Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck
Yep. People still don't hire people based on those things. It's silly to make them come up with lies to justify it just to avoid lawsuits based on discrimination laws.
My mother was recently fired for being too old and she didn't sue. People should be free to hire and not hire whoever they want.
Not that lawsuits can't be a good thing. They're a necessary and important control on abuses by business and government. We just don't need to enshrine a bunch of protected classes and "pick favorites" through laws. Justice can't be determined based on legislated quotas or artificial diversity. More often then not, these things ensure injustice.
I walked from a job where an Evangelical boss harassed me. I had plenty of grounds to sue but didn't. It didn't make what he was doing right & I had the right to sue but chose not to. I do object to taking that choice away from me.
I walked from a job where an Evangelical boss harassed me. I had plenty of grounds to sue but didn't. It didn't make what he was doing right & I had the right to sue but chose not to. I do object to taking that choice away from me.
Were you a protected class?
Would you support a law that specifically protects some employees from harassment, but not other ones? That's what discrimination laws do. They pick favorites.
Here's the pertinent (to this thread) portions of the DOJ's letter to all public schools:
May 13, 2016
As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits
to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities
unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.
Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite
to being treated consistent with their gender identity.
Sex-Segregated Activities and Facilities
When a school provides sex-segregated activities and facilities, transgender students must be allowed to
participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Restrooms and Locker Rooms.
A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but
must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A
school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender
identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.
Athletics.
Title IX regulations permit a school to operate or sponsor sex-segregated athletics teams
when selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or when the activity involved is a
contact sport. A school may not, however, adopt or adhere to requirements that rely on overly
broad generalizations or stereotypes about the differences between transgender students and
other students of the same sex (i.e., the same gender identity) or others’ discomfort with
transgender students.
Housing and Overnight Accommodations.
Title IX allows a school to provide separate housing on
the basis of sex. But a school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with
their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy
accommodations or to disclose personal information when not required of other students.
Catherine E. Lhamon
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
Vanita Gupta
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Justice
Would that mean that men who want to be women can compete as women on US olympic teams? Somehow I can't see that going over too well on an international level.
Would that mean that men who want to be women can compete as women on US olympic teams? Somehow I can't see that going over too well on an international level.
Not directly, but it would mean that colleges would have to let men compete as women, which may eventually affect what the Olympics decides to allow.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck
Were you a protected class?
Would you support a law that specifically protects some employees from harassment, but not other ones? That's what discrimination laws do. They pick favorites.
I'm female & definitely a protected class in that industry. The harassment was not related to gender. I'm not going to post details here, but I had a couple of lawyers offer their services pro bono when friends who knew them found out what was going on.
You like HB2. I think that it's an abomination. Just keep in mind what they say about Karma.
A trans male-to-female is a man who wants to be a female, but he is genetically a male. Modern medicine has allowed men who want to be women to experiment with surgeries that add silicon sacs to their chest area, amputate, neuter, and have the urethra re-aligned for urination. Even after all of that, the man is a man without lifelong drugs that alter chemical balances and carry with them numerous negative side effects.
I'm not privy to the genetic map of all transgendered people I bump into so I don't know what it really says about the gender of the person who is struggling with this challenge. Does it say they are TRULY male or female? (OH! Hey, maybe we should be required to carry our genetic map around with us instead of our birth certificate!)
But I can guaran-darn-tee that being transgendered is not a situation that ANYone takes lightly. Who would choose that path if they weren't terribly conflicted? It's utterly ridiculous that any of us would say we know what is going on in their minds and bodies and therefore are qualified to judge.
For this reason, this controversy should be approached with compassion and respect for the humans who truly struggle with this. And, also the person who is fearful of what will happen the next time a transgendered person is in the stall next to you. That person deserves compassion and respect also. I don't want to be in either group.
Unfortunately, the hate directed towards the transgendered person is constant, and the hate against the person who is not actually in the moment of experiencing an encounter with a transgendered person and may never have to be is much quieter. And the difference is, the transgendered are very brave, and the bigots are very cowardly.
I feel a lot more pity for the uneducated than I do the transgendered.
I'm female & definitely a protected class in that industry. The harassment was not related to gender. I'm not going to post details here, but I had a couple of lawyers offer their services pro bono when friends who knew them found out what was going on.
There's nothing wrong with you suing for harassment or bad treatment, but there shouldn't be laws allowing you to sue for it but not your coworker, who may not be a race, gender or "identity" singled out for special treatment.
HB2 didn't take away your ability to sue, only your ability to sue for "discrimination" in a state court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295
You like HB2. I think that it's an abomination. Just keep in mind what they say about Karma.
I'm pretty sure Karma is on the side of fairness and freedom so I'll take my chances
Yes, it's a very good thing. Discrimination laws are based on the flawed premise that a government should decide who people hire, pay and do business with. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of enterprise are interdependent. If a government wants to set its own standards for employment, that's fine, but no private citizen should be forced to hire, employee and pay certain wage levels to anyone. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to a specific job or wage.
,
Ah, you have a valid opinion about that, nicely stated. In a democratic society we should be free to choose that framework for our government, and many states do vary on how to approach this.
Presuming you are correct, wouldn't the better course of action be to remove existing anti-discrimination laws from the current state code? Because IF the law is on the books, and an employer breaks the law, passing a law saying that those laws cannot be enforced and the traditional path to justice is no longer viable....seems a little bassackwards to those of us who understand how law and government work.
But I can guaran-darn-tee that being transgendered is not a situation that ANYone takes lightly.
Maybe people going through the hormones and surgeries don't take it lightly, but the "gender fluid" types sure do. There are plenty of people that do it for the kink and switch back and forth. These laws lump anyone that "identifies" as a women into the same category as those actually going through the procedure.
I am a female and I am not the least bit worried about a male who identifies as a female sharing the locker room or restroom with me. I really don't know what all the hoopla is about, other than people manufacturing their own stories about what will happen if they do.
So what proof would you require that the nude man with you in the locker room identifies as a female?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
