Well what I want to do isn't listed, but all these other things are, so what I want must be okay." This is how we've gotten stuck with the walking clusterfuck in the White House "well it doesn't say we can't waterboard, so it must be ok."

No. If you are barred from discriminating based on gender, it doesn't matter a good god damn if you're male, female, she-male, eunuch, trans whatever, or have a transplanted horse dick. It's ALL barred, and adding more shit on just gives people ideas. Bad ones. The law is clear, concise, and if you're taking your cues from Rush Lameass, you need your head examined. And having looked at this even more closely now, the specifics of the bill, this is attention whoredom.

Boo hoo, it doesn't have my name in it. Let me make this perfectly clear. Sticking it in there green lights some other group getting screwed because it mentioned this group, but not that group. I have news for you, the admonition that discrimination on the basis of gender is not allowed covers ALL of it. Period. If the TG/TS thing were in there, then it would be okay to go after some other group.

The law is right, it covers everyone. The TS/TG people screaming about it need to stop being drama queens, look at the damn thing, then have a nice hot morning cup of shut the fuck up.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

No. If you are barred from discriminating based on gender, it doesn't matter a good god damn if you're male, female, she-male, eunuch, trans whatever, or have a transplanted horse dick. It's ALL barred,

Then why are so many trans folk fired each year with little effective legal recourse? Answer: the law as it stands is weak.

Boo hoo, it doesn't have my name in it. Let me make this perfectly clear. Sticking it in there green lights some other group getting screwed because it mentioned this group, but not that group. I have news for you, the admonition that discrimination on the basis of gender is not allowed covers ALL of it. Period. If the TG/TS thing were in there, then it would be okay to go after some other group.

The law is right, it covers everyone. The TS/TG people screaming about it need to stop being drama queens, look at the damn thing, then have a nice hot morning cup of shut the fuck up.

If they are covered by the law than why is mentioning that fact in the law resisted? If it's okay for the lawmakers to discriminate , all those legal cases just got that much more weak. Sure, the law helps ending some types of discrimination, but they need to define an ethic and apply it broadly. If you do not judge someone for how they are able to preform, then you are a bigot. No matter what the difference is you pick to not want in society.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Now, if you'd like to explain how having gender protected and orientation protected fails to protect TG/TS, I'm all ears...

While you and I might consider "gender" (within the context of current civil rights laws) to include gender identity, many do not. Without getting into a long discussion of the differences between the terms "sex" and "gender," many legislators, judges, and employers interpret either term as "being male or female" and do not extend the definition to include those who are transsexual. From their perspective, being transsexual is another category.

Applying your logic, homosexuals wouldn't need ENDA, either. If an employer were to discriminate against an employee because of the sex/gender of his significant other, wouldn't that be discrimination on the basis of gender, and therefore, already covered under current law? If you have a boyfriend and you're female, that's O.K., but if you have a boyfriend and you're male, that's not - the only difference is the employee's gender.

So, it stands to reason that if society can see that homosexuals are not being afforded equal protection by use of the term "gender" in current anti-discrimination law, then the same should hold true for transsexuals. To suggest that one group, but not the other, needs ENDA seems illogical.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The law is clear, concise, and if you're taking your cues from Rush Lameass, you need your head examined.

The law is not clear. If it were, we wouldn’t need ENDA. And I doubt that anyone here is taking cues from Rush Limbaugh. He simply pointed out what some in the House failed to recognize (or care about), and sometimes the truth hurts.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
...then have a nice hot morning cup of shut the fuck up.

After you. ;)

Stefanie wrote:
The law is not clear. If it were, we wouldn’t need ENDA. And I doubt that anyone here is taking cues from Rush Limbaugh. He simply pointed out what some in the House failed to recognize (or care about), and sometimes the truth hurts.

From the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as modified) which is THE law.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,
or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin

Barney Frank's bill adds orientation to that list. Now if some shitheel in government is not standing up to the above statement, there is a very simple process to go through. You find US Attorney (and in some areas this will be difficult I understand, especially as fouled as the Bushies have made the current US Attorney system) to file suit for violation of Civil Rights. It wasn't pretty, but worked in the south when Bobby Kennedy ran DoJ, and the same principles all apply.

And if that list is not simple, clear and concise, it is because someone is deliberately trying to make it say something other than what it says, and they're most likely in violation of it.

And by the way, if you think this bill will help even if it's passed? Forget it. The first set of cases you'll see under it is conservatives suing gay bars for discrimination because they wouldn't hire their redneck asses.