Comments on: Transsexuals Not Covered In Hate Crimes Bill

By: Dyssonance

Dyssonance — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:43:59 +0000

As a note, even though at this point its necro posting there is one group that this bill (as well as ENDA) does not cover, and it should, that is directly related to us.

It does not cover attacks and harm to our significant others when they are the victim because of their association with us.

And *that* needs to be brought up, Marti.

By: Dyssonance

Dyssonance — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:43:00 +0000

As a note, even though at this point its necro posting there is one group that this bill (as well as ENDA) does not cover, and it should, that is directly related to us.

It does not cover attacks and harm to our significant others when they are the victim because of their association with us.

And *that* needs to be brought up, Marti.

By: Marti Abernathey

Marti Abernathey — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:10:00 +0000

@Chet you’re amusing. This bill has NOTHING to do with speech, but everything to do with punishing and investigating CRIME. Transsexuality is a sin? Really? You really should read Isaiah 56:4, before you spout your ignorance here. Last I checked, Christ said the two most important commandments are to love God and love your neighbor like you love yourself. They aren’t any more “special” than the ones on the books that cover race, religion, national orgin, etc. Wake up and smell the rational, educated thinking.

By: Marti Abernathey

Marti Abernathey — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:10:00 +0000

By: Chet

Chet — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:33:43 +0000

This hate crime bill is the biggest crock of B.S. I have ever heard of. We already have laws against physical violance we do not need more. It is against the law to physically assault anyone. If they pass this bill it will open the door to censor speech by anyone who thinks the bible is right and agrees that homosexuality, transsexuality is sin. Read the book of Romans it is not hate crime to call sin sin. All physical violance is against the law. Why do we need special laws for this group of people?

By: Chet

Chet — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:33:00 +0000

By: Dyssonance

Dyssonance — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:23:39 +0000

Not being one of them, I will instead rely on knowledge of the congressional intent.

By: Dyssonance

Dyssonance — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Not being one of them, I will instead rely on knowledge of the congressional intent.

By: catkisser

catkisser — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:57:45 +0000

How interesting that we are told that “legally” there is little difference between gender and sex and yet for over a decade transitioned transsexual women were prevented from filing Title VII sex discrimination claims based on several court decisions that essentially said transsexuals (and in particular post ops) had no sex because they WERE transsexuals. That caselaw still out numbers those that finally broke through that deception.

When it comes to the law, logic goes out the window if any, any at all, wiggle room is left. But by all means lets rely on those who told us over and over HRC had changed.

By: catkisser

catkisser — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:57:00 +0000

When it comes to the law, logic goes out the window if any, any at all, wiggle room is left. But by all means lets rely on those who told us over and over HRC had changed.