Site News and Information => Community alerts => Topic started by: Leigh on January 27, 2006, 11:54:45 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Washington state
Post by: Leigh on January 27, 2006, 11:54:45 PM
Post by: Leigh on January 27, 2006, 11:54:45 PM
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=30797&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
> Home > Press Room
For Immediate Release:
Friday, Jan. 27, 2006
WASHINGTON STATE BANS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER CITIZENS
'States like Washington are picking up the slack as fairness remains stalled in Congress,' said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON — The Washington state Senate passed a bill today protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination, making Washington the 17th state to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and the seventh state based on gender identity. For procedural reasons the bill was sent back to the House, which already passed the bill. It now goes to Gov. Christine Gregoire, who pledged to sign it.
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: molly on January 28, 2006, 03:13:56 AM
Post by: molly on January 28, 2006, 03:13:56 AM
Leigh:
I haven't though of this before, do you know which are the seven states that currently ban discrimination based on gender identity? I look like to look into this further.
Molly
I haven't though of this before, do you know which are the seven states that currently ban discrimination based on gender identity? I look like to look into this further.
Molly
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: Leigh on January 28, 2006, 11:48:42 AM
Post by: Leigh on January 28, 2006, 11:48:42 AM
Mol;ly
Here you go:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14821
Here you go:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14821
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: molly on January 28, 2006, 01:12:16 PM
Post by: molly on January 28, 2006, 01:12:16 PM
Leigh:
Thank you for the information.
Molly
Thank you for the information.
Molly
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: Peggiann on January 28, 2006, 02:13:56 PM
Post by: Peggiann on January 28, 2006, 02:13:56 PM
Glad to hear this step forword.
Great for you Melissa and Sharie.
Smiles,
Peggiann
Great for you Melissa and Sharie.
Smiles,
Peggiann
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: beth on January 28, 2006, 03:50:23 PM
Post by: beth on January 28, 2006, 03:50:23 PM
Be very careful Melissa,
Lots of discrimination exists that is hidden and not helped by such laws.
beth
Lots of discrimination exists that is hidden and not helped by such laws.
beth
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: michelle on January 28, 2006, 05:19:04 PM
Post by: michelle on January 28, 2006, 05:19:04 PM
At least it gives our rights some legal footing and something to build case law upon.
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: Dennis on January 29, 2006, 08:52:40 AM
Post by: Dennis on January 29, 2006, 08:52:40 AM
Plus, Melissa, with what he's said before, if he tried to make up a reason to fire you, that would be evidence that the real reason is your transition.
Looks like you hit it right, timing-wise.
Dennis
Looks like you hit it right, timing-wise.
Dennis
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: melissa_girl on February 06, 2006, 03:45:12 PM
Post by: melissa_girl on February 06, 2006, 03:45:12 PM
According to this:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=2661 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=2661)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like this law (now passed and signed) will not be effective until 6/8/2006. So there is a little bit of a danger zone for the next 4 months. Still, the timing should work well for me.
Melissa
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=2661 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=2661)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like this law (now passed and signed) will not be effective until 6/8/2006. So there is a little bit of a danger zone for the next 4 months. Still, the timing should work well for me.
Melissa
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: Alexandra on February 06, 2006, 04:27:21 PM
Post by: Alexandra on February 06, 2006, 04:27:21 PM
sadly though, such laws don't give the state enforcement powers . . . one still could get fired and one would have to hire their own lawyer and take them to court to make them comply with the law. :-\
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: beth on February 07, 2006, 12:29:56 PM
Post by: beth on February 07, 2006, 12:29:56 PM
Of course this is a great start and absolutely a good thing. I just hope everyone realizes it is just a start. Don't be lulled into expecting too much protection from it. Management is in a strong position. Unless they are stupid (which is sometimes the case) they can easily lay off or make work untenable for any employee they wish. They are very competent in making paper trails that can make the employee look terrible. Being in an adversarial position with them is not the place to be. I don't mean to be contrary or rain on anyones parade, I just speak from experience. I wish it wern't true.
Consider this.... have any blacks lost their job or been denied housing or been discriminated against since the 1964 civil rights act? Do you think it still is happening even today 40 years later? It is lots better today than in 1964 where want ads were frequently "white only" but in 1965 the only difference was the words were removed from the ads.
beth
Consider this.... have any blacks lost their job or been denied housing or been discriminated against since the 1964 civil rights act? Do you think it still is happening even today 40 years later? It is lots better today than in 1964 where want ads were frequently "white only" but in 1965 the only difference was the words were removed from the ads.
beth
Title: Re: Washington state
Post by: Alexandra on February 08, 2006, 09:41:36 PM
Post by: Alexandra on February 08, 2006, 09:41:36 PM
Eastern Washington (as in eastern Oregon) are not "liberal" in their thinking, but fortunately the majority of the power (number of voters) live in the Seattle area (and in Oregon, it the Portland area), a very liberal metro area -- as a result, both of these states avoids the backward thinking typical of their neighbors (Idaho, Montana, Utah et al.) And all I can say to that is, whew!