Memo to Fresno

Specifically, to the Fresno police Lt. Joe Gomez re: his attitude in the aftermath of trans people not being too thrilled with his department’s attitude toward a trans murder victim who was, according to the Fresno Bee, “walking near the intersection of Blackstone and East Cornell avenues around 2 a.m. when the attack occurred,” an attack which, based on surveillance video which showed the “wearing a dress with a cardigan over it and carrying a bag,” consisted of “an SUV pull[ing] up next to the victim, who approached the passenger side window” with the victim eventually being “stabbed multiple times and later [being] pronounced dead at Community Regional Medical Center.

There’s no evidence to indicate this was a hate crime

No.

There’s not yet conclusive evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a hate crime.

But when you have a trans body that has become dead via being “stabbed multiple times,” there is a noticeable quantum of per se evidence of a hate crime.

And if you don’t start with the presumption that its a hate crime then you’re not doing your job.

Such a presumption prejudges no individual suspect or group of suspects any more than initially presuming the death to be a murder had the victim been found dead with stab wounds – but without accompanying video.  Under those circumstances, it could turn out to be self defense on the part of the stabber or it could have been a suicide after which someone ran off with the knife – but it makes sense to presume foul play.  In fact, it would not make sense not to.

And under the facts of the Fresno case as described by the Fresno Bee, there could indeed be a non-hate-crime explanation for the death or even a non-murder explanation – either of which might leave the trans community unsatisfied – but there is no explanation for the Fresno P.D. not starting with the presumption that it was a hate crime.

Well…

there’s no legitimate explanation.

Here’s a Thought…

HRCrap

Instead of wasting money on sponsoring self-serving crap – about a bill that has less of a chance of passing in the current Congress than Gilbert Gottfried’s voice does of being mistaken for Luciano Pavarotti’s – to appear on my Facebook feed against my will, how about spending some money on getting New York and New Hampshire (I would add Wisconsin, but that has as much chance as this national thing that HRC is pretending its pushing) to rectify their gay-only rights laws by adding trans people?

Until It Isn’t

The Quisling, in a publication that still has not done any reporting on the internal report which proved all non-Gay, Inc.-owned trans activists’ decades-long allegations against HRC to have had merit and proves that a certain something actually is still quite thinkable:

The most notable difference between the Equality Act and its 1974 namesake is that it includes both gender identity and sexual orientation—and unlike in 2007, removing gender identity is now completely unthinkable.

Until it isn’t…

just like in 2007.

I Fully Expect…

…all of the conservative, pro-smoker’s rights people out there who complain about any and all government regulation of smoking to speak out in defense of Sandra Bland refusing a cop’s extra-legal request to put out a cigarette whilst in her own car.

After all, I can only think of one reason why they wouldn’t.

Simple Questions for Cathode Ray Buffalo

CRB

Okay…

  1. Were both people who were in the stall in question at the time in question asked to leave the bar?
  2. Did any employee/owner of the bar in any way, shape or form – explicitly or by implication – misgender the woman during the incident?
  3. Are stalls in the men’s room policed for multiple male occupancy?
  4. Are stalls in the men’s room policed for multiple mixed-gender occupancy?
  5. Are stalls in the women’s room policed for multiple female occupancy?

Simple questions all.

How about the answers?

Meagan Taylor

That is the name behind the substance of this headline:

A black transgender woman is in jail because police were called on her for being transgender

Remember her name.

And remember the key details:

Meagan Taylor, 22, was arrested Monday by Des Moines police after staff at the hotel she was staying with another transgender friend called police. According to the police report, officers were called by the hotel about “two males dressed as females who checked into the Drury Inn,” and that “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity,” according to the Des Moines Register.

If indeed this is an accurate statement of the facts – that the police were called solely because “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity” solely by virtue of Taylor and her friend being read by hotel employees – then the hotel and the employees violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Period.

[Iowa Code Section] 216.2 DEFINITIONS.

10. “Gender identity” means a gender-related identity of a
person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth.

13. a. “Public accommodation” means each and every place,
establishment, or facility of whatever kind, nature, or class that
caters or offers services, facilities, or goods for a fee or charge
to nonmembers of any organization or association utilizing the place,
establishment, or facility, provided that any place, establishment,
or facility that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to
the nonmembers gratuitously shall be deemed a public accommodation if
the accommodation receives governmental support or subsidy. Public
accommodation shall not mean any bona fide private club or other
place, establishment, or facility which is by its nature distinctly
private, except when such distinctly private place, establishment, or
facility caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the
nonmembers for fee or charge or gratuitously, it shall be deemed a
public accommodation during such period.

[Iowa Code Section] 216.7 UNFAIR PRACTICES — ACCOMMODATIONS OR SERVICES.
1. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any  owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager, or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:
a. To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed,
color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin,
religion, or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities,
services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against
any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability in the
furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services,
or privileges.
b. To directly or indirectly advertise or in any other manner
indicate or publicize that the patronage of persons of any particular
race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
national origin, religion, or disability is unwelcome, objectionable,
not acceptable, or not solicited.
2. This section shall not apply to:
a. Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any
qualifications the institution may impose based on religion, sexual
orientation, or gender identity when such qualifications are related
to a bona fide religious purpose.
b. The rental or leasing to transient individuals of less
than six rooms within a single housing accommodation by the occupant
or owner of such housing accommodation if the occupant or owner or
members of that person’s family reside therein.

You will hear that Taylor has a minor criminal record.

So?

If the police were called solely because “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity” solely by virtue of Taylor and her friend being read by hotel employees then not only did the hotel and the employees violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act, there was no legitimate reason for the police to have cause to interact with her at the time and place in question!

You will hear that Taylor gave a false name.

So?

If the police were called solely because “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity” solely by virtue of Taylor and her friend being read by hotel employees then not only did the hotel and the employees violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act, there was no legitimate reason for the police to have cause to interact with her at the time and place in question!

You will hear that Taylor had a Missouri ID despite being from Illinois.

So?

If the police were called solely because “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity” solely by virtue of Taylor and her friend being read by hotel employees then not only did the hotel and the employees violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act, there was no legitimate reason for the police to have cause to interact with her at the time and place in question!

You will hear that Taylor had some spironolactone, possibly without a prescription.

So?

If the police were called solely because “staff was worried about possible prostitution activity” solely by virtue of Taylor and her friend being read by hotel employees then not only did the hotel and the employees violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act, there was no legitimate reason for the police to have cause to interact with her at the time and place in question!

Rekha Basu of the Des Moines Register ends her item about Taylor’s situation with this observation:

Maybe the real offense is a private business calling police on paying guests because they didn’t conform to gender stereotypes.

Maybe?

The Iowa Legislature answered that question in 2007.

My advice to the Drury Inn’s legal department?  Look into that.

Really?

Woodchucks have more legal protections than transgender individuals

In New York, yes…

GCN-SONDA-2003

Really…

12 1/2 years later…

Because what is next is never us.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers