(Louisiana) Senate votes down bill on sexual orientation

[Meeker Morgan]

The New Orleans Times-Picayune
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-3/114846778350150.xml&coll=1

BATON ROUGE -- The Senate closed the door Tuesday on legislation that would have prohibited state agencies from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.

{SNIP}

Murray's bill was opposed in committee by business lobbyists and some religious clergy who said it would legalize or recognize an immoral lifestyle.

The original version of the bill sought to prohibit discrimination or harassment by state agencies on the basis of race, creed, gender, color, religion, national origin, political affiliation, disabilities, as well as, sexual orientation.

Murray amended his bill on the Senate floor to narrow its scope to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. In its amended form Murray said it would apply only to discrimination against persons who are "perceived as a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual." {emphasis mine}

{SNIP}

OK. Still got Jim Crow. I get that.

Can someone explain what the hell the emphasized paragraph is supposed to mean?

[xchrom]

1. bull dykes and nancy boys.

it's pointing out the extremes in characteristics and saying that you couldn't discriminate against them.

which would obviously be very few people and the most vulnerable as a result.

well, you can't even do that.

[Kutjara]

2. Seems to mean that...

...it's ok to discriminate against someone if you know them to be gay, but not ok if you only 'think' they're gay.

Presumably, this means that it won't be a 'crime' for a man to have a soft voice or 'effeminate' mannerisms or flamboyant dress sense, or for a woman to get her hair cropped and wear dungarees and heavy boots. But if you find out that they're actually 'perverts,' you can throw them out on their deviant asses. I guess doing something so immoral as wearing a 'gay pride' badge or perhaps having an earring in the wrong ear would constitute sufficient probable cause.

[sui generis]

3. great point - so can you fire straight people who support gay issues?

Isn't that also "immoral"?

These people are so fucked in the head . . . but more importantly, why is it everytime there is a contest between the "rights" of a business and human rights that the business always wins?

What is wrong with our democracy of the people that it doesn't give a flying crap about the people?

[davidinalameda]

4. what is the wrong ear

I can't remember