(USA) - Antidiscrimination law might not include transsexuals.

[Celestial Goblin]

I've found this on another forum and I thought that some people here might like to know about it. The difference in wording is sutble, but can turn out to be significant.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is currently being discussed in the US House of Representatives. There have been two versions: one that bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and one that just includes sexual orientation. If need be, I can go into the dozens of reasons why gender identity should be included, but I'm posting mostly to ask that all US citizens here call your representatives at (202) 224-3121 and let them know how you feel.http://www.nctequality.org/ENDA.html#do
There's also a petition about this:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/transgender_inclusive_ENDA/

[Zakharra]

 It makes sense to me. Being transgendered, I run the very real risk of such discrimination.

[Brandon]

Everyone despite race, sexual orientation, or gender should be included in it. Ill be getting ahold of my representative tommorrow to talk to him about it

[kylie]

That link at the end of the quote turned out Not Found just now.

[Celestial Goblin]

I edited it to work, sorry.

[RubySlippers]

I'm not sure of the Federal governments legal standing to do this they must protect from race, gender, disability, age and other clear factors of difference under the Constitution. It doesn't cover gender identity or sexual preferences anywhere in clear language. States could do that however with no problem as well as local communities. As a Libertarian I must support in this a strict interpretation of the language and say they cannot be empowered to do this even if its as a moral principle suitable, the law takes precedence, without clear language in an amendment to the Constitution allowing for it.

And I know they can manage commerce but this would far exceed simple taxation and regulations for fair business and interfere with workplaces of a religious nature? The latter has to be a concern with the First Amendment in place.

[Celestial Goblin]

With no offense Ruby, I don't think it's worth anyone's time to argue with your fantasy-land interpretation of libertarianism.

[RubySlippers]

I'm just offering my iopinion on this matter since I ,like many Libertarian Party members, hold the letter of the Constitutional authority as necessary leaving most of these matters to the States and local juristictions. Since no amendment can right now cover homosexuality as a protected group in clear language then it is hard for me to support such an invasion of business and also religious institutions. I never stated its bad legislation in principle just not under the Federal auspices at this time without amending the document thorugh acceptable processes.

And since I didn't see the law and can't tell if it excludes those with strong religious objections to these groups, I have to also oppose it for that as well, again the First Amendment and its long body of law protects faiths from government interference pretty broadly.

I'm entitled to my opinion just because I may be gay doesn't mean I go along with the crowd on these issues when its not proper for the government to do so.

[Celestial Goblin]

I'd love to see protection of minorities, including sexual minorities being enshrined in the constitution, actually. But I see no reason why we can't have a good law drafted without putting it in the constitution.

The 'it's morally good but not in the constitution so I say no' argument seems like you'd be treating the constitution as some sort of religious scripture, too.

And as for 'strong religious objections', I don't agree. The constitution is there to protect people's right to believe (or not) in a religion of their choosing, not to protect their right to discriminate because their religion tells them so.
Simple comparison: A Muslim owner hires only women who wear burkas. A Buddhist owner fires you for eating meat. A *splurt whatever* guy fires you for not liking his favorite band. All of those things are discrimination, even if someone has strong convictions to support them.

By the way, from what I know, the majority of US Christians are not quite the fundamentalist-Jack-Chick variety that get talked about so much. I even read some spirited criticisms of homophobia written by very religious Christians from USA, so there's no reason to make this into a religion issue.

[Apple of Eris]

I'm not sure of the Federal governments legal standing to do this they must protect from race, gender, disability, age and other clear factors of difference under the Constitution.

What? Show me where in the constitution you find this. The constitution protects the rights to vote on the basis of race and gender. Not protection from general discrimination on any other lever or for other reasons.

As far as discrimination in business matters, I refer you to the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and various Supreme Court rulings. NONE of which are defined in the constitution, but by congressional Acts or Court rulings.

And by the way, it IS perfectly legal to discriminate against any class not clearly defined in those laws/rulings. Hence I could discriminate against smoker (smoking is not a protected class), people with more than 7 freckles, motorcycle riders, etc.

And lastly, Congress has the right to pass laws that affect even local business under the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution because government lawyers have proven to the Supreme Court again and again that even an organization that does NO business out of state has interstate commerce ramifications. I suppose if you could prove that EVERY aspect of your business was local, you might have a leg to stand on (all my paper supplies are local, I make my own pens, etc etc), but I doubt it.

Anywho, I'm still undecided on the trangender part of the law, I don't like discrimination in the workplace, but I can see how in certain industries, it might make more traditional (old heads, etc) customers uncomfortable.

[Zakharra]

 The only reasons to fire/not hire someone should be poor job performance, lack of skills needed, ora bad physical apprarance (ie. looking like crap/a bum) when applying to the job. Firing/not hiring because of any religion, gender(including transgendered), sexual preference, race, disability(if they can do the job in a timely manner), and such should be criminal offences.

[kongming]

And by the way, it IS perfectly legal to discriminate against any class not clearly defined in those laws/rulings. Hence I could discriminate against smoker (smoking is not a protected class), people with more than 7 freckles, motorcycle riders, etc.

Win.

I'd discriminate against people named Ben.

[Apple of Eris]

Zak> Be that as it may, there ARE companies discriminating based on things like smoking. Why? Because smokers cost more for health insurance, driving up the price for the company to pay for employee benefits.

People are discriminated againstbased on appearance all the time too. More attractive, more likely to get certain jobs.

Heck, I'm a lawyer and I get discriminated against all the time. A lot of potential clients go somewhere else becase they think a female lawyer is going to be a pushover. It's just a fact of life. I don't say it's right or wrong, it just is.

[Zakharra]

 Smokers also tend to die earlier, but I get your point. It's getting to the point that one will be discriminated on a ever increasing number of physical problems. Too fat, doesn't get enough exercise, engages in dangerous sports, and so on and so forth. That problem will have to be looked at fairly soon I think. Within the next decade.

I can say that not all smokers get lung cancer. My mom has smoked since she was 16. She's 67 now. And not all cases of lung cancer are from people who have smoked.

[Celestial Goblin]

The difference here is that smoking or unhealthy lifestyle is a concious choice, whereas being transsexual is something you are born with. It's simply being born with a wrong body and from what I've read, it causes a lot of hardship.

Heck, I'm a lawyer and I get discriminated against all the time. A lot of potential clients go somewhere else becase they think a female lawyer is going to be a pushover. It's just a fact of life. I don't say it's right or wrong, it just is.

Personally, I'd say this is flat-out wrong. It's sexism and it's completely irrational. Now, there's no way to legislate a freelance job like a lawyer. But if someone would discriminate against women when hiring for some non-freelance type job, I certainly think it should be outlawed.
If only because hiring based on something else than aptitude for work is bad for bussines overally. Regardless what Ruby might say, letting people discriminate runs completely against the concept of free market and fair competition.

Also, if anything can change the current situation and stop people from discriminating, it's introducing a law for it.

[Apple of Eris]

I don't agree with discrimination in general, but I can't say I'm against it in every case except for fitness for a job. Honestly, if I were say, expand my legal business and hire another lawyer to work for me, appearance would certainly be a factor. I'm not going to hire a lawyer with pink spikes on his/her head, or with dozens of visible tattoos or a bunch of jewelry on their face.

Every job is different, and one that requires a certain type of public interaction in my mind requires people to meet certain standards of appearance.

As far as transgenderism is concerned, do I think they SHOULD be discriminated aginst? Definately not. In most cases.

Is a law necessary? Perhaps. Though either way, proving discrimination because of transgenderism is going to be just as difficult if not more so than proving discrimination based on gender, race, religion. All of which are already extremely difficult to prove in court.

I don't think a law is going to do a whole heck of a lot. More importantly is a change in the way society views transsexuals.

[Celestial Goblin]

I don't agree with discrimination in general, but I can't say I'm against it in every case except for fitness for a job. Honestly, if I were say, expand my legal business and hire another lawyer to work for me, appearance would certainly be a factor. I'm not going to hire a lawyer with pink spikes on his/her head, or with dozens of visible tattoos or a bunch of jewelry on their face.

I think that 'discrimination' based on based on outlandish clothes or body decorations does not figure into this. There's always dress-code that applies to everyone equally.
A law that would make it illegal to fire someone who comes to work dressed as Batman or something? That's no way what is proposed here.

I don't think a law is going to do a whole heck of a lot. More importantly is a change in the way society views transsexuals.

It can save some people a lot of grief in their work. And more importantly, making discrimination illegal will make it less popular and thus make it disappear faster, thus effecting the way society views the matter.

[Elvi]

In reality Celestial, all the laws in the world can't change opinions, it has to come from people.

Look at the drink driving laws, for instance, it's not the punitive fines and bans that gets to people, it's the utter disgust that others have for those who do it....

[Celestial Goblin]

I'd rather have the law on my side anyday.
And drunk driving laws are IMHO all okay. Taking a persons license away can prevent them from being a further danger to other drivers, for example.
And if there's a law in place, it's easier to convince your irresponsible friends not to do such a thing.
And there are some people who have no strong political convictions but who simply respect the law. To them illegal=bad in many cases and that also helps.

[Elvi]

True...but the point I was trying to make is that in the end it's people's attitudes that change the way others think, not just laws.
For instance, as a biker, I know that there are far more who won't drink and ride, because those they ride with and respect think they are being arses in doing so, than any concerned about breaking a law....

[Celestial Goblin]

I think bikers might be saner and more safety-concious compared to the rest of the drivers.
That said, you wouldn't want to rely only on respect and have no law in place, right?

[Elvi]

Unfortunately not Celestial, drink drugs and rock 'n Roll is a very ingrained in biker culture, that said, many still refuse to drink and ride now...

As for the law....Of course not, because if anything it does serve to highlight those who are being absolute idiots, which include any form of behaviour as with discrimination, which brings us nicely back on topic....*smiles*....

[Sherona]

The only reasons to fire/not hire someone should be poor job performance, lack of skills needed, ora bad physical apprarance (ie. looking like crap/a bum) when applying to the job. Firing/not hiring because of any religion, gender(including transgendered), sexual preference, race, disability(if they can do the job in a timely manner), and such should be criminal offences.

Ok for onethingI must point out that I am not against transgendered people, homosexual people, and in no way am I saying that I endorse religious views that are against such things.

That said

This country actually was founded on the principle of Religious Freedom. If people were not running from religious persecutions, being forced to do things against their beliefs etc etc, then the US as a whole would be a very different place..this is much of the reason the right to religion was drafted into the constitution.

So, that being said, while no I do not believe that you could actually go out and FIRE someone for their sexual preference, or if they ate meat wore 'provocative clothing, or any other religious taboo, I doubt there will ever be a law that is passed that FORCES religious institutions to HIRE in the first place someone who blatantly lives a lifestyle that they believe is a sin.

I do not think you will ever see a catholic school being FORCED to hire a transgendered teacher..or a Muslim man forced to hire women who wear shorts and t-shirts, or skirts and blouses depending on where they are at, nor would you find a Synagogue forced to hire a clerk who eats ham in his lunch every day..the list continues.

People who believe that transgenderedness, homosexuality, eating pork is a sin, or wearing anything that shows more then your eyes if your a woman, must be allowed to follow these beliefs. Otherwise everything that the admendmant that protects these beliefs is a fraud.

[Celestial Goblin]

People who believe that transgenderedness, homosexuality, eating pork is a sin, or wearing anything that shows more then your eyes if your a woman, must be allowed to follow these beliefs. Otherwise everything that the admendmant that protects these beliefs is a fraud.

Being transgendered or homosexual is not a choice but something you are born with. Like skin colour.
People who believe it's a sin don't deserve any protection and should not be allowed to discriminate anymore than racists would be allowed.

Religious freedom applies to being able to practice your religion *yourself*. A Muslim man is protected from being forced to eat ham, a Christian woman is protected from being forced to have an abortion, etc.

There's no reason to protect bigotry and intolerance when it harms other people. Even less so if it pertains to economy in a free-market country.

I do not think you will ever see a catholic school being FORCED to hire a transgendered teacher..or a Muslim man forced to hire women who wear shorts and t-shirts, or skirts and blouses depending on where they are at, nor would you find a Synagogue forced to hire a clerk who eats ham in his lunch every day..the list continues.

Mostly because Catholic schoold and synagogues would likely be allowed to hire only people who share their faith for most positions.
As for other stuff, what if a Jewish man would fire someone for eating ham after work? What if a Muslim man would fire a woman because she goes to a nudist beach after work?

And since when do Jewish ban on eating meat extends to gentiles anyway?

[Sherona]

as I said before, I do not personally believe as the way religious leaders do who do believe it is a choice and therefor a sin. However simply because those of us who DO believe it is a part of nature and not a choice does not mean that there are quite a few peole out there who do not, thus they are allowed their right to religious beliefs. Now do I think that they are allowed to commit hate crimes? no. I am just saying Hiring practices of religious institutions are protected.

"Mostly because Catholic schoold and synagogues would likely be allowed to hire only people who share their faith for most positions."

that is exactly my point. To force religious instititutins to not be able to dismiss applications due to faith based issues would mean that these places would not be allowed to hire oly people who share their faith.

My point is that people should be able to hire individuals that they can work with without problems. Just like its my right to hold the hand of a nother woman in public if I would like, then its their right to be able to believe that I am sinning and to choose not to have to hire me and work wtih me.