A new regulation protecting transgender New Yorkers from discrimination is taking effect.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo used his executive power last year to order the expansion after legislation that would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity failed in the state Senate.
Cuomo said he was righting the wrong that occurred when transgender protection was dropped in a 2002 gay discrimination act because lawmakers did not believe it would pass.
>Hell yeah! Congratulations trans New Yorkers, and well played Gov. Cuomo.
If sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under sex category civil rights legislation, does that mean that governors and the Obama administration can pass executive orders making everyone follow those discrimination laws like Governor Cuomo?
My state doesn't have a (statewide) discrimination laws covering sexual orientation and gender identity (although my city does). Can my governor do the same thing Cuomo did?
>gender identity and gender expression
Just fuck my shit up...
This law isn't good at all.
>Cuomo said he was righting the wrong that occurred when transgender protection was dropped in a 2002 gay discrimination act because lawmakers did not believe it would pass.
>did not believe it would pass
Then again, neither do most trannies.
Because forcing acceptance will backfire, simple. And I don't think your average tranny has that much trouble making it through the two or so years it takes for a good transition.
All those genderflakes on the other hand will be rampant as ever.
>Only special snowflakes really benefit from this bullshit and in turn normal trannies get fucked over.
I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that discrimination benefits LGBT people?
The argument anon is presenting reminds me of a Blair White video. It's kinda dumb, the xe,xir,super special snowflake kinds are in a very low minority, even lower than the average trans person.
It's honestly silly to think they'll have any actual effect on things.
Of course not but realistically there is little to no discrimination towards transsexuals. The discrimination you do have, if you talk to these people, is directed to the tumblr type that should not even have a place in LGBT without Q. And by proxy actual transsexuals get bashed for being forced into involuntary association.
>Of course not but realistically there is little to no discrimination towards transsexuals.
Also you could make the arguments in the 1960s about non-white Americans! There was no discrimination going on back than right?
>It's wrong to be intolerant, so we won't tolerate your intolerance.
>mfw leftist logic
Right on! This is why I'm voting for Trump. I can't wait for anti LGBT laws to become federal. Suck it, southerners
>inb4 he only mentioned LGB
Nobody was talking about T's back then but LGB and T have gone together with pretty much everything for decades. It's safe to assume that he was also talking about us. non-LGBT always associate us with the LGB
>It's wrong to discriminate, therefore we will discriminate against those with different views of sexuality and race
Regardless of how you phrase it, the Left's logic just doesn't hold up. Let's admit it, the "tolerance" that the socialists in Washington constantly talk about is oppressing Group A for the interests of Group B.
The only difference is that instead of oppressing the minority as it was back in the 1960s through legal restrictions, the Democratic Party is now oppressing the majority.
Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin: collectivism. Hillary and Hitler are unbelievably alike, except that the former's populistic rhetoric is aimed against the "1%" and white male while the latter's was aimed against the Jews and Slavs.
W-what?! That's meshugga - uh, I mean, crazy - goy, heh, guy!
>Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin: collectivism.
Consider killing yourself.
>Hillary and Hitler are unbelievably alike,
No and no. And I don't even like Hillary.
>aimed against the "1%" and white male while the latter's was aimed against the Jews and Slavs.
You are clearly a racist and an idiot. Seriously consider suicide now.
>I blame bigots like you.
>Almost valentines day
>not knowing that jews are used as a bogeyman meme on /r9gay/
This is why you are alone.
>W-what?! That's meshugga - uh, I mean, crazy - goy, heh, guy!
See? Dis goy gets it. I mean guy. I am not JIDF. Let's bring in some muslimes to make the white american race more diverse. You aren't a racist are you?
>implying the people who popularized the homophobic and transphobic parts of Zoroastrianism shouldn't be hated
Let me guess, you also don't hate the Christians that helped spread the same bigotries in Africa?
>Hillary isn't like Hitler
Hitler's economic policy was wholly Keynesian in nature. In the Kriegswirtschaftsordnung he added a 50% surcharge to the already high taxes of wealthy Germans. He siphoned off resources from the private sector and increased government spending through the ultimately unsuccessful Vierjahresplan.
When Hillary talks about "social programs" and "tax reform", it's quite easy to see the similarities.
>UR A RACEEEST!
>implying real Republicans and Libertarians support trump
Their inalienable human right to inflict economic and social violence against a very small subclass of other human beings due to a hole in legal protections is being violated. Won't someone think of this precious human rights?
>Hitler's economic policy was wholly Keynesian in nature. In the Kriegswirtschaftsordnung he added a 50% surcharge to the already high taxes of wealthy Germans. He siphoned off resources from the private sector and increased government spending through the ultimately unsuccessful Vierjahresplan.
So any politician in favor of Keynesian economic policies is "like Hitler"? I mean sure, that's a similarity to, but that's hardly the defining characteristic of Hitler. Should we say that anyone who breathes is "like Hitler"? You know, since that's something Hitler did as well.
>discriminating against individuals who have different beliefs and preventing them from exercising their free will is oppression
>give the government more money because society's needs come before yours
Socialism and National Socialism are parallel at the deepest philosophical level.
They're free to exercise their free will as long as they don't deprive anyone else of their rights. Freedom of expression does not give you the right to harm others or deprive them of their rights.
This is a terrible rebuttal, they're trans people who can't get jobs because they're trans. And you need to check your privilege if you're "through with stuff"
WHY CAN'T SOME PEOPLE CHECK THEIR PRIVILEGE?
>Republican on economics
And organized labor, which I guess is part of economics, but I know a lot of state workers who hate him.
My position is that he seems to be more comfortable in the role of a commanding voice from on high than that of an engaged political administrator.
I realize nearly everything that he signs is for NYC, and while I understand why, it doesn't put upstaters at ease with his administration at all.
Life, liberty, and property are your natural rights. Me saying "You cannot work at my business" does not deprive you of those rights. You saying "You cannot stop [insert special interest group] from working at your business" does deprive me of my rights.
Socialism replaces nationalism with classism, that is all.
Hitler had some good ideas but because of what happened anything associated with him is considered evil.
>That mustache style
qt tiny stach is qt
>Taking pride in your cultural heritage
Remember where you came from and what your ancestors did to get you everything you have is not something to ever forget.
>We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman.
I love this quote and so many people who use Nazi as an insult would love it too if they didn't know where it came from.
>You saying "You cannot stop [insert special interest group] from working at your business" does deprive me of my rights.
Except no one's saying that. You're not being FORCED to hire trans people. What it means is that you can't refuse to hire someone ON THE SOLE BASIS OF THEM BEING TRANS. And it's not depriving anyone of PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL rights. It's just saying that if you want to be LEGALLY recognized as a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS by the GOVERNMENT, you have to abide by certain rules. The government is well within its rights to refuse to accept the legitimacy of any business that doesn't follow their rules, its part of THEIR right of freedom of contract.
You can't cheat people out of contracts you've signed and use their religon, race or who they are as a justification for that.
Your feelings aren't a justification for violating the rule of law and if you commit theft or otherwise cheat others, then you shouldn't be immune from lawsuits.
Basic rule of law. A very conservative idea.
That's nice, now if only he'd allow me to defend myself.
>That's nice, now if only he'd allow me to defend myself.
>rednecks have more guns than lgbt
>expecting lgbt can defend themselves
Face it, the only way for us to protect ourselves is disarm straights.
>Refusing to allow the majority to discriminate against a minority based on arbitrary gender values is "oppression"
You'll have to put some more work into that pitch.
> Let's admit it, the "tolerance" that the socialists in Washington constantly talk about is oppressing Group A for the interests of Group B.
If that's how you look at it, then we're still left with a dilemma of inevitable oppression. Allowing Group A (which in this case is bigots, I guess?) to do whatever they want will lead Group B (transgenders) to be oppressed. The status quo is NOT a neutral position, since it clearly favors the interests of Group A.
>Arming everyone is the solution.
It's only a sort term solution. And if guns are easily available, the general dynamic of powerful vs weak group will remain, conflicts will just be more deadly. Change in social norms is really the only long-term solution.
>Thinking a war between rednecks and LGBT without 3rd party intervention is realistic
Unless you can prove that the majority of Americans hate the LGBT and would do nothing to protect them in this unlikely scenario then you'll just seem as crazy and paranoid as a /pol/tard
This. When was the last time you saw the clan attack a poor black neighborhood where everyone was armed? There's a reason why they wanted to pass laws to forbid blacks from owning guns
Main reason I lost jobs was my boss found out I was transgender. At one job I'd been given the highest raise in a 1800 employee company for 3 years running, only to get fired the day after I was outed.
That's cute. Go home, Tumblr.
If only parents would raise their kids to respect each other. This is unfortunately not the case and every generation of parents is increasingly retarded.
I was actually just referring to the right to defend myself in general. I've never been harassed or threatened by a redneck in my life (and I'm a MtF who has driven across the U.S. alone). My self defense concerns focus on any common threat (muggings, home invasions, robberies, carjackings, rape, etc).
You are also naive to believe most people would even bother trying to help you, if attacked, regardless of your identity/orientation. It's called the By-Stander Effect.
Most homicides of transgender people happen in urban areas, not rural East Bumblefuck, USA.
He's right you know. If you're happy about this law, you're probably the kind of massive pussy who can't pass for shit and loves the idea of living in a nanny state where the government goes out of it's way to make sure people aren't treating you like royalty.
Nah, there's no legitimate reason to be against this law. The only people who would be opposed to this law is those who want to use an employee being trans as an excuse to fire them. And honestly, if you feel a need to use them being trans to justify firing them, then they really don't deserve being fired anyway.