"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Milkster]

By the way, i never checked, but is this "I am not a second class citizen" thing gonna be some sort of public campaign on tv?

It's a documentary being made and will be released in theaters.

[Hyan]

As the result of our presidential election vote we now have an openly gay candidate fighting for the position in the final round. Best of all if he wins our first lady will be Antonio from Ecuador. Even better is that the Christian Party candidate lost to everyone else, even the commies.

So yeah you've got lots of catching up to do!

[Correction]

As the result of our presidential election vote we now have an openly gay candidate fighting for the position in the final round. Best of all if he wins our first lady will be Antonio from Ecuador. Even better is that the Christian Party candidate lost to everyone else, even the commies.

So yeah you've got lots of catching up to do!

Hey, we're getting there. Baby steps...

[Kuya]

It's a documentary being made and will be released in theaters.

I'm getting that it's some sort of conscious building campaign? It doesn't seem like it's necessarily tied to a specific issue, although the video gave the impression that it gave a lot of attention to marriage.

Btw, just out of curiosity, any queers here have any idea what the game for the lgbt community will be after we get stuff like marriage equality? Like, do we have an endgame? Or is marriage equality our endgame?

[zoobernut]

I'm getting that it's some sort of conscious building campaign? It doesn't seem like it's necessarily tied to a specific issue, although the video gave the impression that it gave a lot of attention to marriage.

Btw, just out of curiosity, any queers here have any idea what the game for the lgbt community will be after we get stuff like marriage equality? Like, do we have an endgame? Or is marriage equality our endgame?

Was there an endgame for race equality? What other issues face the LGBT community besides marriage equality? Honest question not to be misconstrued as a troll question.

[Milkster]

AREAS OF DISCRIMINATION COVERED:

*MARRIAGE
*ADOPTION
*EDUCATION (PRIVATE SCHOOLS)
*PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS/RELIGIONS
*EMPLOYMENT
*BLOOD, SEMEN, & BONE MARROW DONATION
*ANTI-BULLYING LAW
*HOUSING
*HOMELESSNESS/PARENTAL OBLIGATION
*GAY PANIC DEFENSE

[Kuya]

Was there an endgame for race equality? What other issues face the LGBT community besides marriage equality? Honest question not to be misconstrued as a troll question.

AREAS OF DISCRIMINATION COVERED:

*MARRIAGE
*ADOPTION
*EDUCATION (PRIVATE SCHOOLS)
*PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS/RELIGIONS
*EMPLOYMENT
*BLOOD, SEMEN, & BONE MARROW DONATION
*ANTI-BULLYING LAW
*HOUSING
*HOMELESSNESS/PARENTAL OBLIGATION
*GAY PANIC DEFENSE

I was gonna say that after things like marriage equality, the lgbt community would probably have to shift, or i would hope they shift, to fighting institutional forms of discrimination and changing culture to their favour, but looking at milkster's list, that seems premature, since the battle of public and private rights has barely been won.

[zoobernut]

I thought that adoption, employment, blood, semen and bone marrow donation, and housing were all covered already and one cannot discriminate in those areas based on sexual orientation. I know that states keep trying to take those things away but don't they keep getting shot down by the supreme court? I thought employment specially was covered as someone cannot legally be discriminated on based on race, religion or sexual orientation under a federal law. Maybe I am mistaken.

If all those things are still truly battles then this country is even worse than I thought.

[archibaldcrane]

Blood and semen donation don't discriminate against orientation specifically, they discriminate against high-risk HIV behavior (since HIV testing is not 100% accurate). Gays who are virgins, for example, can give blood np, and women who have had sex with MSM cannot.

[Greatguardian]

I'm getting that it's some sort of conscious building campaign? It doesn't seem like it's necessarily tied to a specific issue, although the video gave the impression that it gave a lot of attention to marriage.

Btw, just out of curiosity, any queers here have any idea what the game for the lgbt community will be after we get stuff like marriage equality? Like, do we have an endgame? Or is marriage equality our endgame?

Endgame for any powerless group is to be homogeneous with the powerful. Endgame for any powerful group is to stay distinct from the powerless. Ready set go.

[Kuya]

I thought that adoption, employment, blood, semen and bone marrow donation, and housing were all covered already and one cannot discriminate in those areas based on sexual orientation. I know that states keep trying to take those things away but don't they keep getting shot down by the supreme court? I thought employment specially was covered as someone cannot legally be discriminated on based on race, religion or sexual orientation under a federal law. Maybe I am mistaken.

If all those things are still truly battles then this country is even worse than I thought.

I know that rules on blood donation are that if you've ever had sex with a dude, you can't donate, and many (including myself) in the community think it's proxy discrimination, since it's overly broad. Employment, i know there is no protection based on sexual orientation or gender in employment in PR. For housing, i have no idea.

[archibaldcrane]

You can be fired without recourse in PR with the listed reason being "she's a woman"?

[Kuya]

Well, no, but the law is currently on the employer's favour, meaning, if you allege you were fired for being trans, gay, lesbian, etc, the onus is on you to prove that was the reason. Unfortunately, proving intent is really difficult, so if you're lgbt, you usually lose. It's really worse for the trans though.

[archibaldcrane]

Ah ok.

[Tagus]

Gay people should have the right to suffer like hetero couples.

They'll never suffer like us. Gay hell is an automatic for them, so divorce hell is no threat.

[zoobernut]

Well, no, but the law is currently on the employer's favour, meaning, if you allege you were fired for being trans, gay, lesbian, etc, the onus is on you to prove that was the reason. Unfortunately, proving intent is really difficult, so if you're lgbt, you usually lose. It's really worse for the trans though.

I think that applies to all sorts of types of discrimination so I don't really see that changing. If a company fires someone for being black but they never say that out loud they make up some other excuse or just fire them because they don't want them working for them any more it is up to that individual to find evidence to prove they were discriminated against. This whole thing becomes even more difficult in an "at will" employment state where companies can let people go with no reason at all.

Our legal system has always placed the responsibility on the accusing party to provide evidence to prove their case.

[Kuya]

Ah ok.

I think that applies to all sorts of types of discrimination so I don't really see that changing. If a company fires someone for being black but they never say that out loud they make up some other excuse or just fire them because they don't want them working for them any more it is up to that individual to find evidence to prove they were discriminated against. This whole thing becomes even more difficult in an "at will" employment state where companies can let people go with no reason at all.

Our legal system has always placed the responsibility on the accusing party to provide evidence to prove their case.

Let me clarify that there is actually no law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, and that if you want to fight back against an employer you believed discriminated against you on the basis of being lgbt, you have to allege that you were unfairly discriminated against and then prove it.

[archibaldcrane]

They keep trying to get this passed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employm...rimination_Act

but to no avail. At least Obama said he'll sign it if it reaches his desk - GWB threatened veto. Almost got through during Clinton but a Senate vote killed it 49-50.

[zoobernut]

Let me clarify that there is actually no law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, and that if you want to fight back against an employer you believed discriminated against you on the basis of being lgbt, you have to allege that you were unfairly discriminated against and then prove it.

But that is how ALL discrimination laws work isn't it? If I feel I was discriminated against in by my employer for any reason it is my responsibility to bring it up with law enforcement or a lawyer and then provide proof of said accusation. I am still failing to see how this is different from any other type of discrimination. If there are no laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then if you allege you were discriminated against and then provide proof they would laugh at you and do nothing. If there are laws against it then the normal steps you would take is allege discrimination and the provide proof.

Right? Or am I misreading what you are trying to say?

[Kuya]

But that is how ALL discrimination laws work isn't it? If I feel I was discriminated against in by my employer for any reason it is my responsibility to bring it up with law enforcement or a lawyer and then provide proof of said accusation. I am still failing to see how this is different from any other type of discrimination. If there are no laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then if you allege you were discriminated against and then provide proof they would laugh at you and do nothing. If there are laws against it then the normal steps you would take is allege discrimination and the provide proof.

Right? Or am I misreading what you are trying to say?

I am saying there is no law period that specifically bans discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender in Puerto Rico, but that you can try to use other laws which ban unfair treatment in employment to help your case, however, it is the case that if you bring a charge up against an employer based on the argument that you were discriminated against based on sexual orientation, depending on the judge, your case can be dismissed because discrimination based on sexual orientation is not illegal per se. A more liberal judge can interpret that discrimination under sexual orientation is included in other laws.

I don't think that's the strongest argument for laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender, i think the real benefit comes from making employers think twice about that sort of discrimination in the workplace because it is explicitly punished, even though the onus is on the employee to prove it. It also makes lgbt people more confident to express their identities in the workplace with less fear of reprisal, which helps the community in the sense that these people can participate in political action for other lgbt rights without fearing retaliation in the workplace.

I don't like putting the onus on the worker, so i mixed two different things i am opposed against in the same post, and i caused that confusion. Sorry.