Comments on Vigilance: Yay For The Press VII: NewsChannel 8

Got facebook? Join our our PRO-EQUALITY group of M...

2008-02-24T18:28:00.000-05:00

Got facebook? Join our our PRO-EQUALITY group of Montgomery County (and the rest of the world).

Here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10344896961&ref=mf

I, myself, felt quite threatened when one of the ...

2008-02-24T14:31:00.000-05:00

I, myself, felt quite threatened when one of the men at the Lancaster Dutch Market put his hand on my shoulder when I interrupted him to correct one of his lies. I felt concerned for my safely as well as the other person with me. These people are based on the same junk as the Westboro Baptist Church and I am sure any just who sees that relation with automatically realize that the CRW(eirdos) are nothing more than hate mongers who don't really care about the citizens and children of Mo. Co. but rather only using Mo. Co. to launch their Hateful Right-Winged religious agenda. Mo.Co. will not be fooled by these bigots anymore.

I have gay, lesbian, bisexual as well as transgender students at my school in Mo.Co. and I have yet to let a week go by without one of them coming into my classroom to be comforted because some teenage bigot (just like Theresa RIckman, Rith Jacobs and Michelle Turner) either taunted then, physically or mentally harassed them, etc..

I don't hear of any "ex-gay (aka-STRAIGHT)" being being hurt on a weekly basis because of their sexual orientation.

Theresa Rickman, Ruth Jacobs and Michelle Turner are not making very good names for themselves anywhere (not in the public nor religious arenas). You people really don't care about children and we will make sure Mo.Co. knows the truth behind your red neck agenda.

SHAME ON YOU !!!!

I had heretofore been reluctant to add fuel to the...

2008-02-24T12:48:00.000-05:00

I had heretofore been reluctant to add fuel to the fire, but I must add to the list of being "verbally assualted and confronted" by one of CRG's petition pushers at my local Giant store in Germantown. When I expressed my distaste for the petition and stated that it is based on a lie, the response to me was: "I can't believe you would want to support perverts in Mongtomery County." When I related my experience to a friend of mine, he too told me about a similar experience he had at his grocery store (I think it was in Kentlands).
It seems to me that threatening law suits ("Citizens for a Responsible Government released a press release today announcing they are considering filing a civil rights lawsuit because of the extent of the harassment. Such tactics "are commonly used by totalitarian governments. There is no place for this in Montgomery County,") based on such spurious "harrassment" charges would give me and others who have been insulted and demeaned by the CRGers the grounds for a counter-suit. Better be careful of what you wish for, CRG, you might end up with more embarrassment than you can handle with the public and it would become very expensive for you (not that that is your issue; I am sure you are being more than adequately provided for by wacko right-wing organizations who have no interest in what the citizens of Montgomery County or Maryland want - especially when what they are paying for - hate and bigotry and fear - has national implications for them.)

Andrea- not anonTheresa and Johnny- the protectors...

2008-02-24T11:22:00.000-05:00

Andrea- not anon
Theresa and Johnny- the protectors of their lying thugs. I was yelled at by baseball cap guy standing over me and screaming at me to leave- after his lies about his MC permit and the police and Giant didn't work to get me to go. And once again- when the three Shower nut thugs were there and tried to get me to go- I was alone, straight and not transgender.

So when do I get ananswer about beng called a facist and told I should be aborted- Huh, Theresa??? For baseball cap guy telling his lies to get signatures and threatening me. Keep telling yout lies - If any of the Showernuts actually believe a lie is a sin- you'll be paying for it in the hereafter for all the ones you've told.

Now here goes Ambulance Chaser Johnny Garza and Ri...

2008-02-24T00:13:00.000-05:00

Now here goes Ambulance Chaser Johnny Garza and Rio Theresa:

Signature gathering wasn't easy. I spoke today with Theresa Rickman, a leader with Citizens for a Responsible Government. She says their volunteers were constantly harassed and intimidated at signature collection sites. At grocery stores, shopping centers, and malls, opponents of the initiative (including Dana Beyer, a "transgendered" policy adviser to Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg--in other words, a county employee) shouted at volunteers to "shut up" and disrupted the collection of signatures. They got volunteers thrown off mall property by complaining to mall managers.

Twice, police had to be summoned by store managers to stop transgendered gangs from harassing people attempting to sign the petitions.

Citizens for a Responsible Government released a press release today announcing they are considering filing a civil rights lawsuit because of the extent of the harassment. Such tactics "are commonly used by totalitarian governments. There is no place for this in Montgomery County," attorney John Garza said. "This undemocratic conduct is especially reprehensible when it is coming from a senior-level employee of the Council."

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/

Here I thought Rio Theresa was going to try to avoid saying anything hurtful.

Ted

Rio Theresa in the Washington Blade about signatur...

2008-02-24T00:00:00.000-05:00

Rio Theresa in the Washington Blade about signatures collected:

She said the organization misrepresented nothing when it collected signatures and welcomes an open discussion with county officials.

“Name the time and the place and we’ll be happy to debate the law,” Rickman said. “We are happy to meet them anywhere and discuss it.”

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=16763

_____________

Misrepresented nothing???????Rio Theresa you are a liar.

Ted

Wyatt,I responded to you about race, in two posts....

2008-02-23T23:43:00.000-05:00

Wyatt,

I responded to you about race, in two posts. Cynthia has not been involved in the discussion about race.

You never answered me.

I personally have not made any arguments about rac...

2008-02-23T22:38:00.000-05:00

I personally have not made any arguments about race vs. gender in personal or private facilities, so I wasn’t sure what you were talking about at first… I went back through the thread though and maybe this will answer your question.

From Section 2 (“How specific should the law be regarding public facilities?”) of the Health and Human Services Committee memo, option 2:

“Amend Bill 23-07 to reaffirm current law. Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for “distinctly private or personal” facilities. Bill 23-07 could be amended to more explicitly let each public facility provider determine what facility a transgender individual can use. This option would let an employer or other public facility provider decide whether to maintain restrictions based on gender identity or biological gender.”

As you may note from the paragraph above, the language only talks about clarifying restrictions based on “gender identity” or “biological gender.” It provides no loophole for discriminating based on race.

Peace,

Cynthia

Why is Anon taking his daughters into bars?

2008-02-23T22:22:00.000-05:00

Why is Anon taking his daughters into bars?

You still have not justified how private and perso...

2008-02-23T21:47:00.000-05:00

You still have not justified how private and personal can mean restrooms for gender identity but not mean restrooms for race...

Thoughts, Cynthia ?

Anonymous said: “Are you saying that a facilities...

2008-02-23T21:21:00.000-05:00

Anonymous said: “Are you saying that a facilities DON'T include restrooms?”

No. If you look at page 6 of my diatribe, you’ll see where I managed to dig up the paragraph of Montgomery County code that refers to “restroom facilities” as they are specified in the law regarding establishments that have a liquor license. This definition was only found after several hours of searching the code for the “real” definition of “facility” was – I filled 8 pages worth of definitions that were NOT restroom related and was about to give up searching for more when I found the paragraph on bars.

Perhaps my original point got lost in my verbose treatise debunking the CRG semantic game, which in a nutshell is this: (From the CRG website):

“=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...

=> Facilities are bathrooms.”

They then point to these lines of code from Section 27-10:

“(b) In this Chapter, “public accommodation” includes any service, program, or activity offered to or used by the general public.
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal”

And claim that since line (c) above refers to “accommodations” rather than “facilities,” no protection is offered to girls in the ladies’ room.

They then go on to point at section 27-11:

“(a) An owner, lessee, operator, manager, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the
accommodation:
(1) make any distinction with respect to any person based on race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability,
sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with:
(A) admission;
(B) service or sales; or
(C) price, quality, or use of any facility or service;”

They then highlight line (C) above to show that this is where due to the demarcation of “accommodations” vs. “facilities,” our children are now unsafe -- we can no longer keep cross-dressers, transvestites, and drag queens out of the ladies’ room.

I then went on to show that their definition of “facility” depended on a deleted line of code, and that most definitions of “facility” in the MoCo code actually referred to anything BUT a restroom. Thus, exposing their word game and undermining their argument.

However the link you provided does an even better job; down at the bottom of the page is this nice little line, which you quoted in your post:

“1. Facilities which are considered public accommodations include but are not limited to places offering entertainment, exhibitions, recreation, lodging, and food or drink for consumption on the premises. Retail establishments offering goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation are also considered public accommodations.”

This really undermines the supposed separation between “facility” and “accommodation” which the CRG argument critically depends upon. Without this distinction, CRG’s argument that “(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal” doesn’t apply to “facilities” (i.e. restrooms) is no longer valid.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

The CRG argument depending on the difference between “accommodation” vs. “facility” uses the following quote to further their cause:
"if Bill 2307 were silent on the issue of public facilities they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person’s gender identity."

The conveniently manage to OMIT the following quote from the same memo:

“Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for ‘distinctly private or personal’ facilities.”

Again, the CRG argument is debunked. They will now have to think of a new line. It just goes to show what you can do when you cut and paste just the portions of items you want.

Peace,

Cynthia

For those of us who use Facebook.com, the CRG (nas...

2008-02-23T19:26:00.000-05:00

For those of us who use Facebook.com, the CRG (nasty freaks) have made a page just for them.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8518782995&ref=share

I plan on making one to go against it...their group has 127 members (most of which OPPOSE THEIR ANTICS).

So really, since everyone knows that they lie-- they don't have a whole lot of support. TRUTH WINS!

One other thing -- state law preempts county law,f...

2008-02-23T16:08:00.000-05:00

One other thing -- state law preempts county law,federal law preempts state law, and constitutional law preempts federal law. Discrimination in public accommodations is a violation of federal law, and I would presume constitutional law as well, but I am not a lawyer.

How would I know? I just assume everyone is Wyatt,...

2008-02-23T16:06:00.000-05:00

How would I know? I just assume everyone is Wyatt, since I have no way of distinguishing among you all.

One act of decency I will attribute to Theresa is that she signs her posts (or most of them, anyway).

DanaThe pro-CRG anon that has been posting today i...

2008-02-23T15:46:00.000-05:00

Dana

The pro-CRG anon that has been posting today is not OO.

Wyatt,I will assume that your problem is not that ...

2008-02-23T15:41:00.000-05:00

Wyatt,

I will assume that your problem is not that trans persons use public bathrooms, but which public bathroom. This law does NOT speak to this, because that clause was deleted due to the commotion you made. There is no law, as I have stated repeatedly, that speaks to sex segregation in bathrooms, and this was true, to the best of my knowledge, even when black men and women were forced under Jim Crow to use the same public bathroom. (Makes me wonder, now that I think about it, as to why some older black folks can get so incensed about this issue given that they were subjected to such discrimination themselves in the past).

The law in the County bans discrimination against a host of categories, and it is reasonable to infer that those would include bathrooms. But only so far as that means bathrooms generically. It is silent on which bathroom.

Mike Knapp and the County attorneys are very clear and correct that 23-07 does not speak to sex segregation. A business owner cannot deprive a trans person the right to use the public accommodation, including a bathroom, because they are transgender. But s/he could determine which particular bathroom. That is the case now, and will be under 23-07 when it goes into law.

As has been said repeatedly here, that is rarely a problem for trans women, but more so for lesbians and straight women who look and dress in a very masculine manner. It's quite clear that while there are very few owners who would throw someone out of a particular bathroom upon observing a valid document, under the current law one could argue that it is possible, since no law speaks to that point. 23-07 would prohibit that specific type of discrimination -- if your ID says male, you are entitled to use the men's room; if it says female, the women's room.

But this still begs the question --if, as Ruth opines, there are only 30-40 of us in the County, then why are you afraid? If you claim we are not predators and pedophiles, like the Repiblican Delegate Robert McKee, why are you afraid?

You have never made the argument that other state and county laws against sexual harrassment, voyeurism, indecent exposure and the like, would be superseded by this law. So this law could not be used as a shield, and you know it.

Anonymous, I am trying to figure out what you see ...

2008-02-23T14:17:00.000-05:00

Anonymous, I am trying to figure out what you see wrong with a law that says that if a transgender person has to pee and you have a public restroom, you have to let them use it? Do you think it's better for them to go home to use the toilet?

Red Baron said " if you assume private and persona...

2008-02-23T14:11:00.000-05:00

Red Baron said " if you assume private and personal doesn't mean bathrooms, then I could put a "whites only" sign up on the bathroom at my restuarant be be immune from prosecution.".

You've been arguing all along that you should be able to do just that very thing. You've gone on and on about how people should be allowed to associate with whom they want, that discrimination is legal and so on. If that's what you want for gays and transgenders its just as apropriate for blacks and jews.

The county bill has an exemption for private accom...

2008-02-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

The county bill has an exemption for private accomodations.

Please justify Dana, how you can add "gender identity" to non discrimation code (which also lists race) on public accommodations and their facilities, and then claim that somehow the "private and personal" line applied to bathrooms for just the gender identity case...

If the county wants to state that for the specific case of the gender identity law, private and personal means bathrooms, than fine they shoudl amend the code. But right now, if you assume private and personal doesn't mean bathrooms, then I could put a "whites only" sign up on the bathroom at my restuarant be be immune from prosecution.

the fact that the media is falling for this ridiculous line from Knapp just shows how stupid the media is. saying that public accomodations does't include bathrooms is like telling every laywer in MC that the sun sets in the east instead of the west. Of course public accomodations includes bathrooms, otherwise we could still have racially segegrated ones...

Wyatt, it says in MD code "might." Do you know wha...

2008-02-23T13:29:00.000-05:00

Wyatt, it says in MD code "might." Do you know what that means? It might include them. It does not say "shall." The County bill has the specific exclusion for private.

The bottom line is that you don't care about this, because if you did you would have offered your amendment back when there was time to have amendments. As I've said, I believe it would have passed. Instead, you sent your president, Dr. Ruth Jacobs, to Rockville to insult the Council and call us mentally ill. Fine political work.

So now you've expended all this energy, engendered hatred for a marginalized minority, engendered hatred of you on the part of those who know your lies, just to try to get a vote on this.

You've done your job, now we're doing ours.

Red Baron said "The question is: what, if any, bas...

2008-02-23T13:19:00.000-05:00

Red Baron said "The question is: what, if any, basis for discrimination is so unfair that the law should intervene. Wanting to be a gender other than the one assigned to you by your biology doesn't rise to this level of unfairness.".

Transpeople are singled out by people like you to deny them jobs, housing and physical safety. This is grossly unfair and its appropriate for the law to step in and put an end to it. Its no different than when people put up "whites only" signs. Back then people like you were making the same arguments that there was nothing inappropriate about discrimination.

Red Baron said "Most people believe that it is OK to discriminate against males by not letting them use a female bathroom."

Transwomen and transmen use the bathrooms most appropriate to them. Discriminating against us on the basis of who we are most certainly is not okay.

Red Baron said "Similarly, if someone wants to engage in some type of oddball behavior, they take the chance that some people might not want to associate with them. On some level, it happens to all of us. There's nothing unfair about it.".

There's nothing oddball about behaving as the gender your brain is. Dressing as a woman when you're a woman is not oddball - you're incredibly twisted.

Red Baron said "If you want to be universally accepted, conform. If you don't want to conform, be willing to accept that not everyone is going to be dazzled by you.".

Its unreasonable to ask people to conform to something they are not especially when what they are doing harms no one. It is immoral to discriminate against people for characteristics that harm no one. We don't ask blacks to straighten their hair, bleach their hair and skin, get cosmetic surgery like Michael Jackson inorder to conform to what bigots like you wanted and its no different with transgenders. Its not for you to be dictating to others how to live, society owes them the right to live freely and openly and without discrimination as long as they are hurting no one.

Cynthia.Bill 23-07 amends the existing code. You ...

2008-02-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

Cynthia.

Bill 23-07 amends the existing code. You can't really tell what the new law says unless you look at the new law in context (after Bill 23-07 amendments).

Looking at the Bill by itself is too confusing, you have to insert the new langauge into the code and look at the result.

Maryland code defines what facilites are here :htt...

2008-02-23T12:42:00.000-05:00

Maryland code defines what facilites are here :
http://mchr.state.md.us/newfaq.htm

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS QUESTIONS
1. What is a place of public accommodation?
1. Facilities which are considered public accommodations include but are not limited to places offering entertainment, exhibitions, recreation, lodging, and food or drink for consumption on the premises. Retail establishments offering goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation are also considered public accommodations.

2. What practices are prohibited?
2. It is unlawful for an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation to deny a person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges because of his/her race, creed, sex, age, color, national origin, marital status, or physical or mental disability.

3. What are the responsibilities of owners and operators of places of public accommodation?
3. Owners and operators are required to take reasonable steps to assure that their facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Such facilities might include, but are not limited to ramps, elevators, restrooms, water fountains, and parking places.

If MC code doesn't define it, and Maryland code does.... I would assume you would go with the MD code definition.

It hasn't been debated before because it was assumed to cover restrooms ... otherwise bathrooms would not be racially desegregated, no would they ?

Are you saying that a facilities DON'T include restrooms ?

(Page 8 of 8)Judge: “Yeah, right. So Bob, why we...

2008-02-23T10:21:00.000-05:00

(Page 8 of 8)
Judge: “Yeah, right. So Bob, why were you REALLY in the ladies room, and how is that not peeping?”

Another interesting item to note from the memo that was left out of the CRG website: “Council staff contacted several jurisdictions with gender-identity anti-discrimination statues. Staff from those jurisdictions did not report any case where an individual used gender identity protections to commit or justify crime in a public facility.”

The CRG also doesn’t mention that a number of alternatives to “remaining silent” were considered, such as:
“-- Not allowing individuals to use a sex-segregated facility consistent with that person’s self-selected gender identity, or
-- Requiring individuals to provide identification as a way to identify that persons’ gender before allowing the person to use a sex-segregated facility.”

There were FIVE other options considered in how to word the law – these folks just didn’t decide to allow “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” to go running through restrooms willy-nilly. You don’t have to believe me though – just go read the law and the memo for yourself.

After reading the law and memo you may come to one (or) several of the following conclusions:

1: The folks at CRG don’t now how to read a law, and put more weight into sections of the code that were deleted than the ones that were actually there.
2: The CRG has selectively cut and paste portions of the law and Human Services memo to make it appear as if “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” were now given carte blanche to victimize little girls in the restroom.
3: The CRG is a group of legal geniuses for finding the thread that allows “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” in restrooms at bars.
4: The CRG is a group of people playing on peoples’ ignorance and fear of the subject of non-gender conformity to push through their own agenda regardless of the cost to an already much-maligned and persecuted minority.
5: All nine members of the county council unanimously voted to allow men into ladies rooms, simultaneously committing political suicide, and giving their opponents in the next election the tag-line of the century: (I’ve copyrighted this, so if you want to use it for your own campaign, you’ll have to pay me for it.): © “Vote for me, so it’s safe to pee!” ©

If you still believe it was number 5 above, get in touch with me… I’ll dig up the deed for that bridge.

Peace,

Cynthia

2008-02-23T10:20:00.000-05:00

(Page 7 of 8)
(see memorandum on © 17). This means that an employer or other public facility provider could maintain and enforce current gender based restrictions on public facility use.”

So this means that employers and proprietors of facilities can designate restrooms based on gender however they see fit. This is a far cry from “No exemption for restrooms, showers, locker rooms. It puts the safety and privacy of these areas in public accommodations on the line, especially for women and girls.” Why didn’t the CRG mention the sentences BEFORE the one they quoted out of context?

Another item conveniently omitted by the CRG is this:

“Some individuals expressed concern that if Bill 23-07 lets a person use a facility appropriate for that person’s gender identity, then a non-transgender person may use that provision to excuse committing a crime.” Most of the next sentence (everything after the comma) is in bold: “If enacted, Bill 23-07 could not be used as a shield to protect a person who commits a crime in a public facility.” It then goes on to say “Any action that is a crime would remain a crime if the Council enacts Bill 23-07, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity.”

The next line is important to: “For example, Maryland law specifically prohibits a person from conducting visual surveillance of another individual, with our without prurient interest, in a private place without the consent of the individual (Maryland’s “peeping tom law). Nothing in Bill 23-07 would protect a person from prosecution if that person entered a public facility and violated this law.”

So could a “guy in a dress” just go in to the ladies room? Looks like he’d have to do a lot of explaining about why he would need to go in there and figure out how make it look like he wasn’t peeping.

Judge: “So Bob, what were you doing in the ladies’ room if you weren’t peeping?”
Bob: “Um… I needed to pee.”
Judge: “And you couldn’t use the mens’ room right next door?”
Bob: “It was full, and I couldn’t wait anymore.”
Judge: “Well you could have used the floor drain or even a sink. That still doesn’t tell me why you needed to be in the ladies room.”
Bob: “Um… I needed a sanitary napkin.”
Judge: (quizzical) “Oh, really? And why did you need a sanitary napkin Bob?”
Bob: “A guy shot me in the arm for wearing a dress and I needed to stop the bleeding.”
Judge: “Ouch! That sounds horrible! Do you have any medical records documenting the treatment of your gunshot wound?”
Bob: “Um… I did, but my dog ate them.”
Judge: “Oh, so can you show me the scar?”
Bob: “Um… no, the sanitary napkin worked REALLY well and it healed without a scar.”

Comments on Vigilance: Yay For The Press VII: NewsChannel 8

Got facebook? Join our our PRO-EQUALITY group of M...

I, myself, felt quite threatened when one of the ...

I had heretofore been reluctant to add fuel to the...

Andrea- not anonTheresa and Johnny- the protectors...

Now here goes Ambulance Chaser Johnny Garza and Ri...

Rio Theresa in the Washington Blade about signatur...

Wyatt,I responded to you about race, in two posts....

I personally have not made any arguments about rac...

Why is Anon taking his daughters into bars?

You still have not justified how private and perso...

Anonymous said: “Are you saying that a facilities...

For those of us who use Facebook.com, the CRG (nas...

One other thing -- state law preempts county law,f...

How would I know? I just assume everyone is Wyatt,...

DanaThe pro-CRG anon that has been posting today i...

Wyatt,I will assume that your problem is not that ...

Anonymous, I am trying to figure out what you see ...

Red Baron said " if you assume private and persona...

The county bill has an exemption for private accom...

Wyatt, it says in MD code "might." Do you know wha...

Red Baron said "The question is: what, if any, bas...

Cynthia.Bill 23-07 amends the existing code. You ...

Maryland code defines what facilites are here :htt...

(Page 8 of 8)Judge: “Yeah, right. So Bob, why we...

(Page 7 of 8)(see memorandum on © 17). This means...