Speaking of unnecessary, I haven't seen reference to a single actual citation for violation of this code. I see two early challenges by Christian organizations that were soon withdrawn for lack of funding. I don't see any current challenges to this law in the courts after what, 19 months on the books. I wonder if somebody else has an irl example or is tracking a challenge.
California Transgender law
Posts
Total:
127
-->
@oromagi
An implicit conclusion within my comment is that "common courtesy" no longer exists (or at least is limited to homogeneous societies intolerant of other cultures), due to multiculturalism. Even basic things, like passing someone on the street, have wildly different expectations, in regards to courtesy. Hell, even copying other people's work is considered polite in China (it's respecting the master), whereas it's plagiarism in the West.Isn't that the distinction between common courtesy and mere courtesy? Courtesies are the rules of polite behavior according to a variety of social divisions but common courtesies are those rules that apply at any court, across social division. (i.e. the manners of the courts of the Kings of England are quite different from those of courts the Kings of Siam but common courtesies are those behaviors that show and demand respect in any court, whatever the culture or social division) When I say common courtesy I mean behaviors due to and from any human, whatever the social context.
You might find the odd cultural behaviour that transcends all cultural barriers, but they're outnumbered by the ones that don't. Therefore, there isn't a good case for arguing that common courtesy exists, at least in the sense you're arguing.
good on ya, mate.
cheers m8 bloody rippa aye
Every criminal penalty is a state imposed threat. Every criminal penalty carries some potential of taking your money from your criminal's metaphorical wallet, right? Therefore every potential victim has their metaphorical hand in your criminal's wallet. I understand you don't think your criminal is a criminal but how is this metaphor meant to illustrate that point? I think you are suggesting that common courtesies are "mere requests" and violation ought never merit criminal penalty but we know that's not true: it is common courtesy to not strangle strangers for cash but if you do you'll risk criminal penalty in any court, correct? Many common courtesies are enforced by law.
Do you honestly think it's reasonable to impose criminal speech restrictions on requests? Say if I requested that you memorise all my preferred gender pronouns (xir, xim etc.), you would be *legally* required to do so, because I have requested that you do so? In other words, if you forgot one due to the mere impracticality, you would be considered liable to criminal prosecution.
Let's say that I wanted you to refer to me as a queen, and you refused to do so. Or how about an otherkin furry dog. Or how about an asexual, amorphous blob from Hyperion. Under your suggested speech restrictions, it would be *illegal* to not address me as any of those, even if you found them ridiculous. In these instances, you're legally mandating that I forego all my sense, reason and personal beliefs.
This is such an abusable freedom of speech violation. If I wanted to muck around with my caregivers at the nursing home (as what this law is about), I could continually change my preferred titles of address, and as soon as they stuff up, the law would require that they be fined. That is merely one example of how this law could be abused.
Finally, and perhaps the most important point: freedom of speech is being violated. Do I really have to get into why that's such a bad thing to happen?
As for your example, yes, some common courtesies are laws, but an action having the status of common courtesy doesn't make it a desirable law.
I agree that simple reference or address is quite a different context than imposition. ... A healthcare provider in a LTC receives the majority of their compensation from the state and is licensed by the state and therefore represents the state to a liable degree. No law says you can't be cruel to the dying. This law says that if you are cruel to the dying while working as a State of California healthcare provider, whether or not you lose your job you may be subject to a fine.
You're equating being "cruel" (whatever that means) with refusing a request. What if a customer asks for a refund, purely because he/she changed her mind? Refusal could be considered "cruel", because the person would be upset afterwards. This "cruel" metric needs to be better defined.
In any case, you seem to think that because you're working for the state, you need to relinquish all your personal beliefs, in order to best serve the customer. Would you expect Muslims to renounce their faith in Allah, if it conflicted with their ability to refer to a self-described transgender person as transgender? Would you expect Christian to renounce their faith, if they were serving a patient whom self-referred as the 'one true God?' Your imposing criminality on those who have a reasonable spine, imo.
I have no issue with people politely requesting that you refer to them in some way. But if you're going to put a hand in my purse and expect me to bend to your every whim, even when I think you're ridiculous, I'm not going to bend. You'll create legions of people who are unhealthy, spineless people, or you'll drive people away from the jobs. This isn't even to mention the troubles in imposing criminality to weaponise people's displeasure, and the damaging impact that will have on freedom of speech.
-->
@oromagi
I hear the argument that making a special protection for LGBT folks is redundant given the good protections available under earlier law. As I've said twice, the law is probably less necessary in California than anywhere and if someone opposed the law as political grandstanding or time-wasting they might find me in agreement. The question we're working on here is whether the law is tyranny. My answer remains no.
I don't care about value judgement labels, such as tyranny. I care about whether this law is a good idea.
I wonder what is your opinion re: the state of transgender rights in Australia?
I honestly don't know what they are.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Wingnuts/rednecks demand the right to abuse, humiliate, threaten anybody but go pure snow flake when the opposition demands the same right. It's understandable given the prodigious quantity of stupid they present for name calling and humiliation.
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I wonder what is your opinion re: the state of transgender rights in Australia?
I honestly don't know what they are.
I don't think anyone cares, it's Australia after all. Oh some of this latest batch of neo nasties might but they're as thick as pigshit. Blaaaaaair.
-->
@disgusted
Wingnuts/rednecks demand the right to abuse, humiliate, threaten anybody but go pure snow flake when the opposition demands the same right. It's understandable given the prodigious quantity of stupid they present for name calling and humiliation.
rofl such a troll, name calling, yeah the left doesn't do that ever LOL you are a special kind of stupid.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Comprehending the written word is beyond your type. bahahahahahaha