The price of not being PC

[Valerie]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

 

[Seawytch]

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

Not when said laws violate the protections guaranteed to the citizenry by the U.S. Constitution, go read the 14th Amendment, nor do cities have the AUTHORITY to enforce laws which violate their respective State Constitution.

So an employer repeatedly calls an employee the N word. The employee has no recourse because the 1st amendment? Really?

 

[Seawytch]

MMMM, I love hyperbole flakes for breakfast. Way better than Special K.

Here's what you can do. Move to NY if you don't already live there, employ someone who is transgendered and then repeatedly call them by the wrong pronoun even after they have asked you repeatedly to stop doing so. Then you can take this all the way to the SCOTUS. Let us know how it works out.

Its sad you think our SCOTUS would rule something constitutional as unconstitutional..

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

pronouns and "titles" are social concepts. so, no, they don't.
That bullshit law also forces people to let people use whatever bathroom they wish. That's right, by law, a 45 year old man with a dick can piss 2 feet away from your 4 year old daughter and nobody can do shit about it.
Forcing employers to provide "gender-affirming care"? Wtf does that even mean?

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

I double dog dare ya'll to challenge bathroom laws too.

So you don't mind your 4 year old getting piss splashed by a chick with a throbbing cock?

No I don't fear transgendered women in the restroom with my daughter.

Where is that right in the Constitution? Where does the COTUS mention social concepts? Where does the COTUS say that one person outweighs a majority?
And sure they do. But not when it shits on first amendment rights. ESPECIALLY over something so fuckin stupid as mentally ill people wanting to make everyone uncomfortable.

Your 1st Amendment rights aren't in danger from this anymore than not being able to call your Jewish employee a "****" without suffering repercussions.

 

[NightFox]

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

Not when said laws violate the protections guaranteed to the citizenry by the U.S. Constitution, go read the 14th Amendment, nor do cities have the AUTHORITY to enforce laws which violate their respective State Constitution.

So an employer repeatedly calls an employee the N word. The employee has no recourse because the 1st amendment? Really?

Who claimed that? or were you just trying your hand at amateur straw man construction? If you'll read what I actually posted instead of what the voices in your head told you I posted you'll see that it fits perfectly with the spirit and intent of federalism as practiced within the United States.

 

[TNHarley]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

Because I don't want the constitution shit on because some limp wrist got his feelings hurt? Fuck you, un-American POS

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Turns out the story is correct.

NYC Commission on Human Rights Announces Strong Protections for City's Transgender

Not being PC now makes you subject to significant penalties.

Watch what you say, or you will pay.

America, 2015.
.

Screw New York!

 

[NightFox]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

Because I don't want the constitution shit on because some limp wrist got his feelings hurt? Fuck you, un-American POS

LOL, Don't hold back TN, tell us how you really feel.

 

[Seawytch]

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

Not when said laws violate the protections guaranteed to the citizenry by the U.S. Constitution, go read the 14th Amendment, nor do cities have the AUTHORITY to enforce laws which violate their respective State Constitution.

So an employer repeatedly calls an employee the N word. The employee has no recourse because the 1st amendment? Really?

Who claimed that? or were you just trying your hand at amateur straw man construction? If you'll read what I actually posted instead of what the voices in your head told you I posted you'll see that it fits perfectly with the spirit and intent of federalism as practiced within the United States.

Nope. The law says that the behavior must be intentional and repeated. If you intentionally and repeatedly call someone by the wrong pronoun when they have corrected you, it's no different than calling someone a disparaging name just once. (In employment, housing and public spaces)

 

[Gracie]

A good solution to the problem of he or she, miss or sir, would be if the transgender has already transgendered. Men dressing as women and maybe have growing boobs but still have a penis are still men and can be called he and sir and cannot use a womens bathroom. Once the change has been completely done, THEN he should be referred to as she and ma'am and use the ladies bathroom. No halfway shit. If he wants to be a woman and use facilities for females and be called the proper noun, then cut it off. Until then, tough shit.

 

[NightFox]

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

Not when said laws violate the protections guaranteed to the citizenry by the U.S. Constitution, go read the 14th Amendment, nor do cities have the AUTHORITY to enforce laws which violate their respective State Constitution.

So an employer repeatedly calls an employee the N word. The employee has no recourse because the 1st amendment? Really?

Who claimed that? or were you just trying your hand at amateur straw man construction? If you'll read what I actually posted instead of what the voices in your head told you I posted you'll see that it fits perfectly with the spirit and intent of federalism as practiced within the United States.

Nope. The law says that the behavior must be intentional and repeated. If you intentionally and repeatedly call someone by the wrong pronoun when they have corrected you, it's no different than calling someone a disparaging name just once. (In employment, housing and public spaces)

Yes it is "different", when a man insists on me calling him Miss instead of Mr, I can unequivocally prove the HE is incorrect with a simple chromosome analysis... in other words tough shit welcome to the real world where science dictates your gender and you can't claim discrimination when somebody acknowledges it Mr "I still have only one X chromosome even though I wear a dress and high heels".

It mystifies me that some people actually believe that they have a right not to be offended.

 

[TNHarley]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

Because I don't want the constitution shit on because some limp wrist got his feelings hurt? Fuck you, un-American POS

LOL, Don't hold back TN, tell us how you really feel.

lol well its stupid as hell to say ill be walking around with a "end is near" shirt because I value America and her laws. Buncha dumbfucks I tell ya

 

[Theowl32]

Wait until sites like this are shut down for people like me speaking the truth and not being a mindless stupid left wing robotic vote for the democrats.

Oh they are trying.

How long before raids are done and the gestapo come to your house for speaking the truth about the scam of man made global warming.

You know that the democrats with the help of their left wing losers are trying to repeal the first amendment right?

Welcome folks to the "brave new world. "

 

[NightFox]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

Because I don't want the constitution shit on because some limp wrist got his feelings hurt? Fuck you, un-American POS

LOL, Don't hold back TN, tell us how you really feel.

lol well its stupid as hell to say ill be walking around with a "end is near" shirt because I value America and her laws. Buncha dumbfucks I tell ya

No argument there, following the logic I've seen put forward in this thread... I can claim to be the King of England and thus sue my employer for not addressing me as "Your Majesty"....

 

[OKTexas]

Info wars? Puh-leeze

You don't think it's real?

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun 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. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth. All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL. Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses. b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity. c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a courtordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John.11 d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title. Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

❚ IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others: • The severity of the particular violation; • The existence of previous or subsequent violations; • The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and • The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL. These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_InterpretiveGuide_2015.pdf

 

[candycorn]

No I don't think it real

 

[OKTexas]

No I don't think it real

Check my link. It comes from NYC. BTW I already corrected the typo.

 

[TNHarley]

So you don't think the city has the right to determine laws surrounding housing, employment and public spaces?

yep, of course they do, which is nothing new...

but tnh is that guy you see walking the streets of nyc always warning 'the end is near'...

...often muttering nonsense at strangers just to prove he has the right to do so...




'employers and covered entities could be imposed civil penalties "up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.'

Because I don't want the constitution shit on because some limp wrist got his feelings hurt? Fuck you, un-American POS

LOL, Don't hold back TN, tell us how you really feel.

lol well its stupid as hell to say ill be walking around with a "end is near" shirt because I value America and her laws. Buncha dumbfucks I tell ya

No argument there, following the logic I've seen put forward in this thread... I can claim to be the King of England and thus sue my employer for not addressing me as "Your Majesty"....

Bingo

 

[Seawytch]

Cities don't have a right to determine laws surrounding housing, empoyment and public spaces? You sure about that? If you're so sure, challenge the law.

Not when said laws violate the protections guaranteed to the citizenry by the U.S. Constitution, go read the 14th Amendment, nor do cities have the AUTHORITY to enforce laws which violate their respective State Constitution.

So an employer repeatedly calls an employee the N word. The employee has no recourse because the 1st amendment? Really?

Who claimed that? or were you just trying your hand at amateur straw man construction? If you'll read what I actually posted instead of what the voices in your head told you I posted you'll see that it fits perfectly with the spirit and intent of federalism as practiced within the United States.

Nope. The law says that the behavior must be intentional and repeated. If you intentionally and repeatedly call someone by the wrong pronoun when they have corrected you, it's no different than calling someone a disparaging name just once. (In employment, housing and public spaces)

Yes it is "different", when a man insists on me calling him Miss instead of Mr, I can unequivocally prove the HE is incorrect with a simple chromosome analysis... in other words tough shit welcome to the real world where science dictates your gender and you can't claim discrimination when somebody acknowledges it Mr "I still have only one X chromosome even though I wear a dress and high heels".

It mystifies me that some people actually believe that they have a right not to be offended.

Well then good luck with your move to NY and challenging the law.

 

[NightFox]

[
Well then good luck with your move to NY and challenging the law.

LOL, yeah I'm gonna upend my life and move to New York just so I can prove you wrong.....

P.S. Let me know when you return to Earth from whatever planet you're currently on, I'll buy you a beer.

"The certain prospect of death could sweeten every life with a precious and fragrant drop of levity; and now you strange apothecary souls have turned it into an ill-tasting drop of poison that makes the whole of life repulsive." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[candycorn]

No I don't think it real

Check my link. It comes from NYC. BTW I already corrected the typo.

Still, I don't think it real.