Skip to comments.Critics slam Davis over new 'cross-dresser' law
Posted on 08/04/2003 6:29:34 PM PDT by hotpotato
California Gov. Gray Davis added fuel to his opponents' recall fire by signing a controversial bill that authorizes fines of up to $150,000 for companies or nonprofit groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that discriminate against cross-dressers, transsexuals or drag queens.
The governor signed the measure Saturday along with the $71.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2003-4. The move fell under the radar screens of most California media outlets.
The law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2004, adds "gender identity or expression" to the characteristics protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and specifically protects residents whose "perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual's sex at birth."
The Assembly approved the bill in April by a vote of 41 to 34, the minimum needed to pass. The state Senate, led by Democrats, followed suit earlier this month with a vote of 23 to 11.
The new law, which provides an exemption for religious groups, makes California the fourth state to bar discrimination on the basis of "perceived gender," behind New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota.
Homosexual-rights advocates hail the law as a victory that's been a long time in coming.
"It's a very big issue for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community in California," Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press. "It's something we've been working on for three years."
The measure, titled AB 196, was one of a package proposed this year by the five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. Earlier this year, the state Assembly passed a bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners." The Senate is expected to take it up next month.
"Having a law that specifically states who's protected makes it clear to employers that the majority of people in California want transgender people to be able to work in a nondiscriminatory environment," said Chris Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco.
Arguing for its necessity, the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, cites a 1999 study by the San Francisco Department of Public Health indicating the city's transgender population had a 70 percent unemployment rate.
"We must do everything in our power to protect such fundamental human rights," he said.
Opponents call the move bad for business. Employer groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association warn the law's overly subjective definitions will spawn frivolous lawsuits. Just about any comment or action between workers could be grounds for a lawsuit, they contend.
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy of Monrovia was one of several members who spoke about how the measure harms California businesses during debate in the Assembly.
"If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" he asked. "How could I possibly have an employee that's here today in a dress, tomorrow may come in a suit, and then stay in a dress? How can I possibly employ this employee and still have the Christian bookstore and live by my faith?"
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide family issues leadership organization, describes the law as "attacking persons of conscience."
"Average people think it's outrageous to force the sex-change lifestyle upon businesses and Boy Scouts. Gray Davis has apparently lost his senses," he said. "With his signature on AB 196, Davis has declared war on Californians who object to sex-change operations."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Davis' signature will likely motivate opponents to turn out in greater numbers for the Oct. 7 recall vote.
Less than a year into his second term, Davis is grappling with a staggering deficit projected at more than $38 billion and rock-bottom approval ratings. He becomes the first sitting governor in the history of California and only the second in U.S. history to face a recall election.
The governor derides the drive to oust him as "a hostile takeover by the right," and allies have said they expect to spend $15 million to $20 million to keep him in office.
With the Aug. 9 filing deadline looming, hundreds of people from activists and filmmakers to a comedian and billboard queen have filed to have their names added to the ballot. Self-described "smut peddler" Larry Flynt joined the dozens who have paid the $3,500 filing fee.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who bankrolled the recall signature-gathering recall effort with $1.7 million of his own money is the only declared Republican in the race. Failed gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon and state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks are expected to run. Others contemplating a run are state Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and controversial, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage.
Opponents of the "cross-dresser bill" plan to hold a news tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the State Treasurer's Building in Sacramento to highlight the law's detrimental effect on business. Speakers will include Thomasson and other pro-family leaders, including local ministers representing black, white and Latino voters.
"By supporting the transsexual agenda that hurts everyone else, Gray Davis has earned his recall," said Thomasson. "The in-your-face transsexual agenda makes voters very angry. ... Gray Davis tried to hide his actions by signing this radical sex-change bill under cover of the budget, but he won't get away with it."
And only then so long as the "replacement" isn't equally or more extreme. It's a very real possibility that this once glorious recall could become the beginning of a new nightmare. Too many "bafoon" candidates.
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles.
calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles.
Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register
Got any photos? They could be useful in derailing his position anytime he showed up in public. We could pass 'em out in the audience.
It's crazy if you think about it, what if a lawyer in a firm or someone in a sales department suddenly decides he's a woman and starts cross-dressing at work? Legally they can't fire him now without fear of a discrimination suit.
It's no wonder more and more are setting up home businesses and home schooling their kids.
And just a matter of time before the cancer spreads to NY. Liberal see, liberal do.
Just a police report posted here about 10 years ago.
Felt by many on this forum to be an urban legend.
Maybe it has something to do with wearing the public down. They keep coming and coming with their alternative agendas in the hope people can't take them anymore and give in. And they will not stop until legislation like this exists in all 50 states.
No. They can decide they would rather pay $150,000 fine.
There was a civil war between the right and left sort of in the 60s. The next one that comes will see the conservatives out in the streets protesting and demonstrating. Politicians are not listening to the people at all on a whole array of social issues and are dragging the country down.
I'm not sure given the recent Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays if this law is constitutional. It will probably get challenged as soon as a drag queen gets in their face.
Maybe it has something to do with wearing the public down.
It counts on the ignorance of the public or the gullibility of the public to accept what Oprah and PBS say about it without question. The fact is, people do not ask questions, they do not ask that the speaker prove their theory or provide empirical data to support their claims. The claims canNOT be supported but for some reason, the public simply seems to accept the claims. Critical thinking has been left on the roadside somewhere. The internet joins these folks up (TG,TS) and they buy into the same "theories" because everyone knows if you can persuade the public that this is some physiological/biological condition over which they have no control, the public will shrug and as "we must tolerate" and allow them to pursue their fetish in public and full time.
The same problem existed with "recovered memory." The public bought into it without asking questions because the psychiatric industry was promoting the idea, writing papers about it, getting publicity and appearing on talk shows, and using this bogus theory to send people to jail for years. It has finally been debunked thanks to people like Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Therapists and psychiatrists are now being sued by those who were abused and whose lives were destroyed by this nonsense that even today, much of the public STILL thinks is true. Same with multiple personality disorder diagnosis. It has been debunked. Too late for those who were abused by the "system." We will, in the not too distant future, start to see a whole host of lawsuits brought by those who were persuaded by their therapists that they were in the wrong-gender body and who went on to have gender altering surgery. And for those that may persuade the state to pay for this while they are incarcerated, any lawsuits brought about afterwards claiming the state abused them at their most vulnerable time, will be picked up by us, the taxpayers.
Whatever you do, stay away from that place and you won'thave to worry about it. And if you are there, flee. As fast as your feet can fly, get out of there. Run, don't walk.
That party is a joke. I guess the next thing we'll see is Barney Frank in drag on the House floor.
If you think this won't seep into the rest of the country, think again. What ails California, eventually ails middle America. btw, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode Island have a similar law, already. Just not as many people and as concentrated with fringe groups. Not only will Californians feel this, so will the rest of the country. It's a matter of time.
A judge in San Francisco last week ruled that the Boy Scouts can't use Bilbao Park camping facilities because they require belief in a Supreme Being; therefore, the BSA is a religious institution, not entitled to use public property for meetings (or somesuch bilge). However, following that "logic", the new law does not apply to the BSA because it is a "religion".
I'm sure this is a surprise to the BSA.
And we just keep sliding... Ping.
|Homosexual Agenda Index|
|Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search|
|All FreeRepublic Bump Lists|
A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe or unsubscribe from my homosexual agenda ping list.
I don't think so, 'cause a Federal Magistrate just ruled that the Boy Scouts are a religious group (therefore exempt), though it means they're kicked out of Balboa Park. The Scouts, I mean..
Yup, there is a large segment of the population that is gullible, and will accept anything told to them, especially if it comes from doctors or therapists, even lawyers. Just look at some of the awards juries have handed out for what were otherwise frivolous lawsuits, like spilling coffee. It's easy to believe there will be those who buy into the argument transvestism is an uncontrollable condition and not a voluntary fetish, which is what it is.
Then there's the mind-numbing "you must be tolerant" mantra which has been spreading to include accepting an openly gay Episcopal bishop, going against centuries of tradition. So there is the wear down factor and the media attention where no one wants to appear intolerant. You combine that with those that are gullible and we get sick legislation like this because legislators realize people are afraid of openly opposing it for fear of being called names, or too dumb to recognize fraud.
I know conservatives will not give in and will continue fighting these perverted laws, but political correctness and stupidity are unfortunately winning.
Like hell it did!
Ann Coulter says it in the last (small) chapter of "Treason". Boils down to this - conservatives think man is made in the image of God, and liberals think they are God. Many of them buy into the new-age "I am Godism", or are regular atheists, and virtually all are some variety of secular-humanist, with total rejection of any absolute standards of morality or truth.
This is all based on envy of God, and due to envy, they want to destroy the natural order. The founders wrote about Nature and Nature's God, and the liberals hate that, so they want to destroy the natural order, as the order hints at the creator of that order. They also want "perfection" in the here and now, they are Utopians of one kind or another, and there is no hell on earth worse than an attempted Utopia
And being envious of God's Lordship and His natural order, they want to set themselves as the arbiters of right and wrong (Transgenderism=right, homophobia=wrong).
Add to this mix unending lust (for all manner of gratification) because the only enjoyment or happiness they know is the ephemeral flesh and mind based; they do not admit of the existence of the transcendent Godhead. Many liberals phonily claim to be religious (remember Clintoon and his big Bible) or they ostentatiously and shallowly "convert" to some eastern religion because they erroneously think that such religions are a do-it-yourself moral playground, not seeing that (for instance) Hinduism and Buddhism share the essential unchangeable moral codes as Christianity and Judaism.
They have a strong attraction for destruction; that explains their love for abortion, sterile destructive same sex acts, euthanasia, and so on..
Of course, some conservatives are atheist, but this generally holds true.