Cleveland mulls transgender protections, group presents hundred...

Cleveland's city council is considering whether to make it a crime to discriminate against transgender people.

[Matthew from Cleveland]

It should be a crime to discriminate against transgender people, regardless of how we feel about them.
If I'm not mistaken, don't transgender folks have rights guaranteed them by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

[pistoff]

It should be a crime to have City Council consider this as a legislative necessity. Why do we need to single groups out, when we're ALL covered as mentioned in the post above. Besides, council, aren't there just a few more pressing issues ongoing in Cleveland??

[ABC]

Here we go again, they say they want things to be "fair" and "equal", but then say they want "extra" and "special" laws or treatment. So pick one and only one. Fair or special? G.D. cry babies !!

[Rikki S]

ABC wrote:

Here we go again, they say they want things to be "fair" and "equal", but then say they want "extra" and "special" laws or treatment. So pick one and only one. Fair or special? G.D. cry babies !!

Apparently you didn't read the last line in the article,

"Explaining why the legislation is needed, Ask Cleveland spokesman David Caldwell says people who are transgender can now legally be fired from a job, thrown out of housing or denied service in a restaurant."

How is any of that "fair" when someone can be "legally" discriminated against simply because of their gender identity? I don't see anyone here asking for any "special rights", just equal rights that SHOULD be accorded to all already, but by legal interpretation is not.

[Greg]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently you didn't read the last line in the article,
"Explaining why the legislation is needed, Ask Cleveland spokesman David Caldwell says people who are transgender can now legally be fired from a job, thrown out of housing or denied service in a restaurant."
How is any of that "fair" when someone can be "legally" discriminated against simply because of their gender identity? I don't see anyone here asking for any "special rights", just equal rights that SHOULD be accorded to all already, but by legal interpretation is not.

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the case for everyone else??? Restaurants and bars have the right to not serve someone. Apartments and other housing has the right to not rent out to someone, and people get fired from their jobs everyday. Whats makes this certain group of people so special? They chose to be different and now they want special treatment.

[pistoff]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently you didn't read the last line in the article,
"Explaining why the legislation is needed, Ask Cleveland spokesman David Caldwell says people who are transgender can now legally be fired from a job, thrown out of housing or denied service in a restaurant."
How is any of that "fair" when someone can be "legally" discriminated against simply because of their gender identity? I don't see anyone here asking for any "special rights", just equal rights that SHOULD be accorded to all already, but by legal interpretation is not.

Can't see how they could be excluded, unless transgender is specifically mentioned in current law. If they can't deny myself or yourself, how can they identify a trangenderite?

[Roxanne A]

Greg wrote:

<quoted text>
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the case for everyone else??? Restaurants and bars have the right to not serve someone. Apartments and other housing has the right to not rent out to someone, and people get fired from their jobs everyday. Whats makes this certain group of people so special? They chose to be different and now they want special treatment.

Okay, you are wrong. First, the majority of GLBT people have not chosen to be that way. Second, people are supposed to get fired from their jobs for cause, not for who they are, except in Nazi Germany where under the Nuremburg Laws Jews were fired from civil service and teaching positions for simply being Jewish. Third, restaurants have the right to not serve someone but not because of being who they are, such as being an African-American or a Christian. The fact is that having been born into your privileged heterosexual, cisgendered and probably Caucasian privileges, you have no concept of how people not born into such privileges are discriminated against.

[Roxanne A]

pistoff wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't see how they could be excluded, unless transgender is specifically mentioned in current law. If they can't deny myself or yourself, how can they identify a trangenderite?

Well, when a person who has been known for years as one sex begins to transition to another sex, it's pretty obvious to those who've known them for awhile. When a person applies for a change of name part of the process requires publication in a newspaper. When a person who has had their gender changed from M to F (or F to M) on their driver's license and Social Security account and then tells their personnel department to change their sex of record, such as for insurance purposes, it's pretty obvious.

[pistoff]

Roxanne A wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, when a person who has been known for years as one sex begins to transition to another sex, it's pretty obvious to those who've known them for awhile. When a person applies for a change of name part of the process requires publication in a newspaper. When a person who has had their gender changed from M to F (or F to M) on their driver's license and Social Security account and then tells their personnel department to change their sex of record, such as for insurance purposes, it's pretty obvious.

I did,'t mean identify in that sense, I guess single out would have been a better term. As far as obvious goes, sure, it's readily apparent, like leaving work on Friday bald, and wearing a new 'rug' on Monday, or 32A Friday, and sporting 38C implants the following week. Still tough to defend discriminating against any of these.

[Ms Tara]

Greg wrote:

<quoted text>
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the case for everyone else??? Restaurants and bars have the right to not serve someone. Apartments and other housing has the right to not rent out to someone, and people get fired from their jobs everyday. Whats makes this certain group of people so special? They chose to be different and now they want special treatment.

There are many cases where certain groups need protections from discrimination. While people get fired everyday, it should be for under performance, or some other valid reason. Being transgendered will not affect a persons job performance.

Likewise, a transperson should not be denied housing simply for being transgendered. That is discrimination.

This isn't a special right, its protection of a group that are often targets of discrimination. There are several groups so protected which include but are not limited to: Age, Gender, Sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, and ethnicity.

[Ms Tara]

ABC wrote:

Here we go again, they say they want things to be "fair" and "equal", but then say they want "extra" and "special" laws or treatment. So pick one and only one. Fair or special? G.D. cry babies !!

Your arguement is naive and simplistic. There are special laws protecting many groups of people. These laws are an attempt to acknowledge that these affected groups are often targets of discrimination. The laws are in place to address the issue and help to prevent its occurrence.

Would you still consider it a "special" law if it were protecting senior citizens, veterans, the religious, or the disabled? These are but a few groups already protected by the same type of "special" anti-discrimination laws.

[tidho]

This shouldn't be that hard. Legislation should be written to equally protect all people, and never be specific to any single group.

Then enforcement of that legislation should be engaged for the protection of all with audits to ensure its applied fairly.

[Emelye Waldherr]

If a Christian family in a Cleveland restaurant are thrown out because they said grace before eating, they can sue under non-discrimination law. If a white person applies for a job in Cleveland and the employer tells them they can't have the job because of their skin color, they can sue under nondiscrimination law. If 2 men are denied a single bedroom apartment in Cleveland they have the right to sue under nondiscrimination law.

Yet, for a trans person in Cleveland, being thrown out of a restaurant, being fired from a job or being thrown out of their apartment because the proprietor doesn't like how they express their gender identity, there is NO legal recourse. No protection under the law against such harmful and prejudicial discrimination. This is not right and should be corrected immediately.

[Pitypat]

tidho wrote:

This shouldn't be that hard. Legislation should be written to equally protect all people, and never be specific to any single group.
Then enforcement of that legislation should be engaged for the protection of all with audits to ensure its applied fairly.

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. They deserve no more rights than I have.

[Emelye Waldherr]

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. They deserve no more rights than I have.

The law is written to protect people based on their gender identity. EVERYONE has a gender identity. Most people's gender identity matches the gender they were assigned when they were born. Some people's gender identity doesn't match what they were assigned to when they were born. The proposed law covers everyone!

[Pitypat]

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
The law is written to protect people based on their gender identity. EVERYONE has a gender identity. Most people's gender identity matches the gender they were assigned when they were born. Some people's gender identity doesn't match what they were assigned to when they were born. The proposed law covers everyone!

No, it is meant to protect only those with an "identity crisis" Stop twisting it to suit you.

[Emelye Waldherr]

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is meant to protect only those with an "identity crisis" Stop twisting it to suit you.

I'm not twisting anything. If I did, explain how, or shut up.

Of course, this is a moot point now. The council passed the law. Finally, gender variant people have the same protections as GLB people do in Cleveland. It would be better that the state pass this kind of law but one city at a time is still a valid strategy.

Good for you, Cleveland!

[Pitypat]

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not twisting anything. If I did, explain how, or shut up.
Of course, this is a moot point now. The council passed the law. Finally, gender variant people have the same protections as GLB people do in Cleveland. It would be better that the state pass this kind of law but one city at a time is still a valid strategy.
Good for you, Cleveland!

Cleveland is going down the tubes faster and faster. Transgenders, lesbians, gays - they have more rights than I do. Wrong wrong wrong.

[Emelye Waldherr]

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
Cleveland is going down the tubes faster and faster. Transgenders, lesbians, gays - they have more rights than I do. Wrong wrong wrong.

Lolz, you are really pushing the "pity me, boo hoo" thing? What rights do the LTGB community have that you don't? You can't say, I'm sure.

[Pitypat]

Right now the transgenders have a law that says that you can't discriminate against them for any reason. Do you see a law on the books that says you can't discriminate against heterosexuals? NO. Personally, I never worried about it before they decided to make it against the law to discriminate against the transgenders. That is still wrong.