| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| ’Dress for Transgender success in California’ |
| 2003-08-04 |
| (edited for brevity) California Gov. Gray Davis added fuel to his opponents’ recall fire by signing a controversial bill that authorizes fines of up to $150,000 for companies or nonprofit groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that discriminate against cross-dressers, transsexuals or drag queens. The governor signed the measure Saturday along with the $71.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2003-4. The move fell under the radar screens of most California media outlets. (He snuck it in) The law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2004, adds "gender identity or expression" to the characteristics protected under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and specifically protects residents whose "perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual’s sex at birth." (What the hell does that statement mean?) The Homosexual-rights advocates hail the law as a victory that’s been a long time in coming. "It’s a very big issue for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community in California," Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press. "It’s something we’ve been working on for three years." The measure, titled AB 196, was one of a package proposed this year by the five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. Earlier this year, the state Assembly passed a bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners." The Senate is expected to take it up next month. "Having a law that specifically states who’s protected makes it clear to employers that the majority of people in California want transgender people to be able to work in a nondiscriminatory environment," said Chris Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco. (His mom must be proud!) Arguing for its necessity, the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco (where else) ,cites a 1999 study by the San Francisco Department of Public Health indicating the city’s transgender population had a 70 percent unemployment rate. (I bet the way they dressed (pun intended) for the interview has a lot to do with why they are not hired.) "We must do everything in our power to protect such fundamental human rights," he said. Opponents call the move bad for business. Employer groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association warn the law’s overly subjective definitions will spawn frivolous lawsuits. Just about any comment or action between workers could be grounds for a lawsuit, they contend. (Frivolous lawsuits? This is California, we invented that!) Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy of Monrovia was one of several members who spoke about how the measure harms California businesses during debate in the Assembly. (Jobs, exit stage right) "If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" he asked. "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?" Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide family issues leadership organization, describes the law as "attacking persons of conscience." "Average people think it’s outrageous to force the sex-change lifestyle upon businesses and Boy Scouts. Gray Davis has apparently lost his senses," he said. "With his signature on AB 196, Davis has declared war on Californians who object to sex-change operations." As WorldNetDaily reported, Davis’ signature will likely motivate opponents to turn out in greater numbers for the Oct. 7 recall vote. (You bet! Watch the voter turn out next month) Opponents of the "cross-dresser bill" plan to hold a news tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the State Treasurer’s Building in Sacramento to highlight the law’s detrimental effect on business. Speakers will include Thomasson and other pro-family leaders, including local ministers representing black, white and Latino voters. "By supporting the transsexual agenda that hurts everyone else, Gray Davis has earned his recall," said Thomasson. "The in-your-face transsexual agenda makes voters very angry. ... Gray Davis tried to hide his actions by signing this radical sex-change bill under cover of the budget, but he won’t get away with it." As a personal note I think that anybody should have the right to live anyway they want. You want to a cocktail dress and your a man, go for it. However, I should have the right to hire whomever I please and whomever I feel would help my business. If I lose business because my customers don’t (or care to) ’understand’ the guy in the dress, will the state make that up. Note: I have NEVER seen any of these transgender types working at the Capital. If Davis and gang are so ’tolerant’ why don’t they hire them? |
| Posted by:Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) |
| #16 Aris! This law is NOT aimed at banning unequality and prejudice. We already have laws for that, and all they have to do is enforce them. This law is aimed at forcing us to like homosexuals. Not just tolerate them, let them enjoy equal protection under the law, etc, all of which are already law. Now we have to like them. Further, it is aimed at recruitment. There is a sustained emphasis in the media on the "coolness" of homosexuality, on the appeal of easy sex to oversexed teens, and now even on separate schools for "homosexual" 13-year-olds. But mostly, this law is about a desperate, incompetent governor, who has turned a $12 billion surplus into a deficit about 1/3 the size of the gross domestic product of all Greece in 4 years. You are not here. You are preaching to Californians about the motives of a governor with his back to the wall, fighting the first recall in state history, with every dirty trick and underhanded means available. He is pandering to every special interest group in the state, in the hopes of turning out one more vote for him. If you were here, you would see just how much of a threat the teaching of creationism in our schools is... what on earth are you reading? Speaking of reading, our schools don't teach that here, and despite the highest per capita spending on students in the US, we are at the bottom of English proficiency. But you bet that those kids are experts on sexual preferences. You are trying to comment from Mt. Olympus on what is actually a very tawdry political battle for survival by an old-line socialist with New Age fringe groups and bureaucratic dependents for his sole remaining support. Please stick to badgering the British into swimming toward a sinking ship, and let us try to pick up the pieces of financial viability in this very large and deeply wounded state. You will need this economy when it is time to rescue the Euro. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-4 11:54:09 PM |
| #15 Take a look at the penalties for violating the law and anyone is wide open. How would you like to own a small business with this over your head? Answer to creationism: The world was made in six days and finished on the seventh according to the contract it should have been the eleventh but the painters wouldn't paint and the workers wouldn't work so the quickest thing to do was to fill it up with dirt. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-8-4 10:31:12 PM |
| #14 you're welcome - said with the same sincerity |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-4 10:30:47 PM |
| #13 Frank G Thank you so much for your interesting insightful remarks! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-8-4 10:29:49 PM |
| #12 AP: it's just a question of when, although it is still some time away. Might I add though, that the typically American mistrust of government will only hurt and not help. That's why from now on it will become vitally important who you vote for. Aris - can you disprove that God created the world in 6 days? |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-4 10:17:41 PM |
| #11 We must do something to help the LURDs who'll soon be flooding in... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-8-4 10:15:10 PM |
| #10 NMM - HIV boy? don't you have a rock to slime under? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-4 10:12:58 PM |
| #9 Aris - thanks for preaching about something you know absolutely nothing about. There are NO schools in California paid for by public $ (and even the Catholic, which I am, private schools) that preach creationism. The schools do lie every day in teaching PC subjects, but that's another subject (Heather doesn't have two mommies, she has one with a turkey baster loaded with someone elses'....think Melissa Etheridge). Our Gubbner, Joe Davis, will soon be on the street, looking for work, but in themeantime is pandering to anyone willing to prostitute their votes. Current outrage: Drivers' Licenses (a gateway document to others) for illegals...soon we'll let convicts vote (90% Dem?), and illegal amnesty push |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-4 10:12:03 PM |
| #8 Hmm doesn't California have more important issues than whether a few Transsexuals get to work at Dunkin' Donuts? Like a major deficit and lowered credit rating--but no! The right wing nutz will turn this into an issue while ignoring the 800# gorilla in the room. Meanwhile the populace wants great roads, libraries, public services--they just don't want to PAY for them! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-8-4 10:07:45 PM |
| #7 There's moral rotting and then again there's moral rotting. A law like this, which right or wrong is aimed as banning unequality and prejudice, isn't the worst specimen of moral rotting that you can hope to find. If you want moral rotting, see the people that e.g. want to destroy the teaching of science at schools by raising creationism fairytales to the level of literal scientific truth. *That's* moral rotting. Having the schools lie to your children and thinking it as virtuous. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-4 9:42:25 PM |
| #6 So California has the biggest budget crisis in its history and cannot get a bill passed until a few days ago, and this is what the legislature produces? I have been following this one for months going through the legislature. I hate to bring up the analogy of the decline and fall of Rome, because it is overused, but here it is: Rome sets up good institutions, but morally rots on the inside. The leaders bring no moral leadership to the table, only buggery, so to speak. Rome rots, strong enemy attacks, Rome collapses and falls. Does anyone think that the Islamofascists are not thinking about the rot of the US and use it as a lever to destroy US (us)? This crap legislation is basically suicide. Sure the market will find a way around this lunacy, but I sure hope that we collectively as a nation wake up pretty soon. Could you imagine being the governor of the State of California and signing something like this with your own signature? Godzilla Louise! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-8-4 9:13:05 PM |
| #5 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus...or was that Circus? |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2003-8-4 7:51:42 PM |
| #4 Nobody's addressed the restroom use issue. Think NOW will? Doubt it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-4 7:33:08 PM |
| #3 Note: I have NEVER seen any of these transgender types working at the Capital. If Davis and gang are so ’tolerant’ why don’t they hire them? Hey Sarge, only 70% are unemployed. The other 30% may be legislative assistants and governor's aides. That would explain a lot. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-4 7:13:46 PM |
| #2 The true effect of this is to limit employment. That metaphorical guy owning a Christian book store is not going to put a Help Wanted sign in the window or an ad in the paper. He's gonna go to his church and find out if anyones kid needs a job. Same with the boyscouts but in a different way. It will create inbreeding promote old boy network type stuff to ensure that nobody sneaks in and drags the law with them. Some jobs it won't matter, others it will make a huge difference. Treating all jobs equally is just stupid. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-8-4 6:47:23 PM |
| #1 They won't outlaw Christianity outright. They don't have to. They just make its practice illegal with laws like this. |
| Posted by: SPQR 2755 2003-8-4 6:40:39 PM |