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.
In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.
Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.
It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.
This is where the Democrat left's political correctness agenda exits the realm of the absurd and enters the realm of the impossible. Surely this will escalate to the Supreme Court court quickly and hopefully they will straighten this out. What is at stake is the ability of the Democrats to eventually impose their Orwellian speech and behavior codes on every member of our society.
And while I say Orwellian, I am not sure that even gets us all the way to this, because as far as I can recall, there was nothing quite as far-fetched as this latest development of the PC movement in "1984".
Of course this is just New York City and right now the issues are limited to gender identification issues. But of course if they can prescribe speech codes around this, they can do it around pretty much everything, which we all know they will if allowed to do so. This is what will be at stake when the Supreme Court hears this, which I hope will be soon.
I would suggest that George Orwell would be proud, but I honestly do not believe that he would be. Instead, I think he would be shocked, frightened and dismayed, as he envisioned how this would unfold into every nook and cranny of our society, if allowed to proceed unchecked. The Democrats are trying to take us to a horribly oppressive place with all this stuff, and we are entering the stage where it is not hypothetical anymore.
Surely this is going to be stopped. It is, isn't it? Truly surreal.
Soooo it is now OK fro me to pee on the streets of NYC and not be arrested BUT if I'm confused and call a him a her or versa vice I could be fined $250,000 !
Well if people start peeing on the streets at least there will not be a question as to what gender they are just don't dare ask them.
Anyway, the pc fascists have struck again. There is just too much emphasis on the exceptions these days. I think people should be referred to depending on what they look like. If a person looks like a woman, I don't care about their genital chaos, I will refer to that person as a woman, period.
It's only in the case of "willfull and malicious" but I see a free speech challenge on the horizon over this.
IMO, the "misgendering" would have to amount to deliberate harassment of an employee for this law to be applied in a way that does not conflict with the First Amendment.
NYC politics are just weird they are either so overly nanny state with Bloomberg's failed large soda ban or so liberal with a fine for calling someone the wrong sex. I hope Mayor De Blasio is voted out of office in the next election as I have heard that he is not a good mayor.
I admit, I rather shake my greying head at such things.
I will note, if one scrolls down to the penalty part, that the Commission gave a rather odd mitigating factor in determining the fine to be imposed if one is found guilty of such a violation: "The employer's actual or constructive knowledge of" the law.
Now, it is an old saw that 'ignorance of the law is no defense', and the Commission may well conclude in cases that the employer had 'constructive knowledge' of the law. However, it struck me as odd sticking in the 'actual' knowledge part.
I am all for treating people the same, but I agree that this law appears, on its face, to open up New Yorkers to, at the least, frivolous complaints. Indeed, the proposed fines are so outrageous (at least, the upper limits) that I can see a Court striking it down.
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.