Over at PHB, Joann Prinzivalli commented on HB235:
While I really don’t like the bill because it does not include public accommodations, passage of the flawed bill may be just slightly better than nothing in some ways – as long as the pressure is put on for introduction and passage of the public accommodations piece as soon as possible (even if that means next session). I think the elected officials should be committing now to do whatever is necessary to pass the follow up bill.this is an intentionally flawed and incomplete bill that should never have been introduced without the public accommodations language – and there is a legitimate fear that it might be used, on passage, as a rationale for allowing the worst kinds of discrimination – as restaurant owners and others will believe they can deny service to trans folk with impunity based on this bill’s legislative history. Public accommodations is not just about bathrooms. And the lack of public accommodations inclusion makes for a situation worse than “separate but equal.” There is no requirement for any accommodation at all.
I’ll refrain from comment – a thought that Dana Beyer should have heeded:
[T]he more realistic question is, what impact would failure for an ENDA+ bill without public accommodations have on other states and localities?
HB235 is NOT ‘more than ENDA, just without public accommodations.’ It would be an ENDA that deals equally with gays and trans folk on employment and on housing, but that give special rights to gays.
You can spin it any way you want – and inject it with any drug that you may have access to – but the Maryland civil rights landscape that features an enacted HB235 will NOT be ENDA-plus, it will be ENDA-minus.
But the pro-HB235 spin is a hydra of its own. The “LisaO” head spouted off this doozy, in practical terms defending people who are apt to discriminate against trans people by touting them as too dumb to know what HB235 will actually say:
Maybe they’ll see a headline that says “Anti-Discrimination Trans Bill Passed” and think they need to be more careful. Most people won’t know how to parse out the nuances without consulting with an attorney.
Clearly, the voice of someone who has never attempted to secure a position at a law firm as an out transsexual woman.
But, alas, I know that some people who read this blog hone in on the aspects of employment discrimination discussion that make the entire issue appear to be only one of interest to those with advanced degrees and professional licenses. In advance of any commentary to this, I point out that I try my best to note how the ‘Equality’ Marylands – and the HRCs – of the world screw over not just trans people (professional and non-professional) but all working-class LGBT people to, apparently, have some monentary political orgasm.
Seriously, that’s the only thing I can think of to explain something that, if a genuine expression of what she’s thinking, is shortsighted to that degree; I won’t even address what might explain a statement like that that she doesn’t herself actually believe…
because I hope that she has actually heard of anti-civil rights syndicates such as the Alliance Defense Fund and the American Center for Law and Justice – not to mention ‘law schools’ such as Regent, Liberty and Ave Maria who exist for no other reason that to crank out christianist mouthpieces who not only clog courts but advise christianist non-lawyers on how to legally discriminate against, well, anyone who isn’t a christianist.
Put that in your HB235 and parse it.