I am a ASE Master certified auto repair technician with L-1 Advanced Driveability Specialist certification with 37 years experience in all facets of the industry, shops are in desperate need of a person with my skills, yet no one will hire me due to my transition.

I found out about ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and of all the organizations and people involved with trying to correct this social injustice, our loss of Civil Rights. I contacted my Senators and Congressmen to tell them of my hope that they support ENDA and discovered that Senators Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Issakson and Congressman Phil Gingrey all oppose us for various reasons, none of them logical. Their explanations are easily broken down when put to the test. When NCTE posted on Facebook that we should take our resume’s directly to their offices, I thought what a fantastic idea!

I composed a letter to Congressman Gingrey since the bill, H.B.3017, is in the house legislature at the moment, asking him once again to reconsider his opposition to ENDA and I included my resume, along with a copy of my voter registration card, my initial letter to him with his response and my response to that and a copy of my certifications and training so that he could see first hand who I was. I also asked for suggestions as to what I should do to find a job, and I delivered it directly to his office in Marietta, Georgia. I am awaiting a response.

Thank you, Jennifer, for taking action. The personal stories and actions of individuals make a huge difference in passing bills like ENDA.

We wish you the very best in your job search!

It’s definitely time for everyone to pitch in for ENDA.

Need ideas or information about how you can help the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? NCTE has a new page: www.TransEquality.org/ENDA.

CUNA, which represents 90% of the nation’s credit unions, announced its support this week for the Israel-Frank Freedom from Discrimination in Credit Act (H.R.4376), a 2-page bill that would add these categories to existing federal protections based on race, sex, religion, national origin, marital status and age.

CUNA isn’t waiting for the bill to pass; it’s also making nondiscrimination against LGBT consumers part of its organizational policy. We applaud CUNA for recognizing that no one should be denied a loan because a bank officer thinks they don’t look sufficiently “masculine” or “feminine,” or because a credit card company thinks being transgender means you’re an unreliable borrower. Transgender people, like everyone else, should have access to credit and lending on fair terms, based on objective financial qualifications, not prejudice or stereotypes.  We hope CUNA’s leadership will help advance this common-sense legislation.

Discrimination is in the news again. The BBC is quoting Chris Grayling, the Conservative/Tory MP for Epsom and Ewell in the United Kingdom as saying

“I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences.

“I personally always took the view that… if you look at the case of ‘Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?’

“I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.

“If they are running a hotel on the High Street, I really don’t think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes.”

The response was predictable:

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said “Chris Grayling’s plan would allow discrimination to thrive”

In my humble opinion this is a ‘cat up a tree’ story – why on earth did the BBC bother to write about it? However, it does highlight an important point: everyone discriminates. Heterosexual men discriminate against men when looking for a partner, and homosexual men discriminate against women and heterosexual men when looking for a partner. ‘Discrimination’ is simply ‘choice’ turned into a negative by the politically correct brigade, who believe that everyone should make the choices that they do and use anti-discrimination laws to that end (as well as a great deal of propaganda).

Note this specious argument in the BBC article:

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, told the BBC he was “deeply saddened” by the comments, which would give voters “pause for thought”.

He said people were not forced to open their homes as commercial premises and they should abide by the law.

It is true that people are not forced to open their homes as commercial premises, but the core issue is the nature of the laws that they must abide by if they do so. Business owners should not be subject to unjust laws, e.g. anti-discrimination laws that will not allow them to control who enters their property.

Back to the original question…

Should B&Bs and hotels be allowed to bar gay guests?

This is not a matter of discrimination, gay rights, human rights or anything like that: it is a matter of property rights. Grayling distinguishes between B&Bs and hotels but I do not, for both are private property. I believe that the owner of a bed and breakfast or a hotel should be able to refuse entry to any person for any reason because that hostelry is private property: it’s no different to you controlling who enters your home. Would you appreciate it if anti-discrimination laws limited your right to refuse entry to your home, so that some people could walk in against your will?

The march took place after years of work for voter registration and for integration. Those who advocated for their rights faced beatings, shootings and other violence that had gone on for years. Even thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had passed, those civil rights had not been realized. One of the impacts of Bloody Sunday and the other marches was that it changed the emotional tone of America’s response to the civil rights movement. American’s eyes were opened in a new way to the ugly brutality of the police and the humanity of the marchers. In the months that followed, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other important gains were made.

One of the people beaten badly on Bloody Sunday was John Lewis, now a member of Congress representing Georgia’s 5th district, and someone who has dedicated his life to fighting all forms of discrimination. He is one of ENDA’s cosponsors. He had been involved in the voting rights activism that led to the Selma to Montgomery march in the early 60s, organizing people to go to the courthouse to register to vote.  Yesterday, as part of the commemorations, Congressman Lewis led a group back over the bridge over the Alabama River where he had been attacked by state troopers many years ago.

Thinking back to the events of the Selma to Montgomery march remind us that change–genuine, lasting changes to end discrimination–take time, sacrifice and ongoing dedication. The racism that led to the beatings and violence has not ended yet, although the country has seen remarkable changes and gains to American civil rights. The advances of the civil rights movement have improved our country in ways beyond measure, moving us closer to the ideal of democracy that Americans cherish.

Securing basic rights for transgender Americans–including the job protections in ENDA–has taken many years and will continue to call upon us to take action as work to pass this bill. On the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, it is an opportunity to commit ourselves to ending discrimination in all its forms, against our community and all others.

In this interview, Governor Pawlenty disrespects the professionalism of Minnesota teachers, including transgender teachers, and is willing to use children as a shield from criticism for his change in position about anti-discrimination legislation. What cynical maneuvering on his part.

Sadly, Gov. Pawlenty states his opinion that the law should be changed—taking rights away from the people of his own state is certainly not evolution in our book. The online article is titled, “Tim Pawlenty Gets No Respect.” We can certainly see why.

Read the interview here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/227748/page/1. The material cited above is on page 3.

New York joins eight other states in extending protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity via an executive or administrative order (Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania). The downside about these nine states is that only public employees are protected by this type of action from their respective Governors. Twelve states and the District of Columbia currently protect both public and private employees from gender identity discrimination.

There is no comparable state law in New York for the protection of private sector employees. The Gender Expression Non Discrimination Act (GENDA) has twice passed the State Assembly but has stalled in the State Senate. We join Governor Paterson and state legislative leaders in calling for prompt action to pass GENDA. New Yorkers – and all Americans who are currently unprotected by state civil rights laws – have waited too long for these basic legal protections.

Marginal Revolution’s Alex Tabarrok points to a proposed rule in California that would reclassify adult film actors as being subject to certain employment regulations. The unintended consequences are potentially fatal:

California’s anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry’s current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal. Nor would adult film producers be allowed to “discriminate” by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks–particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur.

Sounds like regulators and activists need to think that one through a little more carefully.

Case in point: today the New York-based Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint with the Florida Human Relations Commission on behalf of Zikerria Bellamy, a young trans woman in Orlando. Zikerria applied for a job at a local McDonald’s in July, but she never got an interview. Instead, she got a vicious transphobic voice mail message from a McDonald’s manager, stating that they would never hire someone like her.

Legislation to protect transgender workers from this kind of discrimination has been proposed, but not yet passed, in both the city of Orlando and the Florida legislature. The state’s Human Relations Commission has permitted transgender workers to bring complaints under the state’s sex discrimination law in the past, and Zikerria is seeking protection under that law.

What’s unambiguously clear, however, is that Zikerria would have been protected by ENDA if it had been on the books. Right now, Congressional leaders are preparing to rush through a package of measures intended to create and preserve jobs, which they hope to pass before the end of the month. Yet whatever Congress does to address the current unemployment crisis will be incomplete so long as transgender people remain unemployed at twice the rate of the general population. Until ENDA is passed, transgender people face a kind of permanent recession. With each delay on ENDA, more LGBT people will lose or be denied jobs because of ignorance and bias. We need to mobilize for this bill like our lives, or at least our livelihoods, depend on it – because they do.

In light of continuing delays in the House of Representatives, we must state clearly and unequivocally: Passing basic job protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people must happen now. At a time when our government is deeply focused on the critical issue of employment, it is inexcusable to delay action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Each and every job lost to prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity needlessly compounds the unemployment challenges facing our nation. We call on Congress for the immediate passage of ENDA.

For decades now, we have called upon Congress to pass legislation to address the basic right of LGBT people to work free from discrimination at our jobs, and now Congress tells us we must wait another year. In 29 states, it remains legal to fire people based on sexual orientation and in 38 states, discrimination based on gender identity remains legal. In failing to take swift action to pass ENDA, our government allows unfettered bigotry to go unchecked, leading to the loss of jobs, fear in the workplace, economic instability, and personal hardship, while allowing employers to lose competent experienced workers. ENDA is urgently needed by our communities.

The majority of Americans consistently state their support for employment protections and voters have affirmed similar state and local measures. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to continue to delay this non-controversial bill or drop LGBT issues to the bottom of their agenda. We will not be denied basic rights any longer. Nothing is more important than protecting peoples’ jobs so ENDA must pass now. Further delays are absolutely unacceptable.

Matthew Coles & James Esseks, Co-Directors, American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project
Terry Stone, Executive Director, CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Toni Broaddus, Executive Director, Equality Federation
Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director, Family Equality Council
Lee Swislow, Executive Director, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Jarrett Tomás Barrios, President, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign
Rachel T. Niven, Executive Director, Immigration Equality
Earl Fowlkes, President/CEO, International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.
Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director, Lambda Legal
Christian Berle, Director, Log Cabin Republicans National Office
Sharon J. Lettman, Executive Director/CEO, National Black Justice Coalition
Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Mara Keisling, Executive Director, National Center for Transgender Equality
Rebecca Fox, Executive Director, National Coalition for LGBT Health
Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
Michael Mitchell, Executive Director, National Stonewall Democrats
Gregory Varnum, Executive Director, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Selisse Berry, Founding Executive Director, Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
Jody Huckaby, Executive Director, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National
Jo Kenny, Interim Director, Pride at Work AFL-CIO
Masen Davis, Executive Director, Transgender Law Center

Additional organizations may be added.

In Fort Worth, a gender identity nondiscrimination ordinance was already in the works when the much-denounced June raid of a local gay bar prompted the city to create a task force to study LGBT issues in the Texas city. The task force recommended immediate passage of the ordinance, among other initiatives. Following hours of testimony from an overflow crowd, the council voted 6-3 to approve the ordinance Tuesday night. Fort Worth now joins Austin, Dallas and El Paso in prohibiting discrimination against transgender people. The city will also be implementing training for city staff on working with the LGBT community, and appointing an LGBT liaison for the police department.

In Salt Lake City, the city council unanimously approved the ordinances after also hearing overwhelming support from witnesses, including a groundbreaking statement of support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. An LDS statement described the Utah capital’s ordinances as “fair and reasonable” because it “grants common-sense rights that should be available to everyone” – the first time the Mormon church has publicly embraced protections for LGBT people. This victory is a first for Utah, and equality advocates there hope it will prepare the way for passage of statewide legislation.

Gender identity nondiscrimination legislation is also set for a vote this month in Cleveland, OH., and a final vote next week in Tampa, FL. This latest wave of local equality measures – which already exist in well over a 100 municipalities around the country – powerfully illustrate the growing majority support for gender identity nondiscrimination nationwide.

♦ the tertiary institutions provide quotas and extra assistance for Maori and Pacific Islanders, but no quotas or extra assistance targeted at Pakeha

♦ the government funds Maori TV, but not Pakeha TV

♦ the police have a National Strategic Adviser (Maori Pacific Ethnic Services), but no National Strategic Adviser (Pakeha Ethnic Services)

♦ there are Maori Mental Health Services but no Pakeha Mental Health Services

♦ there is a Maori Electoral Roll and Maori seats in parliament, but no Pakeha Electoral Roll or Pakeha seats

♦ there is a rugby team called New Zealand Maori but not a team called New Zealand Pakeha

♦ State occasions are opened with a language that I don’t understand

♦ there are various Urban Maori Authorities but no Urban Pakeha Authorities

♦ Housing NZ has a Maori Strategic Plan but no Pakeha Strategic Plan

♦ there is a Minister of Maori Affairs but no Minister of Pakeha Affairs

**********

This is a satirical way of illustrating reverse racism in NZ and anyone who posts abusive comments will be banned, but there is also a serious point to be made.

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, and the “oppressors”. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing.

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”. There is a Marxist agenda behind political correctness, and the perpetuators of that agenda are using anti-discrimination laws to take away our choices and impose their beliefs upon us. Will you accept it when you are treated like a dumb sheep or will you leave the flock and join the free?

**********

* calling a black American an “Afro-American” is absurd: if a white person from South Africa goes to America no ones calls him an Afro-American. Africa is a continent, not a skin colour

♦ For an excellent example of reverse discrimination, go to http://www.democrats.org/ and click on People: you’ll see a list of just about every type of American, except white, middle class, urban Americans. Mr Barack “All-inclusive” Obama is discriminating against them

♦ Credit is due to Walter Block of the Mises Institute for his assistance with part of this article

As this case makes clear, the attack on freedom of speech from anti-discrimination laws is current and real. And it is getting worse.

(Link via The Volokh Conspiracy)

Yet the Civil Rights Act, in its original form, did allow significant exceptions for activities of a private or expressive nature. Much of that is no longer true. Courts are interpreting the provisions of anti-discrimination laws in ever broader terms. One no longer, for instance, has the right to decide who one lives with.  And now, it appears that one cannot even choose what one photographs. 

Elane Huguenin refused to photograph a client’s same-sex commitment ceremonies, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission decided that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has to pay over $6000 in attorney costs.

Eugene Volokh has a series of excellent posts regarding this particular incident, which I highly recommend. He argues that since photography is an art, this judgement violates the first amendment. I agree. However, even if that were not the case, I think there is no rationale for an anti-discrimination law that forces someone to offer their service to others – especially when the act of discrimination does not significant restrict the client’s ability to obtain that service (I am sure there were many other photographers who would have been willing to do the job for this particular client).

Ultimately, all these laws boil down to an intent to strip individuals of their right to make ‘immoral’ choices and use the power of the state to force this; and that, in my view is the ultimate immorality.

(Hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy, where I saw this story)

Previous posts in this blog on anti-discrimination law:

Anti-discrimination laws and freedom

The need to defend the rights of bigots

There is apparently no unemployed tradesmen, not matter how old.

Then I read this item on the BBC.

Anti-discrimination laws are stupid. They inevitably do not take exceptions into account (“Prostate Cancer Educator” for example) and are just simply unenforceable. If people don’t want to hire someone who would be of benefit to them, just because they are gay, too old or a woman, they are the losers.

If you look at American sports, once teams started to be integrated, those teams cleaned up because they had the better players. It did not take long for other teams to drop their discrimination policies.

Sports is a good example, in business things are less clear cut. But if someone wants to cut their own throat, I say let them.