Editorial: Stand up for rights

Why are my comments being deleted from stories? Twice this has happened now. Talk about discrimination.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Thatcher on February 22, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

I think they are, Thatcher.

ZING!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on February 22, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

What are the legal ramifications of adding this to the list of things people can't discriminate against?

I understand that this will (rightfully) illegalize any discrimination that occurs in the workplace and in public establishments, but does this mean we are going to have to have TG bathrooms in all public buildings or other actual changes like that?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 22, 2010 at 11:04 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

I was in a class with a 'transgendered' individual this summer (not in Kansas). At the beginning of the course, the individual (physically a male) asked to be addressed as a female...so we all obliged. Several weeks later however, it was announced to us that we should refer to the same individual as a male. The individual alternatively used both male and female bathrooms at different times during the course. Everyone was very confused as to how to treat the individual and scared about offending him/her. To me, it was an example of how difficult it is to define transgenderism and thus, provide reasonable legal protection while avoiding excessive legal exposure.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Thatcher on February 22, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Then the person you met was probably new to to living as the gender they were not born as. The transition cannot be an easy one, but I've known a few people who have been truly transgendered for long periods of time, and there has been no such issue with them.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by thatonedude on February 22, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

What about the rights of employers? If I have a small business and hire someone who then decides to "change genders" for their own sick, sadistic pleasure, why should I have to keep them on the staff? What if what they do is against my religious beliefs? Do I not have 1st amendment protections stating I can practice my religion freely? Are dress codes now illegal. If gender is merely whatever the person prefers (which it clearly ISN'T), then can men wear skirts and claim to be a woman, thus hurting my business because customers/clients might not find this to be suitable?

Thankfully, this town still has an ounce of sanity left, and voted against this preposterous measure.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 22, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

"What if what they do is against my religious beliefs? Do I not have 1st amendment protections stating I can practice my religion freely?"

Oh man. You gotta warn me before you post something like that. I almost pulled something laughing. I mean, I don't think I've heard anyone say "Why can't I fire someone for doing something against my religion?". Unless that was on The Office once. It really does sound like something from The Office. Oh, man, you're a corker.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on February 22, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Savage, nobody lives as a member of the opposite gender for "sick, sadistic pleasure". They do so because they honestly do not feel like the sex they were biologically born as.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by thatonedude on February 22, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

I brought up religion because whenever you give someone special rights (as this new code would have been), you take away rights from others (such as religious people).

But if you run a business, and an employee does something while under your employ that negatively effects your business's abilty to retain customers, why shouldn't you be allowed to fire them? Whether you believe it or not, a man in woman's clothing probably isn't the best representation of many businesses.

That said, "anti-discrimination" codes are normally ways for wealth redistribution that empower lawyers and activist judges. Landlords can't evict anyone without cause anyway. Contracts are legally binding, and the landlord has to prove WHY he/she is evicting the lessee. So why then is this provision needed?

thatonedude....I'm not going to argue morality, so I retract my statement. That said, this argument isn't about what kind of people transgendereds are, but merely they have the same rights as everyone else, not special ones.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 22, 2010 at 7:02 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

The UDK editorial board, again, labels those who do not agree with it as hateful and bigoted. This is an effort to intimidate and silence its opponents--a tactic that is itself rooted in hate and bigotry.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on February 22, 2010 at 8:51 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

RTBatKU: What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? You want we should call you people "Bigot-Americans" instead? I mean, next you'll want the right to vote, get married, and own property. It's a slippery slope toward an entire nation of bigots, with their conservative bigot agenda being rammed down everyone's throats.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on February 23, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Savage:

I could be wrong here, but I think that firing someone for negatively affecting your business is still okay as long as the reason for the firing is not "this employee is transgendered, gay, female, whatever."

If this was not the case then minorities and females would be in the safest job positions in the country.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 24, 2010 at 8:50 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Hey Savage, do tell: what business do you own? Your ignorance is going to cause you to lose more customers than any transgendered person ever could.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by gonegonzo on February 26, 2010 at 1:09 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Pantheon: Claiming 1A rights is a silly and pointless argument. However, what about property rights, and the right to the disposition of same as one sees fit? The constitution is NOT a list of permissions from the government. It is a list of proscriptions limiting governmental powers. I would include among those the power of government to tell an employer who they may or may not hire or release from employment. Show me one single POSITIVE right anywhere in the constitution, including the right to a job, a home, food, healthcare, cable TV, or comfortable shoes.

Gonegonzo: I somehow doubt that the TG community, or even its vehement supporters is so deep that a business would be placed in jeopardy by the firing of said individual. Not even in your fevered imagination. In fact, I am positive that the number of potential customers who would feel uncomfortable around someone who was blatantly on the fringe of society is much more hefty. Now, a TG person has rights, of course, as do we all. But they would not trump the rights of the owner.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Kant_feel_Pietzsche on February 26, 2010 at 9 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Now, if the person managed their transition with personal dignity and discretion, and the employer did not receive complaints from customers, he would be completely in the wrong if he terminated the employer/employee relationship.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Kant_feel_Pietzsche on February 26, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

Pantheon: Calling anyone who does not think as you do a "racist" or a "bigot" is absolutely the weakest and most pitiful card in the deck. Not really a bit different than some redneck becoming violent when they know they have met their intellectual better. It is the last refuge of a scoundrel who has nothing of substance to say, and is immediately transparent to anyone with 1/2 of a mind.

I was a youngster when Dr. King gave his "dream" speech, but I never forgot his wish for people to be judged by content of character rather than color of skin. And I still live by that today. Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity...none of these matter to me a whit. I judge someone strictly by their expressed thoughts and deeds. But judge them I do.

Over the years, I have noted a troubling tendency for many people to abandon that dream en masse, and wish to be judged once again based on group identity. Only this time, in reverse. If someone observes an objectionable act or assertion, and rightly objects, they are attacked as a "racist" or a "sexist" or worse. And every time the attacker gets away with that tactic, and the "bigot" appeases them, they get a little more bold. Soon, in their minds, their behavior (no matter how despicable), is the fault of some "other".

All bigotry, no matter the form, is nothing more than tribalism. Some of us left that mindset back in the 16th Century, where it rightly belongs.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Kant_feel_Pietzsche on February 26, 2010 at 9:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Stand up for rights

And some haven't. You want to call bigots something else? Because the term is offensive to you? I think one of us is missing something here.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on February 26, 2010 at 11:23 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal