Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.
Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?
Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?