Obama Signs Exec Order Protecting TG Federal and Contract Staff

[Carolyn Marie]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/obama-protection-gay-transgender-workers-24647066

Carolyn Marie

[Guest MorganAlexandra]

Who exactly does this apply to? I've seen several conflicting things, some saying everywhere, others saying only federal employees.

[Carolyn Marie]

As I understand it, it applies to Federal employees and those worker for Federal contractors.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest MorganAlexandra]

Hmm...if that is true, it's curious that it is only that. Hopefully it will be expanded in the future

[VickySGV]

I had several people I know who were present at this signing, and probably I know more who were there, but who had not let me know they would be. This does not do the actual work that a national ENDA bill would, but it does involve a huge segment of the work force, since it goes down to people who work in any job that receives federal contract money. We are looking at Fortune 500 companies with hundreds of thousands of employees and small paving companies that repair pot holes on a few miles of Federal Highways on a seasonal basis who have only a few employees. Not perfect, and in reality, the largest of the companies already had ENDA-like policies in place. Another cobblestone in the highway of justice and equality.

[Guest LizMarie]

The president cannot make it apply to everyone. That requires an act of congress. But he can, as chief executive, force any company wishing to do business with the federal government to abide by specific criteria. This is no different from other criteria that government contractors have been required to adhere to in the past.

[Charlize]

I am glad that he is doing these executive orders as he can. Congress isn't about to accomplish anything at this point. This one is wonderful in the way it recognizes the civil rights issues we face as a group.

Hugs,

Charlize

[Guest Melissa~]

The federal contractor equality expansion is welcome, I do support enda. Maybe by 2019.

[Ravin]

I wonder if this will improve my hiring chances looking at government work prospects...

[Guest Melissa~]

Who knows? I can't believe it and actually improves the ability want to be hired or stay hired. I just support it on a matter of principle. In Missouri of course I have no protections whatsoever. I have retained my job through transition by being a good employee. Having back-to-back evaluations from year-to-year with name change/transition done is a very solid testimony this can be done in a very conservative area. A little trivia would be City Hall shares premises with a Catholic nun convent.

[Guest LizMarie]

There is an extremely misguided notion by political conservatives that "the market" can fix things all by itself. To that nonsense I often reply "If the market is so good at fixing civil rights issues, why did the plight of black Americans not improve much at all from 1865 to 1964?" This often leaves them blubbering absolute nonsense, because to conservatives, the market is God. To point out a major provable historical failure of the market that way destroys the notion of market as deity that so many conservatives are invested in politically, since "the market" gives them a counter to government. Yet the progress of blacks since the 1964 Civil Rights Act versus the progress before that is astounding, vast, and readily measurable. This is exactly why there needs to be legal protections for LGBT people. No, it won't fix everything overnight but it begins to shape the national discourse by legally attacking the worst offenses and by encouraging those who support LGBT people to feel more open to do so.

Fully eradicating hate and bigotry can take generations but the notions that government has no part to play in that eradication is both nonsensical and historically inaccurate.

[Guest DesiB]

There is an extremely misguided notion by political conservatives that "the market" can fix things all by itself. To that nonsense I often reply "If the market is so good at fixing civil rights issues, why did the plight of black Americans not improve much at all from 1865 to 1964?" This often leaves them blubbering absolute nonsense, because to conservatives, the market is God. To point out a major provable historical failure of the market that way destroys the notion of market as deity that so many conservatives are invested in politically, since "the market" gives them a counter to government. Yet the progress of blacks since the 1964 Civil Rights Act versus the progress before that is astounding, vast, and readily measurable. This is exactly why there needs to be legal protections for LGBT people. No, it won't fix everything overnight but it begins to shape the national discourse by legally attacking the worst offenses and by encouraging those who support LGBT people to feel more open to do so.

Fully eradicating hate and bigotry can take generations but the notions that government has no part to play in that eradication is both nonsensical and historically inaccurate.

I am a history teacher who has learned what is taught within progressive-dominated academia, but I've also studied on my own and read widely beyond the general dogma enough to know better. Even without having more than a basic understanding of American history though, you cannot seriously contend that the so-called 'Civil War' was a victory for smaller, more localized government and more individual rights--it was irrefutably the birth of strong centralized government (dominance of national/federal over state governments), social engineering (reconstruction), and economic central planning, which has only accelerated over subsequent generations. During this period, there was no 'free market' beyond the desires of many dreamers. There were pockets where creativity could arise before they could become regulated and/or confiscated. But rather than getting too far off topic here, I'll just recommend three authors to start with--Burton W. Folsom, Thomas J. Dilorenzo and Garet Garrett.

Regarding the need for laws protecting minorities, that is exactly what I believe makes a Constitutional Republic the best form of government possible. We are not, contrary to popular opinion, a democracy where majority rule would make life unlivable for many of us. But we are and ought to be protected by inalienable rights as individuals--rights that are never subject to the whims of any majority. And I would prefer to see these rights enshrined at the constitutional level, but I'll be happy for them where ever I can get them. That said, we all know, it still takes more than legal protections to make real actions take place on a day to day basis. Supposedly I have some recent legal protections as a public school teacher, but I'll find out tomorrow whether or not certain administrators have found a way around the letter, intent, ruling, and interpretation of the law or not.

[Guest LizMarie]

The federal government was never intended to be "smaller, more localized". The debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists demonstrate that and the Federalists largely won that debate, with the Bill of Rights being a concession to the Anti-Federalists. But the "general welfare" clause that the Anti-Federalists hated remained. It was never purged, nor was the power to lay taxes for any purpose. George Washington specifically campaigned for a stronger central government after his terrible experience during the Revolutionary War under a loose confederation of states.

In fact, upon reading the new constitution, Patrick Henry became so upset that, waving the document above his head, he screamed at his fellow Virginia delegate, "They'll free your *******!" As a slaver, he could clearly see what was coming and come it did, 80 years later. (Marked out word is a derogatory term for black persons.)

As for the free market, no market is ever completely free. And the market from 1865 to 1964 was very, very unregulated compared to the US today or any first world nation today. It was called the "free market" by conservative and liberal scholars alike so I'm not going to quibble over definitions. The market had the power to do something on its own and it never did so. Yet the 1964 Civil Rights Act had immediate and then lasting impact on the fate of black Americans. That is also undeniable.

If your argument is that smaller government and "free markets" lead to correcting civil rights issues then why did the free market from 1789 to 1861 fail to free the slaves? Why did the free market in the early 20th century fail to end child labor anywhere in the world? Why has the free market still not corrected salaries for women?

And how long should oppressed people wait to get the rights that are theirs? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years? When I frame it that way the utter absurdity of the claim that if we "wait long enough" the "free market" will fix these issues is laid bare, isn't it? Ending the infringement of rights is something that needs to be done as soon as it can and if that takes legal action by governments because "the markets" are busy making a profit (and that is what markets are designed to do - make profits, not fix civil rights issues), then so be it.

I am neither an advocate for small government nor big government. I am an advocate for "right sized" government and the size we need is dictated by the people being governed. If people are going to be bigoted monsters, then we'll ramp up the size of government to deal with them. People want smaller government? Then convince your fellow citizens to stop discriminating against those they dislike simply on account of biology. I don't care what size government is so long as people's rights are respected and if it takes bigger government to enforce that, then I say tough cookies to the bigots. Bigotry has a price and bigger government is the price of being a bigot. If they don't like it, they can stop being bigots.

[Guest DesiB]

LizMarie, I'd love to sit and have a long conversation with you over a few drinks sometime. [in the mean time, your new questions bring up a couple more recommendations: Race & Liberty In America (with a nice synopsis here www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=80 ) and Dred Scott's Revenge] But it will be difficult to keep this thread on topic and brief if you keep moving the target. First you aimed at the period from 1865 to 1964, but now you are going back to the ratification debates of 1787 to 1789. And you are mistaken about the concept of "federalism"--it actually was designed along the same principles included in the division of labor with separation of powers and checks and balances. What we now call the federal government (the national government) has certain enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) and the States or the people retained all of the rest (Amendment X). The anti-federalists feared that there were not enough protections in the U.S. Constitution to prevent the erosion of this plan, but it was not instantly lost when they lost their their debate against ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.

You have chosen the "free market" as your straw man and proclaimed its failure to do certain things. But the "free market" has never existed with the omnipotence and beneficence of a Savior. We could just as easily place the blame on "humanity" (i.e. human nature) itself. Please don't try to argue that the theoretical and wished-for "free market" has actually had more power than "humanity" itself. We could argue that all those who have been preaching faith in "humanity" have been wasting our time and leading us down the wrong path because "humanity" never has and never will be capable of perfecting itself. Just look at the history and what a lousy job it has done! We need to stop relying on such faith in "humanity" and start trusting scientifically-proven, incorruptible . . . (fill in the blank . . . progressivism? communitarianism? artificial intelligence designed by humans?) you name it. The problem is, to paraphrase James Madison, that any system of governing humans involves other humans, and they are no angels. I think we can agree on that much.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Desi,

You are correct. Laws only do so much. The slaves were freed about 150 years ago, women had the right to vote 100 years ago (of course the ERA never passed) there have been NUMEROUS laws on state on federal levels protecting each group, yet WOC are still among the lowest paid, lowest educated in the country with very little sense of security, and high risks of violence.

People are usually smart enough to not hire or to fire someone and tell them the reason isn't because they're a black woman.

Laws only do so much. And there have been documented cases where they can sometimes have the reverse effect. People can be afraid of hiring or renting rooms if they feel they might be stuck with the person with no recourse.