Comment

Comment by Jeanne DeSilver on June 1, 2012 at 4:41pm

@Jeff - re: your point #6, about 2012-296 and potential lawsuits;  I do fear that small businesses will face the added burden of defending themselves in court if they protest the wearing apparel of their employees.  Employers have rights too.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 1, 2012 at 4:14pm

I agree with your statement totally, but here is the thing, once the law is on the books, even if someone shows up dressed for a night standing on a street corner instead of in an office, they will sue for discrimination if you don't hire them, and there in lies the rub. The bill doesn't define anything and throws things wide open to everything and anything and says, hire them or you get sued for discriminating. Again, I said I have no truck with mainstream people of all sexual orientations and you are mainstream to me. You go to work dressed right and have a normal life for your lifestyle and I know others too who do the same thing. This isn't really about you. It's about those who will misuse this bill to sue people and not act or dress appropriately in the work place. And once they are hired, you are in deep do do, because you won't be able to fire them for it without being sued either (It really is circular and the employer can't win).

I also get where you are coming from and don't know what the answer is but I don't think it is this bill.

Comment by Maxine Jessica Roberts on June 1, 2012 at 3:33pm

There is a difference between dressing for your gender expression and dressing for public indecency. Public Indecency is not being protected here. 

If you show up dressed like a hooker and failed to get hired, its because you showed up dressed inappropriately for the job. 

If you were born male, but present female and show up in tailored skirt suit, Have higher qualifications then other applicants, and are brought onto the job and then its decided they want to fire you when they see an "M" on your license, or because someone finds out you used to be male when you present as female. You should be protected. 

Public Decency laws are not being overwritten for this.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 1, 2012 at 3:19pm

Jeff, this was done by another group that is home based in Orlando.  I did not change their wording at all and reposted it as requested to do, so although I appreciate your taking a great deal of time putting together your counter post, the folks who put this together will never see it.  Just a thought.  Since someone put together a similiar letter for those in favor of this bill and it was sent in mass (with no mention that the bill should be changed back to include the US constitution as the force of law behind this bill I am sure).  When I wrote, I only wrote about them taking out references to the constitution and replacing them with UN gobbildy goop.  I would however say, I do not favor the bill passing if it gives folks truck to show up dressed like a hooker and expect to sue the city or a company when they don't get hired.............and then, the employer always has the threat over their head of being sued if the person doesn't do the job they hire them for. 

Comment by Maxine Jessica Roberts on June 1, 2012 at 2:23pm

1. Does not create special rights for Homosexuals. It prevents someone for discriminating against them. It doesn't endorse gay marriage, it doesn't endorse homosexual activity. It simply prevents you from firing someone for being themselves. 

2. This has nothing to do with Marriage. 

3. "Civil Rights" are actually not in the Constitution. They are in the Bill of Rights and Amendments. This is just cleaning up bad wording on the part of past lawmakers.

4. This does not create any legal defense for Pedophiles. I do not even know how you came up with this. Pedophilia is outlawed outright. It has nothing to do with gender, sexual orientation, or gender expression. Men and Women are both capable of sexually assaulting children of same or opposite genders as themselves. Pedophilia isn't even mentioned in the bill. This is a scare tactic. And a poor one. 

5. This wouldn't create more lawsuits, if anything it would remove them because the employer would operate within the law on their own. If they break the law they deserve litigation against them. 

6. This does not violate your religious freedoms. Churches are expressly excluded from laws like this. And are not under penalty if they act against them.

I posted a blog explaining what Gender Expression is, but it is being held up in going public on this site. I've since posted on my own personal blog. 

http://paynelaces.blogspot.com/2012/06/dear-first-coast-tea-party.html

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 30, 2012 at 1:58pm

You are very welcome Ms Angel. 

Comment by Leanne King on May 30, 2012 at 1:56pm

Thanks so much Pat. We are working to get the word out in all possible ways. We really need for members to take action on this and so many other things. L

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page