Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lucretius who wrote (108158)	6/11/2001 11:09:14 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Bet I step on some toes here -- covered in nail polish, of course ;) This explains why California has an energy crisis, earthquakes, and more fruit than a banana split. Can we let Mexico have this state back? Can anyone tell me the founding fathers are not turning over in their graves at this lunacy? And please, don't tell me all the stories about the short-comings of the founding fathers, slavery, etc. You may think the Bible is a bunch of made-up stuff, but IF it is true (whether I believe it is or someone else doesn't), then this path will eventually be judged harshly and America will pay through their pocketbooks as well. The following is one bill making its way through California’s state legislature. AB 1649 (Goldberg, D-Los Angeles) is a revival of last year's "Heh, Mister, Nice Dress" bill. It requires employers to "permit employees to dress in a manner consistent with the employee's gender." Under California's Penal Code “gender” is described as the victim's actual or perceived sex, “whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim's sex at birth.” This means an employer will be considered to be sexually discriminatory if he or she doesn’t allow an employee to come to work dressed in a manner that the employee feels best expresses his or her “gender.” This could mean that if a 200 pound, bearded employee feels his gender can best be expressed in a dress and high heels, the employer can’t object. STATUS: Passed Assembly 41-34. Six Democrats joined all 28 Republicans in voting against the bill. Five Democrats abstained, were absent or didn't vote. Now in Senate awaiting committee assignment.