Obama's political arm raising money for ENDA fight (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/09/06/ofa-seeks-donations-enda-supporters/)
Washington Blade | Chris Johnson
President Obama's political arm is raising money from supporters to push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Organizing for Action, the successor organization to Obama's presidential campaign apparatus that advocates for his policy positions, sent out an email from Executive Director Jon Carson to supporters on Thursday with the subject line, "It's 2013 — this shouldn't be legal."
"A lot of Americans don't know that it's still legal in some states to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity," Carson writes. "Yep — it's 2013, and every American still doesn't have that basic protection under the law...."
It's not immediately clear whether the donations will be used for ENDA or for other purposes.
Complete article at the link, above
(Emphasis mine)
LOL Used much?
Freakin Obozo trying to screw us again. I thought this was America the country of freedom and liberty. I demand that our businesses have the right to fire people like me, not because of my skills or abilities, but for the fact that may view me as a "dandy queer". Where's my liberty to be discriminated and be put at a social and economic disadvantage. Freedom! Oh well, I guess I can move to Saudi Arabia. They know how to do things there. At least women still can't drive and that is clearly for the better because god knows what will happen once they will be able to drive. Probably something just as bad as the gays being allowed to enter the workforce. ;) ;D
Okay, in all seriousness, it is likely being used for political purposes as the 2014 midterm elections are coming up. Everyone knows it will likely die in some congressional committee and never see the light of day. This is the fault of both dems and republicans. Still, can't you put the partisanship aside for one day and applaud the fact that someone is speaking up for us? I don't care who it comes from (Obama, Bush, etc). As long as they say the right thing and take action to make the change, that is all that matters. Even if their actions haven't always embrace us like their words seem to (which I agree with) you seem to give no credit where it's due. Where is the alternative side? While there are a few Republicans in favor of Enda, they are few and far in between. I applaud those who will fight for us, but most speak in total opposition towards the legislation. At least it's a sign that things are improving in our favor when the president supports the law and actually makes it a priority which he didn't seem to ever do before as he was more of less indifferent. It ensures more democrats will back the bill. While the past may give us reason to pause and be doubtful, any positive development is worth taking advantage of and pushing the bill in advance. I'd rather have ENDA pass and a brighter future than remain cynical and empty handed. As of now, the Senate is looking favorable because the democratic caucus is backing the bill and some Senate Republicans are taking a positive stand, but let's see how Mr. Boehner and Eric Cantor treat the bill. I'm hoping they will do the right thing, but that remains to be seen. Still, it's time to contact your representatives and put on your best fight if you believe in ENDA. If they don't support it, make them do the right thing and put their feet to the fire. If they don't know how to vote, we sure will in November.
Must distract from scandals... must distract from scandals...
Odd thing though, you know... to see democrats fighting against 'settled law'. Didn't think they thought that sort of thing was an ok thing to do. :P
QuoteStill, can't you put the partisanship aside for one day and applaud the fact that someone is speaking up for us?
She put partisanship aside yesterday, so yes she can, I've seen it!
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 03:05:30 PM
Must distract from scandals... must distract from scandals...
Odd thing though, you know... to see democrats fighting against 'settled law'. Didn't think they thought that sort of thing was an ok thing to do. :P
You can dislike the democratic party as much as you want and may vote for who you feel is best. However, fighting for LGBT rights is not a distraction or a perfunctory issue. It's very important. The fact is there are people discriminated against for their sexuality and/or gender orientation. That isn't okay. And fighting for changes in policy is fine. The question is whether or not you bring the country to a halt or threaten to default on existing debt because you don't like something that was passed democratically. I don't see many Enda supporters looking for that. We are looking to get it passed in Congress just like any other bill. If that doesn't happen, we hold those who say nay responsible and remember their votes. There are ways to make your case and get your desired policy changes. And you have the ability to vote for who you want to make sure you get that change. The ACA can be repealed and changed and you have the right to fight for it. I've never heard a democrat say anything to the contrary. We just ask you not attempt to drive the country into default because of your inability to repeal it through your elected representatives or hold every other single aspect of government hostage over solitary issue. This is something that Republican leaders like Peter King have stated (among many others), so that isn't a democratic view. In any case, the democrats aren't against changing the law or passing policies. That is a bit of an unfair strawman argument.
Haha.
I would like to fight discrimination in the workplace but I think it's a cultural battle. I don't trust the governments to resolve such issues accurately and fairly for everyone involved. I also feel like it pushes a lot of the real issues under the rug. I'd rather not support the business of someone who hates gays or trans people, for instance. I'd rather know so I can work somewhere else and let them suffer the consequences of being a bigot. I feel like we'll make progress better as a civilized society that way.
That said though, I do feel ENDA or something like it is inevitable, assuming the federal government doesn't collapse before it happens. Opposing it is not a cause I'd care to personally take up or anything.
QuoteIn any case, the democrats aren't against changing the law or passing policies. That is a bit of an unfair strawman argument.
No, not normally, but the main argument against doing away with the Unaffordable Care Act is 'it's settled law' and we all just need to move along, nothing to see here. No strawman thing.
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 03:11:50 PM
She put partisanship aside yesterday, so yes she can, I've seen it!
I'll stay tuned. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative or a republican. Jamie and I have different views, but we have been able to develop a mutual respect and a friendship despite this. Why should anything be locked? I don't care about dems vs republicans as much as you think. I'm a progressive, but not a democrat. I just speak up when I think people are being unfair to one side or not giving due credit, which often happens to the republicans and conservatives on this site as well. I don't like when I see either because it makes for an unwelcoming environment and we should be against that. I don't think it's productive to fight each other politically and I like to avoid getting deeply into this sort of debate on a support site; especially when it continuously happens. But I don't think that's what is going on in this case. One, Jaime is somebody that is fairly reasonable and worthy to have a discussion with. Her intentions are not to create an unwelcoming environment or start a thread of partisan bashing. Two, the topic is very much related to the lgbt community and it makes sense for us to discuss such a topic on a trans forum. Helathcare, not so much, so I'd prefer if we don't rehash it. You have your views and are entitled to them and I respect that.
QuoteThere is nothing wrong with being a conservative or a republican.
Well duh. But I'm an Independent with Libertarian leanings, we're ok too.
Threads aren't locked for their politics, I can assure you of that. They WILL be locked when people start questioning why threads are locked
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 03:38:14 PM
No, not normally, but the main argument against doing away with the Unaffordable Care Act is 'it's settled law' and we all just need to move along, nothing to see here. No strawman thing.
Again, I'm not trying to debate you on politics, but I would disagree with your assessment. I fully support your ability to fight for something democratically which is something I said in my previous thread. You can hold votes to repeal and vote for who you want to represent you. I'm just not for a debt default or a government shut down over it.
In any case, let's not be against each other because of our political differences. Again, I think it's best for us to leave the politics outside of the discussion unless it is related to something lgbt which Enda is. Honestly, I'm not attempting to moderate anyone, I have just learned from experience that it does more harm than good on a support site. I'm really not looking to argue with REpublicans or start a political flame war. Please don't misconstrue what I am saying. You are all entilted to your political views. The reason I avoid these arguments is because it creates bad vibes and puts us against each other. Something that is against the mission of Susans which I don't want to be a part of. I'd rather make friends than enemies here. And I have made enough conservative friends here to know that is very possible.
Haing said all that, Enda is related to our community and believe the discussion makes sense. Besides, I think we can all find common ground on this topic regardless of our political persuasion. Perhaps that will be the best thing because then we can make the fantasy of Enda into a reality. Why must we be enemies? Isn't working together a more fruitful endeavor? I'd love for the right to embrace Enda and the lgbt community. And I'd be the first to praise them for it.
Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
I'll stay tuned. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative or a republican. Jamie and I have different views, but we have been able to develop a mutual respect and a friendship despite this. Why should anything be locked? I don't care about dems vs republicans as much as you think. I'm a progressive, but not a democrat. I just speak up when I think people are being unfair to one side or not giving due credit, which often happens to the republicans and conservatives on this site as well. I don't like when I see either because it makes for an unwelcoming environment and we should be against that. I don't think it's productive to fight each other politically and I like to avoid getting deeply into this sort of debate on a support site; especially when it continuously happens. But I don't think that's what is going on in this case. One, Jaime is somebody that is fairly reasonable and worthy to have a discussion with. Her intentions are not to create an unwelcoming environment or start a thread of partisan bashing. Two, the topic is very much related to the lgbt community and it makes sense for us to discuss such a topic on a trans forum. Healthcare, not so much, so I'd prefer if we don't rehash it. You have your views and are entitled to them and I respect that.
Thank you LtL! I liked "fairly reasonable" so much, I put it in my profile!
One thing people will learn about me is, when it comes to politics, I am the ultimate skeptic. Political altruism is an oxymoron.
I get all sorts of political literature and fundraising letters in the mail. I usually look at them and them toss them in the trash. Most are blatantly dishonest. I pity the poor organization that send me an appeal for money with a pre-paid return envelope. They get all my observations on their shadiness returned, in handwriting, at their expense. I even have been know to fold, spindle, and mutilate the surveys. ;)
P.S. I know "big head horsey-face" is laughing her buns off, but it is J-a-m-i-e!!
Thanks for bolding, Jaime!
Grrrrrr
(Neigh?)
The livestock prefers to stay out of politics for the most part.
But if you're the fairly reasonable one why does high-may have it in their avatar?
QuoteAgain, I'm not trying to debate you on politics, but I would disagree with your assessment. I fully support your ability to fight for something democratically which is something I said in my previous thread. You can hold votes to repeal and vote for who you want to represent you. I'm just not for a debt default or a government shut down over it.
In any case, let's not be against each other because of our political differences. Again, I think it's best for us to leave the politics outside of the discussion unless it is related to something lgbt which Enda is. Honestly, I'm not attempting to moderate anyone, I have just learned from experience that it does more harm than good on a support site. I'm really not looking to argue with REpublicans or start a political flame war. Please don't misconstrue what I am saying. You are all entilted to your political views. The reason I avoid these arguments is because it creates bad vibes and puts us against each other. Something that is against the mission of Susans which I don't want to be a part of. I'd rather make friends than enemies here. And I have made enough conservative friends here to know that is very possible.
Haing said all that, Enda is related to our community and believe the discussion makes sense. Besides, I think we can all find common ground on this topic regardless of our political persuasion. Perhaps that will be the best thing because then we can make the fantasy of Enda into a reality. Why must we be enemies? Isn't working together a more fruitful endeavor? I'd love for the right to embrace Enda and the lgbt community. And I'd be the first to praise them for it.
I would like to see more issues removed from political discourse. They just become wedge issues that lose sight of the people involved, they often lead to bad legislation and bad results, often having the exact opposite result. I believe ENDA could result in a higher unemployment rate for the LGBT community. I don't like being used by either political party. I think it's a fair question to ask "why now?". I'm not trying to be an anti-democrat, but I do notice while they proclaim a solidarity with many groups, they also have policies that are bad for these groups. I'm concerned ENDA could be one such law. I think it's wise to expect and demand a positive result, and not just good 'intentions'. That's my take, I'm not against you because I disagree with you.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 03, 2013, 04:04:15 PM
Thank you LtL! I liked "fairly reasonable" so much, I put it in my profile!
One thing people will learn about me is, when it comes to politics, I am the ultimate skeptic. Political altruism is an oxymoron.
I get all sorts of political literature and fundraising letters in the mail. I usually look at them and them toss them in the trash. Most are blatantly dishonest. I pity the poor organization that send me an appeal for money with a pre-paid return envelope. They get all my observations on their shadiness returned, in handwriting, at their expense. I even have been know to fold, spindle, and mutilate the surveys. ;)
P.S. I know "big head horsey-face" is laughing her buns off, but it is J-a-m-i-e!!
But don't you simply love all the spelling and grammatical errors that I have come to be famous for! My friends and I have an inside joke about me and my over use of explanation points and other typos that we always email each other in some messed up dialect that only we understand, lol. Got to love me! :)
Oh, I get those political emails all the time. They are very irritating. They will never get a dime from me. Especially since I have personal issues with the folks who ask me for contributions. I gave them my everything and they gave me nothing in return.
Still, I think Enda is something really important that and we must fight. I don't trust Obama, but I like his tacit approval on this issue. Now it's time to hold the dems and republicans feet to the fire and make them stand up for us. I'm still a cynic, but I will embrace every small development with glee and suspicion that is backed with action.
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
I would like to see more issues removed from political discourse. They just become wedge issues that lose sight of the people involved, they often lead to bad legislation and bad results, often having the exact opposite result. I believe ENDA could result in a higher unemployment rate for the LGBT community. I don't like being used by either political party. I think it's a fair question to ask "why now?". I'm not trying to be an anti-democrat, but I do notice while they proclaim a solidarity with many groups, they also have policies that are bad for these groups. I'm concerned ENDA could be one such law. I think it's wise to expect and demand a positive result, and not just good 'intentions'. That's my take, I'm not against you because I disagree with you.
That's a decent observation. May I ask, why do you think that Enda will lead to higher unemployment? If the law states they shouldn't discriminate against hiring gbt individuals, you think businesses are going to all of a sudden decide to do so? And if they aren't doing it as of now, what would be the harm in passing such legislation if it truly won't change the status quo? I think the legislation will do little in reality other than create a symbolic acceptance of us which can lead into more social equality and acceptance in time. Besides, there have been anti-discriminatory laws that have helped improve the status of some groups, so it's not unprecedented (i.e, civil rights act).
I don't mind holding a conversation if it's fruitful and productive. I just don't like when we antagonize one anther and find much of the rpolitical discussions turn that way. However, I'm fine with messing with J A M I E because she is used to me by now and knows what sort of person I am. So, being a friend, she gets all the bitchiness I can bring, lol.
QuoteThat's a decent observation. May I ask, why do you think that Enda will lead to higher unemployment? If the law states they shouldn't discriminate against hiring gbt individuals, you think businesses are going to all of a sudden decide to do so? And if they aren't doing it as of now, what would be the harm in passing such legislation if it truly won't change the status quo? I think the legislation will do little in reality other than create a symbolic acceptance of us which can lead into more social equality and acceptance in time. Besides, there have been anti-discriminatory laws that have helped improve the status of some groups, so it's not unprecedented (i.e, civil rights act).
If a person is difficult to fire and doing so creates significant exposure to lawsuit, companies will shy away from hiring them. That's just rational behavior. Every new employee has the risk of not working out in a particular job and companies want the option to correct those situations. I've been fired before and it's always worked out for the best. I got a better job where I was appreciated and did good work. The prior company moved on with someone else and I hope it worked out for them. My life would've been worse if the company just stuck me in some worthless role but let me stick around. Why would I want that for others? I don't. I don't condone discrimination, but it's difficult to legislate at this low of level, at the hiring/firing process of companies. I think this kind of legislation makes us look weak.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 03, 2013, 04:12:32 PM
But if you're the fairly reasonable one why does high-may have it in their avatar?
There you go! 100% right.
"Jaime," when pronounced as the Spanish
male name (my party of the country) is "high-may". It is derived from the diminutive of "Jacobus." It is Spanish and Portuguese for "Jake."
LOL, horsey-face and her dog have the same name!
Reminder of Rule 2 :police:
Quote
2. Any attempts to stage protests, dispute the site policies, the TOS/rules, or actions of the staff; in the public areas of this site will not be tolerated and will result in your removal. If you have any issues contact Susan by email, or forum private message, and not bring these types of issues into the public spaces on this website. For the proper way to handle problems of this nature see item #20 below.
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 04:52:54 PM
If a person is difficult to fire and doing so creates significant exposure to lawsuit, companies will shy away from hiring them. That's just rational behavior. Every new employee has the risk of not working out in a particular job and companies want the option to correct those situations. I've been fired before and it's always worked out for the best. I got a better job where I was appreciated and did good work. The prior company moved on with someone else and I hope it worked out for them. My life would've been worse if the company just stuck me in some worthless role but let me stick around. Why would I want that for others? I don't. I don't condone discrimination, but it's difficult to legislate at this low of level, at the hiring/firing process of companies. I think this kind of legislation makes us look weak.
But Enda isn't a law intending to say that you can't fire people who are gay or trans. It's saying you can't fire solely on the basis of being trans. Again, if someone sucks at their job or is failing to meet the task at hand, they should be fired for that. If they aren't meeting the dress code or fail to meet the standards that are set for them, then they are at risk of losing their jobs. It is irrelevant as to who or what they. The same is true for any other anti-discrimanation policy and I don't think it's hurting these classes. We see many more professional women nowadays and african Americans have now been able to elevate themselves socially enough to where the presidency was achievable. Did the anti-discrmination laws hurt these classes or make them look weak? In my opinion, the answer is no. In fact, women and minority groups have been better off economically since these laws have passed. Again, would you argue these laws have hurt them? And what do the employment statistics have to say? And if the lgbt community is better off without this legislation, why does the trans community face higher unemployment than on average? By the way, I live in an area that has these protections and can tell you trans people are able to be employed without issue. So, it isn't always a hindrance.
Having said that, I do understand that bureaucracy can be a pain and sometimes irrelevant, but if it is done properly it can be an aid. It depends on how it is written and implemented. Even legislation with good intentions can be a disaster if it isn't well thought out or narrowly tailored. Still, I don't think that's the case with Enda. And most bureaucracy I have seen with companies tend to be an internal issue than a government problem. It took me forever to start my new job because of their own internal regulations.
My personal feeling is that the trans* community really has to do more outreach.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 03, 2013, 05:58:09 PM
My personal feeling is that the trans* community really has to do more outreach.
I don't disagree. Still, I understand why it doesn't happen too often. People are afraid of outing themselves and stealth is generally desirable. At least, it is for me. Though, the trans community does fight back sometimes. I know there are plenty of lgbt organizations which fund outreach and canvassing projects. I'm not sure how much help its had in the long run, but we are a lot better off than before I was born which isn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things. It can only improve if we keep fighting.
QuoteBut Enda isn't a law intending to say that you can't fire people who are gay or trans. It's saying you can't fire solely on the basis of being trans.
Perhaps in theory, but not in practice.
We've seen how this works recently... "If you like your current insurance and doctor, you can keep them, period."
Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 06:05:35 PM
I don't disagree. Still, I understand why it doesn't happen too often. People are afraid of outing themselves and stealth is generally desirable. At least, it is for me. Though, the trans community does fight back sometimes. I know there are plenty of lgbt organizations which fund outreach and canvassing projects. I'm not sure how much help its had in the long run, but we are a lot better off than before I was born which isn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things. It can only improve if we keep fighting.
That is very true. Many of us just want to "blend in." And I respect that.
But some of us can try to help build those bridges, and tear down those walls.
Will there be a "religious exception" so religious organizations, religious schools, religious universities can still discriminate?
I found it .. http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda/religious-exemption.html
The exemption consists of three parts:
•A complete exemption for houses of worship, parochial and similar religious schools, and missions
•A codification of the so-called "ministerial exemption" recognized by many federal courts, exempting positions at religious organizations that involve the teaching or spreading religion, religious governance, or the supervision of individuals engaged in these activities
•A provision allowing religious organizations, for classes of jobs, to require employees and applicants to conform to a declared set of significant religious tenets, including ones which would bar LGBT people from holding the position
QuoteAnd if the lgbt community is better off without this legislation, why does the trans community face higher unemployment than on average? By the way, I live in an area that has these protections and can tell you trans people are able to be employed without issue. So, it isn't always a hindrance.
This seems a little contradictory to me. You live where they have these protections but there's higher unemployment for them. I'm not sure this is about job protection or is it about punishing those we think are against us? I don't wish to do that. I'd rather they live with the guilt, that probably does more to affect change than anything. Have you ever treated a foe with kindness? I'm sure you have, it can be the most effective means to change their heart. And yes, I've been kind to many people, even foes. ;D
I don't mean to hijack the thread, I think the original skepticism of being pandered to is a good one. It was predictable we get attention when some politicians are feeling some heat. Oh well.
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 06:44:53 PM
Perhaps in theory, but not in practice.
We've seen how this works recently... "If you like your current insurance and doctor, you can keep them, period."
The affordable care act is a very different piece of legislation. Not only in it's scope, but also in it's intended impact. Also, health care reform of such a nature is pretty unprecedented in the U.S. No one can actually think they know exactly how it will turn out. I work in the medical field and the doctors in my office hate the legislation. Still they acknowledge that they don't know what the future holds. None of us do. In any case, I brought up other anti-discrimination policies which are similar in nature and wonder why you are deviating from the topic and addressing different policy initiatives. We have a history of anti-discrimination policies, and can judge based on the evidence of history. The affordable care act has nothing to do with Enda and it shouldn't be compared with it. Whether the ACA fails or not, it doesn't mean that the government can't pass some successful legislation with good outcomes. For example, just because one business goes belly up, it doesn't refute capitalism or say that no other business can succeed. The fact is the country has plenty of anti-discrimination laws that have led to many societal improvements. Why you choose to ignore them and focus on Obamacare really puzzles me.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 03, 2013, 06:47:31 PM
That is very true. Many of us just want to "blend in." And I respect that.
But some of us can try to help build those bridges, and tear down those walls.
I do my best to tear down those walls, but I do it while in hiding. I'm a bit of a coward in that respect. Those who are out and proud to everyone have all of my respect. I'm not even able to post my image up here due to fear. It's just that I want to one day live in stealth and be seen as any other girl. Though, sometimes that makes me feel guilty because I feel as though I'm not giving back. Still, I do what I can in other ways.
Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
This seems a little contradictory to me. You live where they have these protections but there's higher unemployment for them. I'm not sure this is about job protection or is it about punishing those we think are against us? I don't wish to do that. I'd rather they live with the guilt, that probably does more to affect change than anything. Have you ever treated a foe with kindness? I'm sure you have, it can be the most effective means to change their heart. And yes, I've been kind to many people, even foes. ;D
I don't mean to hijack the thread, I think the original skepticism of being pandered to is a good one. It was predictable we get attention when some politicians are feeling some heat. Oh well.
I don't mean to punish people. I mean to advance a minority group which has been done before. Again, why is the lgbt community different from other protected classes like women or African Americans? Why does it work for them, but it can't for us. It's not about fighting the system, but ensuring that there are proper protections for those who do nothing wrong other than living as who they are. Why do you think it's about anything other than that? I'm not asking for a priest to come and hug me, lol. Nor am I saying that I want to punish anyone. I'm saying that someone shouldn't be fired because they are gay or trans. Please, I'm sure you have ideas on what left wingers are like, but I'm really open and accepting that there are people with different views. All I ever ask is that we are tolerated and given the same legal rights as everyone else. I don't expect everyone to accept us or embrace who we are. People are free to judge my lifestyle and disagree with me. Just at least respect us and give us the same rights that other citizens are entitled to. That's all any of us can ask for at the end of the day.
As for the contradiction, in my part of NY the trans population tend to be better off than other areas. I am saying that those who live in the metro areas with legal protections will probably be okay because of the support structure which exists, but if you go into a place that doesn't have these protections you are at more of a risk. Again, the unemployment rates don't lie.
Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 07:27:06 PM
I do my best to tear down those walls, but I do it while in hiding. I'm a bit of a coward in that respect. Those who are out and proud to everyone have all of my respect. I'm not even able to post my image up here due to fear. It's just that I want to one day live in stealth and be seen as any other girl. Though, sometimes that makes me feel guilty because I feel as though I'm not giving back. Still, I do what I can in other ways.
Nope, my dear. I am not going to let you go there. You are
not a coward.
The old saying is that "Discretion is the better part of valor." There is nothing wrong with looking out for yourself and avoiding trouble. In fact, I will go so far as to say, I believe that everybody here, whether they are closeted, out to friends and family, out at work, full time, part time, no time, doesn't matter! That they have admitted to themselves that they are feeling that gender incongruity, they've already proven their bravery in my estimation.
The self-identification part is the hardest.
So no, no, no. You are not lacking bravery.
Just by way of background, I only posted one image of myself in the first year I was on the site (actually, 13 months in). I worked up to then posting a voice recording in the Androgyne forum. It took a long, long time for me to post a YouTube video here, and I squirreled it away in my blog, where only close friends would ever see it.
I have made a couple more private YouTube videos, even one in costume for Halloween (enema nurse). playing the fool. Otherwise I am very private.
Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
And if the lgbt community is better off without this legislation, why does the trans community face higher unemployment than on average? By the way, I live in an area that has these protections and can tell you trans people are able to be employed without issue. So, it isn't always a hindrance.
There seems to be some picking and choosing parts of sentences without reading the whole, like some who use the bible to put their point across.
.
I read this as high unemployment
without protections.
With protections, employment is un impeded
Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
We see many more professional women nowadays and african Americans have now been able to elevate themselves socially enough to where the presidency was achievable. Did the anti-discrmination laws hurt these classes or make them look weak?
I think they may have. Correlation does not equal causation. We have made progress culturally, become less racist as a society, become less sexist. I don't attribute those changes to anti-discrimination laws. I think that a culture that is progressing socially is more likely to support and pass laws like that. Doesn't mean the laws deserve the credit for the changes.
I think laws like this are likely to create a tremendous amount of litigiousness in an already overly litigious society. I also suspect they do a lot more harm than good. But that's just how I feel. I already know that you have more faith in these kinds of laws. We'll probably just continue to disagree unless we have personal experiences that make us reconsider.
QuoteCorrelation does not equal causation. We have made progress culturally, become less racist as a society, become less sexist. I don't attribute those changes to anti-discrimination laws.
Very true. I have little doubt these social changes were already well underway and no law could have caused or prevented this change. I just think politicians are very good at jumping out in front of parades.
I support ENDA and ERA for that matter, I have no idea why they have been stuck forever. I occasionally see people complain about age discrimination implying they were released -because- the protections made them a liability. I also see that regularly coupled to a lack of up to date training. I don't think 58yo MVP's are being released all that often(this is all documented out the wazoo in the modern workplace.) If genuine age discrimination takes place get a lawyer and get it fixed, or decide their not the kind of people you want to associate with anyhow.
In my workplace I have survived the old fashioned LGBT way, overachievement. But what about those that aren't capable of that? The stats for getting hired in the first place aren't great for T people either, it is not like one can prove themselves at to be at least average when not given a chance. In short I really have a hard time believing that ENDA could make the employment situation any worse than it is for T people.
These are some great examples (http://www.cracked.com/article_18600_6-laws-that-were-great-paper-and-insane-everywhere-else.html) of laws having good intentions but bad unintended consequences. Just some food for thought. I came across this just now and it made me think back to Nikko's point about how some employees can be risky hires due to the laws.
Articles from Cracked are not what I would call news. They are Satire only.
Quote from: dalebert on November 03, 2013, 11:14:01 PM
These are some great examples (http://www.cracked.com/article_18600_6-laws-that-were-great-paper-and-insane-everywhere-else.html) of laws having good intentions but bad unintended consequences. Just some food for thought. I came across this just now and it made me think back to Nikko's point about how some employees can be risky hires due to the laws.
That was a great read! Thanks
I second the above! Good intentions in laws backfiring. One historical law was actually amended to the US constitution: Prohibition.
Joelene
Quote from: LordKAT on November 03, 2013, 11:27:42 PM
Articles from Cracked are not what I would call news. They are Satire only.
My first thought is that is an ad hominem (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/). Mostly what Cracked does is take real news and write funny stuph about it. Here's the first reference they provide to a study where the conclusions were drawn and that is news. Whether it has merit might be a worthwhile argument in itself, but just the fact that they provide references is, I think, enough to not be quite so dismissive.
QuoteA study by researchers Scott Adams and Chad Cotti (http://pdfcast.org/pdf/drunk-driving-after-the-passage-of-smoking-bans-in-bars) discovered that, when faced with smoking bans in bars near their homes, alcohol-drinking smokers would simply drive further to other jurisdictions where the bans weren't in place.
A better point would be something along the lines of "The article's author concludes that what went wrong with that law was <something> but I find his conclusions do not make sense because <argument for why his conclusions don't make sense>."
Another example, and I will try to find the reference(s), was when some states banned texting while driving because they believed it was increasing accidents. Not an unreasonable conclusion. Accidents went up after the law and someone theorized it's because the law didn't stop most people from texting. They just became more cautious about being caught. Instead of texting with their phone up in front of them which would put them at risk of being seen by police, they were keeping it down in their laps and glancing back and forth between the phone and the road which was even more unsafe than before.
Another example: Red light cameras to reduce accidents. Now people slam on their brakes causing rear-end collisions instead of just cruising thru the yellow. Unless the only goal was to increase revenue from running 'red' light fines, in that case the law is a huge success. ::)
Money equates to power in politics and government. When this country was founded, most states has wealth/property requirements to vote or to hold office. If you did not have wealth, you did not have power.
It is not uncommon for politicos to raise the specter of a "crisis" to get the gullible to hand over their checking accounts. And it is not one-sided. We saw the despicable outing of a teenaged transgirl in Colorado on bogus bathroom harassment charges, primarily to raise money for the outers' attempt to raise funds for the ballot measure fight in California.
The environmentalists have been playing the global warming card for years. And now we are being used as pawns in a partisan fight. The original article note that the fund-raisers may not use the money they raise to help pass the bill.
Somewhere there must exist a rational center, away from the extremists, where issues can be reasonably adjudicated.
I think both sides would do so much better if they designed their approach in such a way that it took into account the other's must-haves FIRST.
On ENDA, for instance: No discrimination in employment based on X, Y, and Z, except in cases where the company or organization's religious affiliation precludes X, Y, or Z.
Because what needs to be done is to build a system that punishes ACTUAL discrimination, while fully preserving religious liberty - and ENDA represents a problem to all those of us who can clearly see a future without said liberty. That is to say, if not handled VERY carefully, it makes illegal (or at the least illegal in any public setting) a tenet of the Christian Holy Writ. Which is not and should not be acceptable to anyone in America, even if they disagree vehemently with that tenet.
The fear is that homosexuality will become another race issue across the board, and that those designated "homophobes" (conveniently including those who believe the Bible whole cloth) will be ostracized, disenfranchised, and removed from public life. Just like the poor manager of Chick Fil A. In effect, religious liberty would be stifled by this new requirement to Respect the Federal Statute of Protected Actions. And that is not something anyone on the Right wants to see happen.
Sincerely,
Your Conservative Ambassador du jour,
Zoe M.
To that end, Zoe, we had an interesting federal court decision this week.
Court strikes down birth control mandate (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/court-battles/188983-appeals-court-rules-against-birth-control-mandate)
The Hill | Julian Hattem
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the birth control mandate in ObamaCare, concluding the requirement trammels religious freedom.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that covers birth control.
Requiring companies to cover their employees' contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.
"The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company's owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.[/i]
Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.
Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.
It's easiest to reframe this in terms of things you don't believe in - if (say) you think Bible camps are evil, do you want to fund them with your tax dollars? What about the part of tuition payments that goes to support underprivileged kids - should that include money for Christian programs?
And if not, why is this any different?
Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.
Religious exemptions are made for many things - it is part of the heritage of the country.
We have conscientious objectors for military service. Religious exemptions from childhood immunizations. Home schooling options. People who refuse medical care or blood transfusions when they would otherwise make sense.
It is all part of exercising your right to "opt out" of something on ethical or religious grounds.
Having it available isn't forcing someone to use it or even attempting to make someone use it. If I'm paying into it, shouldn't it cover my needs? So this will be the excuse for not requiring trans care, religion in insurance.
People have been in trouble for not giving medical to children even for religious reasons. There is something wrong when religion is used to tell me where I can work, If the place is a religious school or church I can see it but not otherwise. I can't refuse to work Saturdays even if my religion says no work on Saturday.
Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 04:11:09 PM
Having it available isn't forcing someone to use it or even attempting to make someone use it. If I'm paying into it, shouldn't it cover my needs? So this will be the excuse for not requiring trans care, religion in insurance.
People have been in trouble for not giving medical to children even for religious reasons. There is something wrong when religion is used to tell me where I can work, If the place is a religious school or church I can see it but not otherwise. I can't refuse to work Saturdays even if my religion says no work on Saturday.
I think Obamacare was drafted as law in dingy, smoky back rooms, with scant little attention to either religion or transpeople.
considering that the clause for all medically necessary treatment was removed rather than just not added, it was thought about, and denied.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 06, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
I think Obamacare was drafted as law in dingy, smoky back rooms, with scant little attention to either religion or transpeople.
... and I also think in the dingy smoke filled room there were two big electrical transformers that went all the way up thru the ceiling and on a stormy rainy night, a crazy stringy haired scientist opened the doors to the roof and as the lighting struck the transformers sending electrical currents all about the room and sparks a flying, began yelling.... IT'S ALIIIIIVE!!!... HAHA... IIIIT'S ALLLIVVVVVE!!!!!
Or not, who know...
The freedom of religion part of the Bill of Rights is a sometimes a double sided sword. Then again, the only part of the Bill of Rights congress has not trounced upon recently is the quartering of troops thing. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that happens in the next budget debate the way things are going lately.