Washington state

[Leigh]

 

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.

[molly]

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

[Leigh]

Mol;ly

Here you go:

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14821

[molly]

Leigh:

Thank you for the information.

Molly

[Peggiann]

Glad to hear this step forword.

Great for you Melissa and Sharie.

Smiles,
Peggiann

[beth]

Be very careful Melissa,

                       Lots of discrimination exists that is hidden and not helped by such laws.




beth

[michelle]

At least it gives our rights some legal footing and something to build case law upon.

[Dennis]

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

[melissa_girl]

According to this:

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

[Alexandra]

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. 

[beth]

                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

[Alexandra]

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!