Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, May 1, 2009 | 5:06 p.m.
Sun coverage
CARSON CITY – An Assembly committee has unanimously approved a bill making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in public accommodations.
Senate Bill 207 was approved in the Senate 19-2 and now goes to the floor of the Assembly for a final vote.
It authorizes a person who believes he has been discriminated because of his sexual orientation to file a complaint with the state Equal Rights Commission.
The vote came in the Assembly Committee of Commerce and Labor.
The committee declined to amend the bill to include and spell out discrimination protections to transgender persons. Spokesmen for this group urged the committee to make the bill more inclusive.
They talked of a case in Las Vegas where a military veteran was denied access to a homeless shelter because he was transgender.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, called the approval by the committee “a very important move” because “Nevada is a state that sells itself on its openness and acceptance of all individuals and seeks to provide opportunity to persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.”
He said he will sponsor legislation in 2009 to get the same protections for transgender individuals that are provided in the bill passed by the committee Friday.
Curious, are gay and transgender allowed to open a brothel (where legal in NV)? or is that only for women?
Dear vegasj:
Brothels are the ultimate in "privileged" licenses--i.e. whether or not one gets a license pretty much rests with the discretion of the sheriff and the county commissioners in those counties in NV where it's legal. As a practical matter, I think it's more likely that Mayor Goodman will be named to the U.S. Supreme Court than any of the rural counties will approve an LGBT brothel.
More lies from Sen. Parks. In 1999, then-Assemblyman Parks promised the transgendered community that we would be included in his nondiscrimination bill--and we were removed at the last minute. After a decade of lobbying (and repeated assurances from now-Sen. Parks that he had finally understood the importance of the issue) he was completely AWOL this session on both AB 184 (which would have prohibited employment discrimination based on gender identity) and on SB207, where he refused to amend the bill to include transpersons. As Pete Townsend said "We don't Get Fooled Again".
LVLawyerGal -- Interesting comments.
To my understanding, the "transgendered" are those who have, or are in the process of having, their gender changed by surgery and hormones. Their rights would have to be a totally different species than homosexuals, I think they would have to be created out of whole cloth. Kind of like passing a law saying people with visible, radical tattoos or scarification can't be discriminated against.
Being new to Nevada I'm not familiar with legislative histories. But have you ever been intimately involved with the lawmaking process? As in proposed a law then nursed it all the way through a session, helped write it, supported the sponsor, lobbied for votes, showed up at all the hearings? Once a bill is submitted there is no ownership. To progress, it often has to be changed just to get it out of committee while preserving the core principles.
Not saying you're wrong, of course. I for one appreciate your thoughtful posts, not like the constant bleating from the Herd most often seen here.
Dear Killerb:
I was involved in the preparation of AB 184 (the T* employment discrimination bill) for almost a year before the legislative session and testified in favor of it before the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. I was part of an overall effort, so I don't want to give the impression that it was my baby by any means, but I think I can speak as authoritatively as most folks with regard to what was promised and what was actually done. With regard to your first point, while I would challenge the comparison between persons with visible tattoos and transfolk, I would agree that trans-rights are a different kettle of fish than gay or lesbian rights. For a variety of historical reasons, chiefly the fact that the modern LGB movement traces its lineage to the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 (which was led by drag queens, transsexuals and persons whom today we'd consider to be transgendered), transfolks have been lumped into the wider queer movement with occasional discomfort on both sides. That said, given that the LGB movement has expected (if not explicitly demanded) trans support (which has been tendered) for its issues, it seemed fair to us to demand LGB support for our inclusion in the public accomodations bill via amendment and our employment discrimination bill (AB 184), NEITHER of which would have been necessary had the bills been trans-inclusive to begin with. We've been good soldiers for Sen. Parks on the domestic partnership bill and on other matters, but it does not bode well for our future trust in him and Speaker Buckley when both walked away from explicit commitments to bring AB 184 up for a vote. (Since they did so, it died silently in committee a few weeks ago).
P.S. Thanks for your kind words---I enjoy your posts as well :)
This same thing happened to the trans community in New York, in 2002. We are still waiting for the state to "come back" for us.
The ironic thing is that gender expression is how gay and lesbian people are so often judged and discriminated against. This law is now for those GLB people that "act straight." How may gay and lesbian people does that leave out?
Of course, on top of that, the most visible and therefore vulnerable minority, transsexual people who transition their apparent sex, have zero protection. Like modern day lepers, they are still marginalized, shunned and oppressed because they are seeking treatment for a rare and misunderstood medical condition. I call for the Nevada legislature to add gender identity and expression to the bill or to vote it down completely. Partial protection is no protection at all.