It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill would force hiring of cross-dressers

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 10:53 AM
link   
www.worldnetdaily.com...




SACRAMENTO, Calif. The Democrat-controlled California Assembly passed a bill today mandating fines of up to $150,000 against business owners including Bible bookstores and nonprofit organizations such as the Boy Scouts for refusing to hire cross-dressing and transsexual job applicants.




posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   
unlike sexuality (and homosexuality), cross-dressing is a choice.

It's going to be pretty ridiculous having a cub scout troop being led by a den mother who's a guy, dressed like a brownie....


Not to mention, it'd be funny to see a pastor dressed like Mother Theresa lead a sermon too...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I agree, but they could enforce a dress code for them, one they could not violate. That should solve the problem.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:08 AM
link   
just picture a 250lb man wearing a dress and high heels all dolled up working a receptionist desk and has a plaque that says sally...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Uck!

They shouldn't be able to cross-dress on the job. It would harm the companies image and make sales(or whatever) go down.

Too much stress for the business owner.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Sally?




posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:25 AM
link   
If that's 'his' real name.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 11:58 AM
link   
As long as they don't dress that way on the job....



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 12:24 PM
link   
If they don't dress like that, how are you supposed to know. It wouldn't make a difference then.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   
then maybe it isn't as much of a problem...


Of course, "Frank" could always wear a bra and panties under that scout uniform....who knows?


I can see the Merit Badges now!

Interior Decorating, Hair Styling, Makeup Application, Baking,


[Edited on 23-4-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 12:59 PM
link   
As long as I can't tell, I don't care what people wear underneath their clothes. They could have a guy wearing a thong, (uck!) and if I can't tell, who cares.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think we are missing the point.
The point isn't that you see or even know that they are crossdressers, the point is, that the Government is telling you who you have to hire. Its similar to affirmative action.
In other words, if I decide I want a job and I don't get it, I can go back and apply dressed as a woman and if I am turned down, I can sue because of discrimination.
If you ask me things are getting out of hand...The next law will probably say that you have to hire stupid people, we can't discriminate against the dumb.
We'll be sitting in the doctor's office awaiting surgery saying hey, aren't you supposed to knock me out or something and the doctor will say, "Duhr, me not no, I got this job cause them there lawyers sayd I can't be dis-dis-disc, awe heck, I am too stupid to flip burgers(Not that there is anything wrong with flipping burgers), I keep burning myself so I gots me a reeel job."
_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:13 PM
link   
No, if you know they are a cross dresser and diqualify them because of the fact, then you are discriminating. If they are not qualified to do the job, and you don't hire them, that's fine.

Just tell them the dress code, if they violate it, fire them.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm with you K_OS



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:29 PM
link   
They never said you had to hire them if they applied for the job. Just that you can't disqualify them for being a cross dresser. It's kind of like not hiring somone because they're black. (just an example)



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying joe, but what I am saying is that, lets say Fred owns a Bible store, and Mutt and Jeff both apply for a job. Let's say Jeff is a crossdresser. Fred decides to hire Mutt.
Jeff feels as though he has been discriminated against and sues.
They go to court....
Fred now has to pay a $150,000 fine because he didn't hire Jeff, even though the reason he didn't hire him had nothing to do with him being a crossdresser.
In court it is one person's word against anothers.

Personally, I could care less how anyone dresses, go around nude if you want, but the Government telling people that they have to hire someone that dresses a certain way, has the possibility of leading up to a lot of trouble.
Hey that's next, I can see the headline now... California rules that companies must hire nudists...LOL

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Oh yeah, kind of off subject, How come women have to wear shirts, but men don't. Trust me I have seen men with breasts larger than a lot of women (Not a pretty site).
I think they should have the choice. That is discrimination.
_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:49 PM
link   
clothing optional



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Modesty...

Do you want to see male genitalia hanging out in plain day? It amounts to the same thing. Plus, women would end up having really saggy breasts if they never wore a shirt or bra.(and believe me, that's not a pretty sight)


It's not socially acceptable to have 'private parts' hanging out, yet...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I can tell ya Joe...

In most parts of the world, women go to the beach sans tops all the time...
To be truthful, you get pretty used to it....so it doesnt' seem as "forbidden" after a bit... Amazing how closetted we are in America when it comes to sex... Most Europeans think we're prudes, hehe....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join