|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:32 pm
In Largo, a city nearby, there is a city manager. He is doing a good job and no one is complaining, that was until someone found out about his sex change operation. So, instead of someone blurting on him, he told everyone about his sex change operation but the city concil didn't like it. They didn't want someone different as city manager. The city concil president fought to have him stay and citzens fought as well but to no avail. He got voted out just for that reason.
You can tell this guy loves the city. When asked, "Will you sue?" he replied, "That would hurt the city." He had a real reason to sue and he didn't because he loved the city too much. I'm sorry, but how many city managers would pass that up?
He is now filing for an appeal and I have one question to ask. Did he deserve to be fired? I think not because it wouldn't effect his job performace. In fact, I think he would do a better job if he didn't have to worry about being in the wrong body?
So what do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:26 pm
Unfortunately, I don't think "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" are really covered in protected rights in most states. In my home state, one of the items that was on the table for this session of Congress was actually a move to add these two things to other accepted ones like sex, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. A sex change operation might not be covered by the new law my state has in mind, but I don't know. Unless that change for obvious reasons prohibited him from doing his job, it should not be grounds for firing. Some forms of descrimination are okay if the descrimination is an obvious requirement for the job. For example, a Christian church is obviously going to hire a Christian theologian/priest and not a Jewish Rabbi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:35 pm
I think this is covered by the consition. Legally, all men and women are treated equally, right? By the sex change operation, he will go from male to female. Female is still a sex covered by federal law which can overcome state law. So legally, firing him is wrong based on discimation of sexes.
Also, you cannot fire someone without probable cause. I get this from my mom saying you have to catch the person messing up at least three times to fire them. I don't know how the city works, though. sweatdrop
Most of the people opposing him are, you guessed it, conseravative Christians. If him has attraction for other guys and becomes a girl, he isn't gay anymore, so they should be happy but they can't see past the sex change. Of course, since I don't go into peoples business, I don't know anything about his love life. His call, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:57 am
Sex change surguries can be hard for many to accept for a multitude of reasons. For many, their identity hinges so much on what sex they are that the mere idea of changing that makes them very uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:58 pm
Then I admire him more. He is not dependant on his sex for his identity. I don't know about you, but that is admireable.
He also was willing to pay for the transition therapy for all the people at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:13 am
ffdarkangel Then I admire him more. He is not dependant on his sex for his identity. I don't know about you, but that is admireable. He also was willing to pay for the transition therapy for all the people at work. I dunno... I have this distinct impression that if he wasn't dependent on sex for his identity he would not have bothered to change it in the first place. That's just my gut feeling. If you really don't see power to sex as an identity, you wouldn't bother to change it, right? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:01 pm
Starlock ffdarkangel Then I admire him more. He is not dependant on his sex for his identity. I don't know about you, but that is admireable. He also was willing to pay for the transition therapy for all the people at work. I dunno... I have this distinct impression that if he wasn't dependent on sex for his identity he would not have bothered to change it in the first place. That's just my gut feeling. If you really don't see power to sex as an identity, you wouldn't bother to change it, right? confused I guess...but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't right that he got fired. I think religion and politics should remain seperate. It was formed that way in the constitution of the United States and we should honor that document. Of course, no matter what, religion still interventes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:28 pm
I dont think that a sex change should matter at all. I would also like to say that I think the show " Ugly Betty" has really done alot for men turning into women ( in the episode where Daniel's brother turnes from Alex to Alexis and she's at a bar and this guy hits on her, then jokes about it by throwing her number away and laughing at her face I almost cried)
This show really gives a different view to the whole subject. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:26 pm
Another person that agrees with me. Anyone else feel like commenting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:03 am
I think it's a violation of his rights as is described in the constitution. He isn't even going to sue? For that reason that really shows some dedication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:36 pm
Ryuusei-Hi I think it's a violation of his rights as is described in the constitution. He isn't even going to sue? For that reason that really shows some dedication. He actually has a good reason to sue too. Have to admire the commentment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
