OFFLINE

A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.

AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.

"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business.”

Sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and co-authored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, the bill would strengthen civil rights protections in the areas of employment and housing for individuals based not only on the gender of the person's assigned sex at birth, but also by a person's "gender expression."

Critics like Daucus feel the law would limit the authority of employers who disagree with an employee's cross-dressing attire.

"This is not dealing with harassment, we already have laws in California that address harassment," said Daucus. "This is about employers having to deal with employees who dress in a way that employers know will cost them either in terms of customers, employer morale, or employee operational efficiency."

Daucus is not limiting its effect to just the sales industry. He believes businesses, such as child day care centers and retail clothing stores, would be affected by cross-dressing employees who might have the upper hand when it comes to legal disputes with employers regarding their clothing choices.

"If you have a mother taking her son to a store for back-to-school shopping and the retail clerk is a man dressed like a woman, the mother is going to take her son and go to another store," said Daucus.

May, an assistant director for a Christian-run daycare center in Calif., who did not want to give her last name or the name of her day care, agrees that the law could have an impact.

"Even if we change our hair, the kids notice right away. If one day a teacher comes dressed like a man and then the next day as a woman, the kids will wonder 'What's going on?'"

"Whatever law is passed, it shouldn't just look upon the introspect of one specific micro-interest group," said Daucus. "The legislators need to make sure that all of those who are impacted by the legislation are taken into consideration."

OFFLINE

California is weird.  I've read that they also want to ban circumcision.  They claim it is inhumane.  But it seems to me that it would affect JEwish people most of all.  So I wonder who the bll is truly aimed at?  They also have taxed the people so much to pay for eco programs and other things.  They want the taxpayers also to pay to send children of illegals to college!

It wouldnt suprise me to learn that businesses and people were abandoning California in droves and moving elsewhere.  So when that happens and their unemployment goes up because of lack of jobs and their revenue drops because taxpayers are leaving...how long will it be before they demand the rest of us to bail their state out?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.

AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.

"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business.”

Sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and co-authored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, the bill would strengthen civil rights protections in the areas of employment and housing for individuals based not only on the gender of the person's assigned sex at birth, but also by a person's "gender expression."

Critics like Daucus feel the law would limit the authority of employers who disagree with an employee's cross-dressing attire.

"This is not dealing with harassment, we already have laws in California that address harassment," said Daucus. "This is about employers having to deal with employees who dress in a way that employers know will cost them either in terms of customers, employer morale, or employee operational efficiency."

Daucus is not limiting its effect to just the sales industry. He believes businesses, such as child day care centers and retail clothing stores, would be affected by cross-dressing employees who might have the upper hand when it comes to legal disputes with employers regarding their clothing choices.

"If you have a mother taking her son to a store for back-to-school shopping and the retail clerk is a man dressed like a woman, the mother is going to take her son and go to another store," said Daucus.

May, an assistant director for a Christian-run daycare center in Calif., who did not want to give her last name or the name of her day care, agrees that the law could have an impact.

"Even if we change our hair, the kids notice right away. If one day a teacher comes dressed like a man and then the next day as a woman, the kids will wonder 'What's going on?'"

"Whatever law is passed, it shouldn't just look upon the introspect of one specific micro-interest group," said Daucus. "The legislators need to make sure that all of those who are impacted by the legislation are taken into consideration."

Yeah, I don't see this clearing the legislature.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
California is weird.  I've read that they also want to ban circumcision.  They claim it is inhumane.  But it seems to me that it would affect JEwish people most of all.  So I wonder who the bll is truly aimed at?

From what I understand these measures have been proposed in a few cities (San Francisco) but not at the state level.  I think banning forced circumcision would be consistent with prohibitions on other forms of involuntary genital mutilation.  I see no antisemitism motivating the legislation, as such I think your suggestion is warrantless.

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
They also have taxed the people so much to pay for eco programs and other things.  

Encase you are not aware, California has some very bad pollution issues due to a combination of historical resource management and large population densities.  The ecological projects are not without merit.  If you don't believe me, please come to Fresno during the summer.  Warning, it will put you at a higher risk of developing asthma is you don't already have it.

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
They want the taxpayers also to pay to send children of illegals to college!

This is a fairly pragmatic idea, but very controversial none the less.  There are countless students in California (like CSU Fresno's former student body president Pedro Ramirez) that were brought into California at very young ages (I think Ramirez was 5).  Its not pragmatic to deport these individuals since a) they had no choice in coming here and b) as they were raised here they wouldn't know how to get by in Mexico.  Since they are here, the pragmatic thing to do would be to train them so they can make a contribution to their community.  If you live in CA for more than 5 years you are considered a CA resident and as such pay the resident price of tuition if you are a US citizen.  

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
It wouldnt suprise me to learn that businesses and people were abandoning California in droves and moving elsewhere.  So when that happens and their unemployment goes up because of lack of jobs and their revenue drops because taxpayers are leaving...how long will it be before they demand the rest of us to bail their state out?

We still, despite this dang recession, have one of the largest economies in the world (much larger than any of your states).  Say what you would about our laws, but we are still doing better than the rest of the country.

(So who here can guess at which point in this post I stopped and went out for a drink?)

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.

AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.

"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business.”

Sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and co-authored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, the bill would strengthen civil rights protections in the areas of employment and housing for individuals based not only on the gender of the person's assigned sex at birth, but also by a person's "gender expression."

Critics like Daucus feel the law would limit the authority of employers who disagree with an employee's cross-dressing attire.

"This is not dealing with harassment, we already have laws in California that address harassment," said Daucus. "This is about employers having to deal with employees who dress in a way that employers know will cost them either in terms of customers, employer morale, or employee operational efficiency."

Daucus is not limiting its effect to just the sales industry. He believes businesses, such as child day care centers and retail clothing stores, would be affected by cross-dressing employees who might have the upper hand when it comes to legal disputes with employers regarding their clothing choices.

"If you have a mother taking her son to a store for back-to-school shopping and the retail clerk is a man dressed like a woman, the mother is going to take her son and go to another store," said Daucus.

May, an assistant director for a Christian-run daycare center in Calif., who did not want to give her last name or the name of her day care, agrees that the law could have an impact.

"Even if we change our hair, the kids notice right away. If one day a teacher comes dressed like a man and then the next day as a woman, the kids will wonder 'What's going on?'"

"Whatever law is passed, it shouldn't just look upon the introspect of one specific micro-interest group," said Daucus. "The legislators need to make sure that all of those who are impacted by the legislation are taken into consideration."

Yeah, I don't see this clearing the legislature.

What about the bill that would make homosexual history a mandatory part of California curriculum??? Do you think that will pass??? Sorry I ain't homophobic, but that is just dumb.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
We still, despite this dang recession, have one of the largest economies in the world (much larger than any of your states).  Say what you would about our laws, but we are still doing better than the rest of the country.

(So who here can guess at which point in this post I stopped and went out for a drink?)

If that's true, then why did the State approach Obama hoping for a $24.3 billion bailout?  (Who turned them down btw).

Look, dont shoot the messenger.  All I'm saying is that anti Zionism exists in our country and California govt officials a both city and state level march to the beat of a different drum.  They arent the most Fiscally Conservative folks in the country, which is fine I guess.  Just dont ask me to help finance California's next 'Save the Whales' or 'Grants for Illegals' or 'Medical Marijuana' project, that's all.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.

AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.

"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business.”

Sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and co-authored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, the bill would strengthen civil rights protections in the areas of employment and housing for individuals based not only on the gender of the person's assigned sex at birth, but also by a person's "gender expression."

Critics like Daucus feel the law would limit the authority of employers who disagree with an employee's cross-dressing attire.

"This is not dealing with harassment, we already have laws in California that address harassment," said Daucus. "This is about employers having to deal with employees who dress in a way that employers know will cost them either in terms of customers, employer morale, or employee operational efficiency."

Daucus is not limiting its effect to just the sales industry. He believes businesses, such as child day care centers and retail clothing stores, would be affected by cross-dressing employees who might have the upper hand when it comes to legal disputes with employers regarding their clothing choices.

"If you have a mother taking her son to a store for back-to-school shopping and the retail clerk is a man dressed like a woman, the mother is going to take her son and go to another store," said Daucus.

May, an assistant director for a Christian-run daycare center in Calif., who did not want to give her last name or the name of her day care, agrees that the law could have an impact.

"Even if we change our hair, the kids notice right away. If one day a teacher comes dressed like a man and then the next day as a woman, the kids will wonder 'What's going on?'"

"Whatever law is passed, it shouldn't just look upon the introspect of one specific micro-interest group," said Daucus. "The legislators need to make sure that all of those who are impacted by the legislation are taken into consideration."

Yeah, I don't see this clearing the legislature.

What about the bill that would make homosexual history a mandatory part of California curriculum??? Do you think that will pass??? Sorry I ain't homophobic, but that is just dumb.

I actually have not heard of that.  I'll have to look it up.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


From what I understand these measures have been proposed in a few cities (San Francisco) but not at the state level.  I think banning forced circumcision would be consistent with prohibitions on other forms of involuntary genital mutilation.  I see no antisemitism motivating the legislation, as such I think your suggestion is warrantless.


sorry, but i have to rebut all this. genital mutilation? are you serious? the medical benefits of male circumcision are WELL documented. from helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and STD , to even cancers. google "benefits of circumcision" if you really want to know.

fact is, this may be wrapped in a liberal bow of "oh it's so inhumane to force such torture and cruel 'genital MUTILATION!'" (how titillating malicious that sounds), but it's quite obvious this is just another shot at the religious establishment. circumcision is a tradition in islam and christianity, and is a religious obligation to the jews that stretches back 4-5000 years, and now here comes some new age hippy group (which has been at this since 1984) trying to outlaw the practice, WITHOUT religious exemption. well guess what jews. if this ballot passes, you now have to move out of san francisco if you have a little boy on the way. hell, maybe we can drive them out of the whole of the fatherland next.

This is a fairly pragmatic idea, but very controversial none the less.  There are countless students in California (like CSU Fresno's former student body president Pedro Ramirez) that were brought into California at very young ages (I think Ramirez was 5).  Its not pragmatic to deport these individuals since a) they had no choice in coming here and b) as they were raised here they wouldn't know how to get by in Mexico.  Since they are here, the pragmatic thing to do would be to train them so they can make a contribution to their community.  If you live in CA for more than 5 years you are considered a CA resident and as such pay the resident price of tuition if you are a US citizen.  

since they are here, the pragmatic thing to do would be to let them work their own way through college, just like the poor citizens of this country have to do. why do they deserve a leg up? what, they're poor victims of THEIR PARENTS ILLEGAL ACTIONS? well aren't a lot of people in this country? if there were ever an example of social engineering, this it! why is it that taxpayers owe them a leg up over citizens from nevada or oregon or arizona (who can't pay in state tuitions)? why is it that liberals always have this "we're all in it together" slogan, yet they're constantly trying to break us down by race, or by class; taking from those deemed "fortunate" and throwing it in the laps of those deemed as victims. why not have the taxpayers pay for their college, in exchange for an agreement to take that college education, and go back to mexico in order to improve that country?

We still, despite this dang recession, have one of the largest economies in the world (much larger than any of your states).  Say what you would about our laws, but we are still doing better than the rest of the country.

you're also the most bankrupt state in the country; so much so, you're having to cut loose criminals from your prisons, cause you can't afford to pay yo bills. $25 Billion in shortfalls. and if your economy is so good, how come 95% of californians say it's bad?

in fact, from the huffington post even:

"Just how dangerous is California's budget crisis?

Extremely dangerous, according to two recent evaluations of California's debt by financial industry insiders.

California's debt is seen by investors as riskier than Kazakhstan's, according to Bloomberg News. Five-year credit default swaps tied to California's debt, which are a key measure of the market's belief in the likelihood of default, are actually trading at 100 basis points above those of Kazakhstan. In other words, the market believes a developing country of just 15.7 million people is actually less likely to default on its debt than California, which makes up the eighth-largest economy in the world.

And last week, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, the nation's second largest bank, warned that California's $20 billion budget gap could pose a bigger risk than the Greek debt crisis.

In January, Standard & Poor's cut California's debt rating amid concerns that the state was not doing enough to bolster its budgetary woes. Reporting on the downgrade, Reuters pointed out that there are several countries with debt trading at levels above California's: "The cost to insure California's debt with credit default swaps is now higher than debt of developing countries, such as Kazakhstan, Lebanon and Uruguay. It costs $277,000 per year for five years to insure $10 million in California debt, compared with $172,000 for Kazakh debt."

OFFLINE

here's a perfect example of what good of shape california is in.


Police and firefighters stood on a California beach and watched as a suicidal man waded into the San Francisco Bay and drowned in the surf.

The body of Raymond Zack was finally pulled from the 54-degree water by a passerby as local fire officials blamed budget cuts for their inability to save the man.

Police and firefighters were brought to Robert Crown Memorial State Beach by a 911 call, authorities said.

Fire officials said the department's water rescue program disappeared with its funding in 2009. And an overtime cutback prevented firefighters from logging sufficient training hours for water rescues.

"The incident was deeply regrettable," said Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi.

"But I can also see it from our firefighters' perspective. They're standing there wanting to do something, but they are handcuffed by policy."

The policy kept the untrained firefighters from entering the water even as Zack, 52, spent an hour in the bay before he wound up floating face down.



california is so screwed up, that it can't even pay for the **** it needs to, but it can pay for illegal immigrants to go to college. bravo cali, bravo