"BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a bill that would end discrimination based on transgender status.Work place discrimination is not ok. That's obvious. For any reason. Duh. If it happens. Fight against it. More background- According to a Mercury News article, a man named Ethan St. Pierre was the target of gender-identity based discrimination back around 2001:
The bill would add "gender identity and expression" to the state's discrimination and hate crime laws. "
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2292561/posts
"Once they saw the changes that my body was making they decided that I could no longer do my job," said St. Pierre, 47, a transgender man living in Haverhill, Mass. "They started taking my responsibilities away from me one at a time until finally they told me that I was no longer welcome."
Supporters of a transgender rights bill making its way through the Massachusetts Statehouse say their goal is to give transgender people like St. Pierre legal protections at work, in public accommodations and in housing.
I mean, that makes sense. If St. Pierre's gender-identity was the reason for him being fired, he has every right to challenge, sue, and bring disrepute to the business he was working for. The business should get in trouble. Bang. Ok.
The only thing that bothers me is that apparently it's legally necessary to specify gender-identity within the hate crime laws. It should be obvious. In a free country, an individual has every right to be whatever the heck they want. And it confuses me why it isn't already obvious, with the previous hate crime legislation, that transgendered people- and all people- should not be discriminated against.
But I guess it's impossible to have, in legal jargon, "you can't discriminate against someone for anything they cannot control or has no direct influence on you." I mean, whether someone is a gypsy, transgendered, or a fan of baseball has nothing to do with job performance, and if someone can prove that they were discriminated against for one of these reasons they should be able to bring the issue to court.
But now for the even stupider:
Timothy Tracey, a lawyer with the conservative Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, told members of the Committee on the Judiciary that the bill infringes on the religious rights of those who believe that men and women are different.
"The First Amendment mandates that no individual should be required to affirm, in act, word, or deed, that a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, against their sincerely held religious beliefs," Tracey said. "Yet this is precisely what (the bill) will do."
This is retarded. Plain retarded. The First Amendment shouldn't protect people's feelings on gender. Just as the First Amendment doesn't protect someone's racism: if I was a part of a religion that believed all Armenians are evil and must clean the streets, letting Armenians have jobs other than cleaning streets is not against my First Amendment rights.
Tim's confusion partly comes from an upset over the bill's allowing for an individual to enter the gender-based bathroom they identify with. If someone who feels they are a woman goes into the women's rest room and is not a woman, apparently that discriminates against Timmy's ability to call that person a man. Here's my tip for Tim: chill the fuck out. Just as a transgendered man is allowed to think he is a woman, you are allowed to think he is a man. But it's confusing, I guess, since we all discover someone's gender based on which bathroom a person goes into.
There's also the strange idea that if a man goes into the women's restroom, he'll rape everyone.
"Opponents said the bill would lead to a breakdown in privacy in rest rooms, locker rooms and other single-gender facilities and would open women's bathrooms to sexual predators."
As far as I know, nothing other than the punishment for being a sexual predator has stopped sexual predators from going into women's rest rooms. Besides, if a trans-gendered person is convincing enough, you won't even know the dude pissing next to you once (or still) has a snatch.
And the broader anti-gay concern is that opening single-gendered facilities like this to non-genetically based but emotionally based credentials forces the "gay agenda" or "transgender agenda" down their throat. But isn't that what makes America great? People's stupid identities are pushed down our throats when we're in public. We can't escape people, or who they are, or what they feel while we're among them. There's no reason to be upset if a Christian were allowed to piss in the same bathroom I was, even though I could say allowing a Christian to piss with me pushes his religious identity down my throat. In fact, all this mentioning of pushing things down my throat is pushing the image of fellatio down my throat. I'm against that.
Where I go to school, most our bathrooms are "uni gendered," meaning everyone pisses in them. I prefer to say most our bathrooms are bathrooms. Because I don't give a shit what gender you are, your employer shouldn't, the person pissing next to you shouldn't, and the government shouldn't either. But, maybe the government has to in order to protect? That may end up being the unfortunate truth...
Piss off, Timmy.
No comments:
Post a Comment