# $250,000 for chuckling at what a transgender calls themselves?



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

"1.Failing To Use an Individualâs Preferred Name or PronounThe NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individualâs preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individualâs sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individualâs identification."


"
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:
â¢	
The severity of the particular violation;
â¢	
The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
â¢	
The employerâs size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
â¢	
The employerâs actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

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

Note to self: No trips to NYC, EVER


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

NYC has been a lost cause for a long time, so this doesn't come as much of a surprise. I just hope no other place decides to institute those laws. And yes, NYC should be avoided. There are so many better places in the US with more to offer, even if you're fond of the city.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

My position is to avoid all cities governed by liberals. I've seen a few over the years and wasn't impressed in the least. Anyway, I figure over half of the population of such cities have to be stupid by judging who they elect. That means 1 out of every 2 people there are stupid on average and stupid people are best avoided because they are dangerous. We have stupid people out here too but we know who they are and stay away from them.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.............Ms Caitland Jenner , The AC\DC former athlete was previously featured on the box of..........Sweeties........The breakfast of Champions ! , fordy


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I had to laugh when I read that, thinking back to working construction in my youth.
Pretty sure I was called every name you could think of, EXCEPT the one on my birth certificate, lol.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Please, don't get me going on NYC. That bruised up Apple gets wormier every day. I live with the indentured servants at the far west end of the State.

And Bruce Jenner is a screwed up guy with a boob job. 
If you don't like it I'll give you a NYC salute.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I think that with the passage of time we'll all see many more cities and then states and eventually whole countries implementing many more of those kinds of anti-bigotry and anti-bullying laws.

It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.

I can just visualize the way it will go in the long run in all the places where bigotry becomes a criminal offense. A bigot will get charged and fined for speaking bigotry in some state or country and he'll have the conviction on his criminal record. Then because he has a record of bigotry he will be unwelcome and be barred from entering other states or countries that have also implemented the same anti-bigotry laws.

Bigots will become increasingly more pushed together with other bigots and confined to living in smaller and more isolated locations away from civilized society. For them it will be like being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail the way communities used to do to unwanted people in the past, just less violent. Bigots everywhere will be shunned and blackballed, confined and unable to travel or engage in trade and industry with civilized society and then they'll become impoverished, eventually become extinct.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

While using the term "bigot" may be an accurate description of those you call that word, you may find the origin of it, interesting and ironic.
One who refused to bow down and kiss the foot of an earthly king, "by God".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry


Etymology[edit]
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". This meaning still survives in Italian (bigotto) and French (bigot). The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei Gott, or the English by God.[3]

William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who when receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection &#8211; unless the king would hold it out for that specific purpose. When being urged to do it by those present, Rollo answered hastily "No, by God", whereupon the King, turning about, called him bigot, which then passed from him to his people.[4] This is quite probably fictional,[citation needed] as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true, however, that the French used the term bigot to abuse the Normans.[5]

The twelfth-century Norman author Wace claimed that bigot was an insult which the French used against the Normans, but it is unclear whether or not this is how it entered the English language.[6]

The French used to call the English les goddams after their favorite curse; ClÃ©ment Janequin's "La Guerre,"[7] which is about the Battle of Marignano, similarly uses the Swiss German curse "bigot" (i.e. "by god!") in a context about the Protestant Swiss.

According to Henry Bradley, the meaning of bigot in the Old French was "detested foreigner," "heretic," and it is supposed that the word was a corruption of Visigot. To the Catholic Franks, the Arian Visigoths of Southern France and Spain were the objects of bitter hatred, both on religious and worldly grounds.[8]

Around 1900, the word bigot meant in French someone who has an excessive, narrow or petty religious devotion.[9]


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Fennick said:


> It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.


Er, wouldn't that make them, these more 'civilized' communities, bigots as well?? :whistlin:

'Civilized' is a matter of perspective. Behavior some consider as civilized, others would consider uncouth and immoral. 

So tell me, who's right and who's wrong and who gets to decide that?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Strange IMHO the law in itself seems to be bigoted. Shouldn't everyone have the same protections?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

no really said:


> Strange IMHO the law in itself seems to be bigoted. Shouldn't everyone have the same protections?


It does cover everyone equally


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

This type of thing shows, without doubt, the Left's distain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Think about it. A few elitists dictating what is and is not acceptable speech and given the power to punish those who do not fall in line? Many cheer this type of thing, but, they are ignorant of the fact that when the first link of the chain is forged, it, inevitably results in the loss of our freedom. 

They are now in the stage of "protecting" certain groups from being "insulted" soon, the group, in need of protection, will be them, then speaking ill of them or their policies will be a punishable offense. 

What ever happens to the idea of "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? We have devolved into "if you say something that hurts another's feelings, we will financially ruin you and turn you into a pariah"


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It does cover everyone equally


I tried reading through the pdf, it seems to be a convoluted, and geared totally toward transgender. I am trying to figure how as a straight female it would affect me. 

It may just be I haven't had enough coffee yet. LOL


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

It would also mean that if at birth your name is Rapunzul Marie, you hate Rapunzul think your parents are nuts and go by Marie. This means you can go by Marie and your employer can't say "no, your Rapunzul and that's all we're calling you."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

If you're not a bigot the fines, etc. shouldn't have any effect on you. If you are a bigot perhaps the fines, etc. will remind you to keep your ugly comments to yourself.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

A guy I worked with changed his first name for his own personal reasons (nothing transgender, just a plain name change). We all did our best to use his new name but initially, we slipped up every now and then ... not intended to offend or be disrespectful but if you are used to call someone John for 10 years (he was a long term employee) and now it is James, slip ups are going to happen. Eventually, everyone got used to the new name and slip ups went away. But I see that we would have bankrupted the employer if they had to pay $125K each time someone misspoke.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're not a bigot the fines, etc. shouldn't have any effect on you. If you are a bigot perhaps the fines, etc. will remind you to keep your ugly comments to yourself.


That is too much like "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

This is one of those laws that someone thought would be helpful but will have some unintended consequences IMHO. I see employers avoiding hiring people who look the least bit transgender, the law as I read would be daunting for most businesses.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> It would also mean that if at birth your name is Rapunzul Marie, you hate Rapunzul think your parents are nuts and go by Marie. This means you can go by Marie and your employer can't say "no, your Rapunzul and that's all we're calling you."


Gosh, that is so important to my feeling comfortable at work. :lookout:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Not worth it.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Guess then if I ever get a job in NYC, I'll tell my employer to address me as Lord Wyoming White Wolf.

WWW


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

From a practical standpoint, my children were not legally able to change their last names until they were 16, even though my youngest had not had any contact with his father from the time he was 3. Legally, he was also within his rights to use an alias last name as long as it wasn't in a fraudulent manner.

One of his teachers took every opportunity to make his life miserable over the fact that he had chosen to use his grandfather's last name (who he identified as his male role model). This included such events as publicly denouncing the child in front of his classmates about his mother 'forcing' him to disrespect his father and his father's family and the foolishness of people who let their children pick their own last names. 

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see the woman fined but if he identified his last name as something other than what she felt it should be, it would have been nice to have some legal protection from her bias and abuse.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Agreeing with everyone that this definitely impacts upon free speech. This really confirms that the constitution is dead if any single person gets hit with this fine. You cannot have the concept of "Freedom of Speech" if one has to stop at the border and get a list of approved and disapproved things that you can use in your daily conversations.

The people in support of things like this are destroying freedom. It would seem that they think that they have some sort of right to not hear anything that might meet with their disapproval. - sigh...

Wonder what impact this will have on things like Basic Training in the Military....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech. It is there to ensure that government hasn't the right to determine what is, or, is not acceptable speech. It protects the bigot and the non-bigot. It protects the religious and the non-religious. It protects you and me. 

This law flies in the face of the first amendment. It is a blatant attempt, by government, to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. That should anger every lover of freedom.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Fennick said:


> *I think that with the passage of time we'll all see many more cities and then states and eventually whole countries implementing many more of those kinds of anti-bigotry and anti-bullying laws.
> 
> It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

We must be the laughing stock for the rest of the world....


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fennick said:


> I think that with the passage of time we'll all see many more cities and then states and eventually whole countries implementing many more of those kinds of anti-bigotry and anti-bullying laws.
> 
> It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.
> 
> ...


I wonder if it will be all bigots you herd together, or just some?
Will bigots like Obama and Al Sharpton go to your concentration camps or just some bigots?
Maybe just the bigots other bigots point out?
It's sad that we must now gear criminal prosecution for the slip of a tongue or an opinion that doesn't agree with the Nazis....I mean democrats.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It does cover everyone equally


I doubt that


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're not a bigot the fines, etc. shouldn't have any effect on you. If you are a bigot perhaps the fines, etc. will remind you to keep your ugly comments to yourself.


Save your money


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're not a bigot the fines, etc. shouldn't have any effect on you. If you are a bigot perhaps the fines, etc. will remind you to keep your ugly comments to yourself.





Cornhusker said:


> Save your money


Why must you personally attack me?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Guess then if I ever get a job in NYC, I'll tell my employer to address me as Lord Wyoming White Wolf.
> 
> WWW


If I ever get a job there Hell will be frozen over first.....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're not a bigot the fines, etc. shouldn't have any effect on you. If you are a bigot perhaps the fines, etc. will remind you to keep your ugly comments to yourself.



But I have rights to be both a bigot and a loudmouth. 
Only the lowest form of thief would try to take my constitutional rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you personally attack me?


I wasn't attacking, I was merely pointing out that anybody could be accused and fined for bigotry if the law was written to include all bigotry, which apparently, it's not


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> But I have rights to be both a bigot and a loudmouth.
> Only the lowest form of thief would try to take my constitutional rights.


Lowest form of thief...you just described progressive liberals.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> It's sad that we must now gear criminal prosecution for the slip of a tongue or an opinion that doesn't agree with the Nazis....I mean democrats.



Don't you really mean republicans ? The party that supported the Nazis.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Don't you really mean republicans ? The party that supported the Nazis.


No, I meant what I said.
Who do you think is pushing this latest bit of ridiculousness?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> No, I meant what I said.
> Who do you think is pushing this latest bit of ridiculousness?


Perhaps the laws are different in the US but aside from the gender identity issue, I do see practical applications for the law. 

Besides my own child, the big guy's name is the same as his father and because he was horribly abused by the man, he will only respond to his childhood nickname. 

Should he be forced by an employer to use and respond to a name that he feels represents a horrible time in his life? 

I'm guessing that you're focusing on the gender identity issue or perhaps the fact that a name is no big deal but to some it is and quite honestly, I can't think of any reason people need to go out of their way to make someone else uncomfortable.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> Perhaps the laws are different in the US but aside from the gender identity issue, I do see practical applications for the law.
> 
> Besides my own child, the big guy's name is the same as his father and because he was horribly abused by the man, he will only respond to his childhood nickname.
> 
> ...


 The problem I have with it is that Government is the one doing it. They haven't the right.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wr said:


> Perhaps the laws are different in the US but aside from the gender identity issue, I do see practical applications for the law.
> 
> Besides my own child, the big guy's name is the same as his father and because he was horribly abused by the man, he will only respond to his childhood nickname.
> 
> ...


Big guy could legally change his name. If his legal name is so uncomfortable for him, he should change it, and especially rather than expecting HR and co-workers to keep track of a nickname. Think if he worked at someplace with 1000 employees. 

This is just an excessive and vindictive law. There are already laws on the books about "hate speech", making a "hostile workplace" and so forth. Plenty of ways existed already to punish the doofus who wants to verbally abuse someone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> The problem I have with it is that Government is the one doing it. They haven't the right.


It does strike me as odd that laws have to be made for things that should be common sense.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Big guy could legally change his name. If his legal name is so uncomfortable for him, he should change it, and especially rather than expecting HR and co-workers to keep track of a nickname. Think if he worked at someplace with 1000 employees.
> 
> This is just an excessive and vindictive law. There are already laws on the books about "hate speech", making a "hostile workplace" and so forth. Plenty of ways existed already to punish the doofus who wants to verbally abuse someone.


The big guy never had a problem, even when he did work with a big company but now that he has his own company, he can pretty well do whatever he wants. 

He did talk about changing his name at one time but his sister named one of her boys after him and he now feels it would be disrespectful to her and her son.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> It does strike me as odd that laws have to be made for things that should be common sense.


 To me it is more insidious than that. Our first amendment reads: 


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[


 It has been determined that local governments cannot violate the establishment clause of the amendment it therefore stands to reason that local governments cannot violate the abridging the freedom of speech clause.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Fennick said:


> I think that with the passage of time we'll all see many more cities and then states and eventually whole countries implementing many more of those kinds of anti-bigotry and anti-bullying laws.
> 
> It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.
> 
> ...


I like where you went with that......

So often those who want to stamp out bigotry end up being worse bigots themselves, and are bigger bullies then those they oppose.

Society has a lot of problems, and a lot of bad apples. We should try to pull ourselves up better and by example; not sink down to a worse level by decree.

Paul


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> We must be the laughing stock for the rest of the world....


I've often thought that


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

So we should be forced not to speak certain things under the threat of fines? How about forget that, we'll just put people in jail for saying the wrong thing. Yeah...that's it. Free country...I love it. Y'all read 1984, right?

No, folks...blood has been shed for my right to say what I please...and I will..come Hell or high water, I will say whatever the heck I please no matter what certain Nazi twits want to penalize me with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I doubt that


That's what it says, whether you "doubt" or not:




> 1.Failing To Use *an Individual*âs Preferred Name or PronounThe NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an *individual*âs preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individualâs sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the *individual*âs identification."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> No, I meant what I said.
> 
> Who do you think is pushing this latest bit of ridiculousness?



But werent the rich and corporate companies that worked with the Nazis republicans ? Sorry but if you wanna name call at least get it right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Cornhusker View Post
> No, I meant what I said.
> 
> Who do you think is pushing this latest bit of ridiculousness?


It really doesn't matter.
You're just going to say "Obama" anyway, as you do in nearly every thread.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you personally attack me?



I didn't see any attack and this drives right to the point, would you now be after the $250,000 fine being assessed on any people(s) that you think "attacked" you if you were in NYC?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

wr said:


> From a practical standpoint, my children were not legally able to change their last names until they were 16, even though my youngest had not had any contact with his father from the time he was 3. Legally, he was also within his rights to use an alias last name as long as it wasn't in a fraudulent manner.
> 
> One of his teachers took every opportunity to make his life miserable over the fact that he had chosen to use his grandfather's last name (who he identified as his male role model). This included such events as publicly denouncing the child in front of his classmates about his mother 'forcing' him to disrespect his father and his father's family and the foolishness of people who let their children pick their own last names.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see the woman fined but if he identified his last name as something other than what she felt it should be, it would have been nice to have some legal protection from her bias and abuse.


I am sorry your son was bullied by his teacher this way. A person who treats a child this way should not be a teacher in the first place (or should have been fired the first time she treated a child this way). The thing is, I do not think this law would stop this particular person from saying the things she said (the law would only stop her from using your son's legal name but not from saying that he disrespected his father, etc.) 



wr said:


> Perhaps the laws are different in the US but aside from the gender identity issue, I do see practical applications for the law.
> 
> Besides my own child, the big guy's name is the same as his father and because he was horribly abused by the man, he will only respond to his childhood nickname.
> 
> ...


My husband goes by a nickname. Not because of anything bad happening to him, it's just the way he grew up. No employer ever refused to call him by the nickname. Most people actually never even knew his real name (except that it is on his HR file). Our bank will accept checks made out to his nick name. It's just never been a problem. Even though there is no law requiring anyone to use his nickname. 

Our son is named after him and uses a nickname too ... since we homeschool, it's not an issue with a school. But pretty much everywhere we go (like doctor's office), they just note his nickname in his file and use that. No one ever told me they would not respect our wishes to use a nickname. 

The only time I encountered a situation where we had to use our legal name was when I worked for a call center for a financial institution. We had to use our first legal name when speaking with customers. We were told there was a federal law that required us to do so and the bank could be fined if we did not. We had some people who went by their middle name but on the phone they had to use their legal first name.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Shine said:


> Note to self: *
> 
> No trips to NYC, EVER
> *


How does that song go ? (New York, New York)

"Keep spreading the news.....da da da dah"


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder if it will be all bigots you herd together, or just some?
> Will bigots like Obama and Al Sharpton go to your concentration camps or just some bigots?
> Maybe just the bigots other bigots point out?
> It's sad that we must now gear criminal prosecution for the slip of a tongue or an opinion that doesn't agree with the Nazis....I mean democrats.


You misunderstood what I was saying. Polite society won't be herding bigots into concentration camps or anywhere else. Bigots will be willingly confining themselves to their own enclaves and communities in accordance with their own decisions and actions. For example, the people who are now choosing to never go to New York City because they don't like this new anti-bigotry law about name-calling. That is their choice to stay away from NYC. Nobody else is making them stay away.

For some people their own countries already are their enclaves that they can't legally leave, or they might be able to legally leave their countries but not be welcome in other countries and so they are denied entry into those countries. An example of bigots who are already denied entry into several countries would be all the known members of the Westboro Church group. By their own actions they have made themselves unwelcome and confined themselves to USA and made the entire country their own concentration camp.

Choosing and espousing bigotry might effect a bigot's finances and business interests in both his own country and other countries. Take for example what Donald Trump has recently caused to happen to some of his own international business interests and associations. There are some countries where the Trump name is now "mud" and has already been or is being stricken from international corporations names and buildings and partnerships because they don't want to have any association with him. He isn't barred from those countries, he isn't denied entry, but he's no longer welcome either, doesn't get any special treatment and they don't want to do any further business with him.

As world populations continue to grow and people become more crowded together, if people all want to get along with each other and survive peacefully together it will become more and more necessary for new laws to be enacted that make ALL people abide by the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

*"1.Failing To Use an Individual&#8217;s Preferred Name or PronounThe NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual&#8217;s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual&#8217;s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual&#8217;s identification."
*


I can see even more problems with a wise guy at the job who wants his "preferred name" to be something vulgar or obnoxious.
What's the odds of there being a New Yorker named Richard Head?.................


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> "1.Failing To Use an Individualâs Preferred Name or PronounThe NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individualâs preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individualâs sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individualâs identification."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think in a situation like that the only person with problems would be the "wise guy" who's deliberately trying to attract mockery and negative attention to himself. Of course it would depend on what kind of business he's working at but what kind of reputable business owner is going to hire or keep on an immature wise guy whose obvious poor character could reflect very badly on the business?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> But werent the rich and corporate companies that worked with the Nazis republicans ? Sorry but if you wanna name call at least get it right.


I take it you are good with fining people for speaking their minds?
Sounds like Nazi to me, and the left is the morons pushing this garbage through.
Of course they couldn't do it without willing puppies making excuses for them.
Good boy!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fennick said:


> You misunderstood what I was saying. Polite society won't be herding bigots into concentration camps or anywhere else. Bigots will be willingly confining themselves to their own enclaves and communities in accordance with their own decisions and actions. For example, the people who are now choosing to never go to New York City because they don't like this new anti-bigotry law about name-calling. That is their choice to stay away from NYC. Nobody else is making them stay away.
> 
> For some people their own countries already are their enclaves that they can't legally leave, or they might be able to legally leave their countries but not be welcome in other countries and so they are denied entry into those countries. An example of bigots who are already denied entry into several countries would be all the known members of the Westboro Church group. By their own actions they have made themselves unwelcome and confined themselves to USA and made the entire country their own concentration camp.
> 
> ...


What you don't seem to understand is that those who cry "bigot" most often are bigots themselves.
Obama is a bigot, most black people are bigots, most muslims are bigots, most gays are bigots.
How are you going to punish everyone?
What will likely happen is the bigotry will be punished for one group and not another, much like "hate crimes".
Will people be fined for calling me a "cracker"?
Will people be fined for using the term "Bible thumper?
Will gay people be fined for calling straight people "breeders"?
I seriously doubt it, not with the bigots running the country.
Obama has shown his bigotry already, so you know the DOJ etc. will follow his lead.
It's a slippery slope


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> What you don't seem to understand is that those who cry "bigot" most often are bigots themselves.
> 
> Obama is a bigot, most black people are bigots, most muslims are bigots, most gays are bigots.
> 
> ...



I don't personally feel you can regulate decency or empathy but I would be interested I hearing why you feel most minorities are bigots. 

I'm fond of looking at things from multiple angles and while cracker isn't a term I've heard used, I do feel that when society resorts to derogatory labels of any kind, we stop seeing each other as humans.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Bigots will be willingly confining themselves to their own enclaves and communities in accordance with their own decisions and actions.


Have you ever thought about writing Science Fiction?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> I don't personally feel you can regulate decency or empathy but I would be interested I hearing why you feel most minorities are bigots.
> 
> I'm fond of looking at things from multiple angles and while cracker isn't a term I've heard used, I do feel that when society resorts to derogatory labels of any kind, we stop seeing each other as humans.


I once made an acquaintance with a younger black man, holding out my hand I jovially said - hey, my name's Larry, without batting an eye he said, I'm Cracker Killer. I laughed hard, after the weeks went by we became above average acquaintances. 

Yeah, we should ban hurtful words, NOT, what a joke. Some people just need to grow up.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Fennick said:


> I think that with the passage of time we'll all see many more cities and then states and eventually whole countries implementing many more of those kinds of anti-bigotry and anti-bullying laws.
> 
> It may be a good way for more civilized cities, communities and countries to go if they want to shun and discourage bigots from living in or visiting their communities and thereby keep them out permanently.
> 
> ...


You now owe 125,000 dollars now. 


[I_]regardless of the individualâs sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, *appearance*, or the sex indicated on the individualâs identification."
_
If they _appear_ to be bigots you cant call them that. You must call them by their preferred name only. The law cuts all ways.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> ..... Will people be fined for calling me a "cracker"?





wr said:


> I don't personally feel you can regulate decency or empathy but I would be interested I hearing why you feel most minorities are bigots.
> 
> I'm fond of looking at things from multiple angles and while *cracker isn't a term I've heard used*, I do feel that when society resorts to derogatory labels of any kind, we stop seeing each other as humans.


I think in Corny's case his question about being called a cracker is a trick question. For many years here on HT "cracker" was Corny's badge of honour and he had it in his signature line beneath his user name. He proclaimed himself a "proud southern cracker" or "proud American cracker" or something similar to that with the emphasis on cracker. He had it in his signature line for so many years I was surprised when he took it down and often wondered if he had been requested by HT Administration to remove it because it's a pejorative. So I think if somebody called him a cracker he would be happy about it and that's why it was a trick question.

I had never seen or heard the expression in it's southern USA context before I started reading here 10 years ago on HT and saw cracker in Corny's signature line then. I was very puzzled that he would proclaim himself a cracker because I know that here on the west coast cracker means someone who's a crack addict or meth head, or someone who is mentally insane or "cracked" in the head with a Jeckyl/Hyde type of split personality.

Anyway, it occurred to me it must mean something totally different in southern USA so at that time I did some research about it and discovered what cracker means in USA. It is a Scottish pejorative (that basically meant an unpleasant, pompous person with a rude mouth on him) dating back to before Shakespearan times and was brought to southern USA by dirt poor colonists and labourers and eventually attained numerous meanings applied to and by slave owners and the brutal overseers who gave beatings and cracked the whip over the slaves. With the passage of time it came to mean other things (none of them pleasant) and before the turn of the 20th century the word became a badge of honour for poor southern white trash and uneducated bigots and racists who started calling their ownselves crackers as a sort of socio-political identifier and political statement. 

Here is the history of the word cracker, where it came from and some of the context and meanings applied to the word and how the meanings have changed over the centuries that it's been used in USA, and what it means now (overt bigotry and racism). It's quite interesting:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/01/197644761/word-watch-on-crackers


~


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Fennick said:


> I think in Corny's case his question about being called a cracker is a trick question. For many years here on HT "cracker" was Corny's badge of honour and he had it in his signature line beneath his user name. He proclaimed himself a "proud southern cracker" or "proud American cracker" or something similar to that with the emphasis on cracker. He had it in his signature line for so many years I was surprised when he took it down and often wondered if he had been requested by HT Administration to remove it because it's a pejorative. So I think if somebody called him a cracker he would be happy about it and that's why it was a trick question.
> 
> I had never seen or heard the expression in it's southern USA context before I started reading here 10 years ago on HT and saw cracker in Corny's signature line then. I was very puzzled that he would proclaim himself a cracker because I know that here on the west coast cracker means someone who's a crack addict or meth head, or someone who is mentally insane or "cracked" in the head with a Jeckyl/Hyde type of split personality.
> 
> ...



It was interesting. I didn't know the Shakespearean reference, but the article is no doubt historically accurate.
Much like the word "*******" the meanings vary to different people according to their intent.
Like the cultural group that it originated from, to label the meaning now (or then) as uneducated, bigoted racist is an act of bigotry itself.
Real crackers were about as close to the class of people that started as African slaves as you can get. They were outcast and mistreated, discriminated against, yet persevered with their own strength and survival skills.
As the article pointed out with the example of Jimmy Carter, that label would NOT be accurate, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Well, if you watch videos of blacks using the word, or read it being used in context, it's not hard to figure out that it's not being used as a term of endearment. The word's historical usage/definition are irrelevant to today.

And, if whites aren't supposed to be offended by the word, then blacks shouldn't be offended by the term '*****'. 

Here's an interesting article that illustrates how absurd things have become.
http://newsone.com/410452/polls-reveal-black-americans-contradictory-feelings-on-*****/


> *So how do Black people feel about the word?* In one poll, NewsOne/Blackplanet asked members, &#8220;Does the word &#8216;*****&#8217; offend you?&#8221; 70 percent said no, the word does not offend them, while only 30 percent said yes.
> However, in a follow-up poll, we asked, &#8220;If a white person called you a *****, would it offend you?&#8221; and the responses almost completely switched. 67% said they _would be_ offended, while only 33 percent said they would not.
> Do these results reveal a racial double-standard, or do they reflect a natural tendency to be more sensitive to language depending on the speaker and their intent?


I vote for racial double-standard.

So, relative to the OP, can someone now be fined based simply on what an individual *perceives* as an insult?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The concept to regulate morality is not new, think prohibition and the illegality of marijuana, there are probably many others. In some ways this law sounds like the early Catholic church.

There is a difference in morality of duty and morality of aspirations.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

My opinion is that it's disgusting that the government has to implement legislation designed to force people to be decent human beings. 

Common decency should be a given.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Well, if you watch videos of blacks using the word, or read it being used in context, it's not hard to figure out that it's not being used as a term of endearment. The word's historical usage/definition are irrelevant to today.
> 
> And, if whites aren't supposed to be offended by the word, then blacks shouldn't be offended by the term '*****'.
> 
> ...


They can be fined if they *persist* in using the wrong *names*.
"Cracker" isn't really the same as "*****" either, and the OP is about "names", not necessarily derogatory terms.

I find it ironic that many now shouting "freedom of speech" want *their * freedom to call anyone anything, but are some of the loudest when complaining about what others say about them.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion is that it's disgusting that the government has to implement legislation designed to force people to be decent human beings.
> 
> Common decency should be a given.


Common decency is relative term, it is one thing to some and another to others.

The government is making a statement, it will change nothing. It will only set back the evolution that would happen. People need time to understand, to be exposed to new things. Automatic acceptance is not going to happen. 

Like I said before it is almost like the early Catholic churches attempt to mold humans into their concept of right.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can be fined if they *persist* in using the wrong *names*.
> "Cracker" isn't really the same as "*****" either, and the OP is about "names", not necessarily derogatory terms.
> 
> *I find it ironic that many now shouting "freedom of speech" want their freedom to call anyone anything, but are some of the loudest when complaining about what others say about them*.


How is that Ironic? Just because you support freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you support what other say, just their right to say it. 

I would, certainly, complain if someone called me a dirty name, or, annoyed me by calling me a silly nick name, but, I wouldn't dream of trying to empower government to force them not to.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> Common decency is relative term, it is one thing to some and another to others.
> 
> The government is making a statement, it will change nothing. It will only set back the evolution that would happen. People need time to understand, to be exposed to new things. Automatic acceptance is not going to happen.
> 
> *Like I said before it is almost like the early Catholic churches attempt to mold humans into their concept of right*.


 It is EXACTLY like that. Which is a major reason why government was denied that power by the first amendment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Common decency is relative term, it is one thing to some and another to others.
> 
> The government is making a statement, it will change nothing. It will only set back the evolution that would happen. People need time to understand, to be exposed to new things. Automatic acceptance is not going to happen.
> 
> Like I said before it is almost like the early Catholic churches attempt to mold humans into their concept of right.


What is so hard to understand?

deÂ·cenÂ·cy

noun
behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.
"she had the decency to come and confess"
synonyms:	propriety, decorum, good taste, respectability, dignity, correctness, good form, etiquette; More
modesty and propriety.
"a loose dress, rather too low-cut for decency"
the requirements of accepted or respectable behavior.
plural noun: decencies
"an appeal to common decencies"

Calling someone a name other than what they have requested isn't decent. The concept is very simple. 

*All* religion attempts to mold members into it's concept of right. That's the very nature of religion.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is so hard to understand?
> 
> deÂ·cenÂ·cy
> 
> ...


It is childish to call someone by anything other than their preferred choice but it's not indecent. It is an over reaction to call it indecent and ridiculous to impose huge fines. What is a fine for indecency with a child, exposing oneself in a park full of children?

And yes this is typical of religious fanaticism.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> It is childish to call someone by anything other than their preferred choice but it's not indecent. It is an over reaction to call it indecent and ridiculous to impose huge fines. What is a fine for indecency with a child, exposing oneself in a park full of children?
> 
> And yes this is typical of religious fanaticism.


Indecency with a child is illegal as well as immoral. Why did you bring this up? Everyone knows there will a punishment for the behavior. 

Common decency is treating someone how you would like to be treated. A very, very simple concept.

Absolutely not _just_ religious fanaticism, all religion requires obedience to church law.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is so hard to understand?
> 
> deÂ·cenÂ·cy
> 
> ...


 The thought that government should be allowed to legislate common decency is disgusting.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Indecency with a child is illegal as well as immoral. Why did you bring this up? Everyone knows there will a punishment for the behavior.
> 
> Common decency is treating someone how you would like to be treated. A very, very simple concept.
> 
> Absolutely not _just_ religious fanaticism, all religion requires obedience to church law.


Since this action entails large fines and is deemed illegal it is in the same vein, it is a law with fines. Which action is more detrimental? Which should be punished harsher?

The fine for using a wrong name is basically ridiculous, in comparison to other fines. 

Than I'll simply call this a form of fanaticism. It requires obedience to an illogical concept. As I said common decency is a wonderful aspiration, but should not entail egregious fines.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The thought that government should be allowed to legislate common decency is disgusting.


Beyond that, why should it be _forced_ to legislate it. Common decency is a very very simple concept.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Beyond that, why should it be _forced_ to legislate it. Common decency is a very very simple concept.


It isn't and shouldn't it is an extremely broad over reach, which will not end well.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Beyond that, why should it be _forced_ to legislate it. Common decency is a very very simple concept.


 It is not forced, in fact, it is likely illegal for it to do what it has done. Government is not capable of dealing in the concept of common decency.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Since this action entails large fines and is deemed illegal it is in the same vein, it is a law with fines. Which action is more detrimental? Which should be punished harsher?
> 
> The fine for using a wrong name is basically ridiculous, in comparison to other fines.
> 
> Than I'll simply call this a form of fanaticism. It requires obedience to an illogical concept. As I said common decency is a wonderful aspiration, but should not entail egregious fines.


To you perhaps, but it may not be to everyone. Simply because it doesn't bother _you_ it shouldn't bother anyone? Isn't that just a smidge egotistical? If so, arbitrarily deciding it is ridiculous for everyone is far worse, yes?

Again, if there were no jail time do you think more pedophiles would be exposing themselves to children in parks? Do you think the jail time (fines) are a deterrent?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> I take it you are good with fining people for speaking their minds?
> 
> Sounds like Nazi to me, and the left is the morons pushing this garbage through.
> 
> ...



I find it hard to believe this is anything other than a troll. 
Come on CH I know you can argue better than this.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> To you perhaps, but it may not be to everyone. Simply because it doesn't bother _you_ it shouldn't bother anyone? Isn't that just a smidge egotistical? If so, arbitrarily deciding it is ridiculous for everyone is far worse, yes?
> 
> *Again, if there were no jail time do you think more pedophiles would be exposing themselves to children in parks?* Do you think the jail time (fines) are a deterrent?


I doubt there would be more exposures, just more open exposures. Pedophiles are sick twists who adapt to laws to circumvent them. Laws, for a pedophile, are not deterrents, but rather, gives us tools to punish offenders.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> To you perhaps, but it may not be to everyone. Simply because it doesn't bother _you_ it shouldn't bother anyone? Isn't that just a smidge egotistical? If so, arbitrarily deciding it is ridiculous for everyone is far worse, yes?
> 
> Again, if there were no jail time do you think more pedophiles would be exposing themselves to children in parks? Do you think the jail time (fines) are a deterrent?


You think it's ego huh? Of course I am bothered by rude people, but do I think the extremely rude counter person at Starbucks be fined, no I think he should either be retrained or fired. 

Haha, whose is deciding for everyone? I have an opinion and still have the right to voice it.

Hmm, deterrent good question, do you think that threats of fines for using a wrong name is a deterrent? Or maybe it could actually alienate people who other wise would not be rude.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fennick said:


> I think in Corny's case his question about being called a cracker is a trick question. For many years here on HT "cracker" was Corny's badge of honour and he had it in his signature line beneath his user name. He proclaimed himself a "proud southern cracker" or "proud American cracker" or something similar to that with the emphasis on cracker. He had it in his signature line for so many years I was surprised when he took it down and often wondered if he had been requested by HT Administration to remove it because it's a pejorative. So I think if somebody called him a cracker he would be happy about it and that's why it was a trick question.
> 
> I had never seen or heard the expression in it's southern USA context before I started reading here 10 years ago on HT and saw cracker in Corny's signature line then. I was very puzzled that he would proclaim himself a cracker because I know that here on the west coast cracker means someone who's a crack addict or meth head, or someone who is mentally insane or "cracked" in the head with a Jeckyl/Hyde type of split personality.
> 
> ...


OK, everybody is hung up on "cracker"
Watch this and it'll explain.
Then tell me there are no minority racists
[YOUTUBE]watch?v=hVcfymOvoUo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Here's another one calling for the death of whites
Why aren't these people in jail?
Because our DOJ is run by bigots.
[YOUTUBE]watch?v=mri2ZtPosvU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion is that it's disgusting that the government has to implement legislation designed to force people to be decent human beings.
> 
> Common decency should be a given.


It's disgusting that anybody thinks it a good idea for the government to force us all to think and speak in line with their "standards"
Of course, it's not for everybody, just some.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can be fined if they *persist* in using the wrong *names*.
> "Cracker" isn't really the same as "*****" either, and the OP is about "names", not necessarily derogatory terms.
> 
> I find it ironic that many now shouting "freedom of speech" want *their * freedom to call anyone anything, but are some of the loudest when complaining about what others say about them.


You are wrong.
Nobody is "whining" about what others say, it's the illegal double standard pushed by the bigots in our "government"
If one was interested in equality, freedom from "name calling", freedom from discrimination, it would work for everyone, but that's not how it is here in Obamanation is it?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can be fined if they *persist* in using the wrong *names*.


Not according to the link in the OP.



> Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination. Gender-based
> harassment can be a *single or isolated incident* of disparate treatment or repeated
> acts or behavior.


Let that sink in for a minute and then try to justify this legislation as anything other than dangerous.

If I choose to call Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner a man, because that's how I perceive him, I could be fined. 

That is total and utter B.S. Period.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion is that it's disgusting that the government has to implement legislation designed to force people to be decent human beings.
> 
> Common decency should be a given.


Then you shouldn't have a problem w/ government setting moral standards.

Morality, decency = same thing, no?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> How is that Ironic? Just because you support freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you support what other say, just their right to say it.
> 
> I would, certainly, complain if someone called me a dirty name, or, annoyed me by calling me a silly nick name, but, I wouldn't dream of trying to empower government to force them not to.


I never said it was about "dirty names" or "silly nicknames"



> what others say about them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said it was about "dirty names" or "silly nicknames"


That is irrelevant. We have the right to complain about what is said about us, or, others. We do not have the right to use force of government to dictate acceptable speech.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> You are wrong.
> *Nobody is "whining" about what others say*, it's the illegal double standard pushed by the bigots in our "government"
> If one was interested in equality, freedom from "name calling", freedom from discrimination, it would work for everyone, but that's not how it is here in Obamanation is it?


Sure they are.
We see it here every day, in numerous posts


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure they are.
> We see it here every day, in numerous posts


So you don't see the double standard?
You don't see the bigotry of the left?
You are just jumping on the bandwagon with the misinformed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Not according to the link in the OP.
> 
> Let that sink in for a minute and then try to justify this legislation as anything other than *dangerous*.
> 
> ...


Did you read anything other than what you think proves your point?



> Failing To Use an Individualâs Preferred Name or Pronoun:
> 
> The NYCHRL requires *employers and covered entities* to use an individualâs preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individualâs sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individualâs identification."


If you *HIRED *Caitlin Jenner and then insisted on using "Bruce" instead, it's plainly nothing but harassment.

This is far less "dangerous" than forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, but you'd have no problem with the Govt doing that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who think it's the government's job to regulate speech and thought.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who think it's the government's job to regulate speech and thought.


 
Of course, they would be singing a different tune if their version of morality was in the minority, in government. (I know, Government and Morality is a giant contradiction in terms.)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> So you don't see *the double standard*?
> You don't see the bigotry of the left?
> You are just jumping on the bandwagon with the misinformed?


I see lots of double standards, which is what I pointed out.
The fallacy is thinking it's only from one side in any issue


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who think it's the government's job to regulate speech and thought.


They aren't doing that.
You just keep spinning it that way because someone else said it.

The law is to prevent harassment by employers


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Why would anyone chuckle at what someone chooses to call themselves anyway. It's a job. Be professional or keep your mouth shut. And where is this "chuckling" story, is there one? Because usually harassment requires repeat offenses, because an employee cannot be punished for harassment until they have been warned about their behavior and given a chance to correct it. Is this just another alarmist thread?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Why would anyone chuckle at what someone chooses to call themselves anyway. It's a job. Be professional or keep your mouth shut. And where is this "chuckling" story, is there one? Because usually harassment requires repeat offenses, because an employee cannot be punished for harassment until they have been warned about their behavior and given a chance to correct it. Is this just another alarmist thread?


Well, first off, I see this penalty as tremendously inane. 1/4 of a million dollars? Second off, I posted the info along with a question.

So, I would ask if you are attempting to label me as an alarmist in light of the clarification above?

Lastly, if a hulking person with a "man's" body sporting a 5 O'Clock shadow pops into HR and tells the HR person behind the desk that their preferred name is Priscilla and that they want to be called "Pris", well then, if I'm that HR person then I don't think that I'm going to get by that without a fine...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't doing that.
> You just keep spinning it that way because someone else said it.
> 
> The law is to prevent harassment by employers


In my day, we were grown ups and didn't need anybody to keep our thin little skins from being punctured by hurted feelings.
You know as well as I do that it won't stop there.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> You think it's ego huh? Of course I am bothered by rude people, but do I think the extremely rude counter person at Starbucks be fined, no I think he should either be retrained or fired.
> 
> Haha, whose is deciding for everyone? I have an opinion and still have the right to voice it.
> 
> Hmm, deterrent good question, do you think that threats of fines for using a wrong name is a deterrent? Or maybe it could actually alienate people who other wise would not be rude.


This thread isn't about rude people, it's about bullying/harassment. There will always be rude people and there shouldn't be legislation for being rude. Bullying is another thing all together.

I think fines will be a deterrent, all it will take is a few people being fired to get the point across that bullying in the workforce won't be tolerated.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Shine said:


> Well, first off, I see this penalty as tremendously inane. 1/4 of a million dollars? Second off, I posted the info along with a question.
> 
> So, I would ask if you are attempting to label me as an alarmist in light of the clarification above?
> 
> Lastly, if a hulking person with a "man's" body sporting a 5 O'Clock shadow pops into HR and tells the HR person behind the desk that their preferred name is Priscilla and that they want to be called "Pris", well then, if I'm that HR person then I don't think that I'm going to get by that without a fine...


Well I "merely asked the question" if this was an alarmist thread, so if you are attempting to label me as someone who was labeling you, I would ask that you re-read that for clarification. 

First of all, if you're an HR representative, you already know the rules so you are aware of the fact that a complaint must be filed, you must be informed that your actions were hurtful, and you must be given a chance to correct your behavior. 

Now let's look at the behavior. Pretend you're born again, and every time you walk past one guy's desk he chuckles condescendingly or scoffs at the cross you wear around your neck. Nothing happens to him even though others have witnessed it. So now the bully does what bullies do and things escalate to comments. You complain to HR but your employer does nothing. This goes on until you cuss the guy out, and you are fired. This is the kind of crap that went on before someone started making rules. So what would you do? Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses? What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? A slap on the wrist? Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread isn't about rude people, it's about bullying. There will always be rude people and there shouldn't be legislation for being rude. Bullying is another thing all together.
> 
> I think fines will be a deterrent, *all it will take is a few people being fired to get the point across that bullying in the workforce won't be tolerated*.


And that is where it should stop. No legislation


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread isn't about rude people, it's about bullying. There will always be rude people and there shouldn't be legislation for being rude. Bullying is another thing all together.
> 
> I think fines will be a deterrent, all it will take is a few people being fired to get the point across that bullying in the workforce won't be tolerated.


I'd like to see the bullies in the black panther movement fined or jailed.
The bully in the White House
BLM bullies
If you are going to go after one bully, you better go after all of them.
Well, the option is we could all grow up and act like adults, but I don't see that happening until we take our government back from the criminals.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Well I "merely asked the question" if this was an alarmist thread, so if you are attempting to label me as someone who was labeling you, I would ask that you re-read that for clarification.
> 
> First of all, if you're an HR representative, you already know the rules so you are aware of the fact that a complaint must be filed, you must be informed that your actions were hurtful, and you must be given a chance to correct your behavior.
> 
> Now let's look at the behavior. Pretend you're born again, and every time you walk past one guy's desk he chuckles condescendingly or scoffs at the cross you wear around your neck. Nothing happens to him even though others have witnessed it. So now the bully does what bullies do and things escalate to comments. You complain to HR but your employer does nothing. This goes on until you cuss the guy out, and you are fired. This is the kind of crap that went on before someone started making rules. So what would you do? Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses? What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? A slap on the wrist? Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB...


The only reason that some posters are upset about the fines is because they see it as slanted toward the transgender but it really is for everyone. One poster came right out and admitted it that they don't feel that a human being has the right to be called by the name (or gender) they chose. It takes away their "bigot" power, I guess.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Well I "merely asked the question" if this was an alarmist thread, so if you are attempting to label me as someone who was labeling you, I would ask that you re-read that for clarification.
> 
> First of all, if you're an HR representative, you already know the rules so you are aware of the fact that a complaint must be filed, you must be informed that your actions were hurtful, and you must be given a chance to correct your behavior.
> 
> Now let's look at the behavior. Pretend you're born again, and every time you walk past one guy's desk he chuckles condescendingly or scoffs at the cross you wear around your neck. Nothing happens to him even though others have witnessed it. So now the bully does what bullies do and things escalate to comments. You complain to HR but your employer does nothing. This goes on until you cuss the guy out, and you are fired. This is the kind of crap that went on before someone started making rules. So what would you do? *Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses*? What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? A slap on the wrist? Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB...


*Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses *Both are valid choices. 

*What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? *A civil lawsuit would be fine.

*Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB.. *They are not there to provide jobs, they are there to make money. A hostile work environment makes that a more difficult task, but, it is not up to government to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior in an office setting beyond preventing physical harm. Words do not, generally, meet that standard.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And that is where it should stop. No legislation


Apparently it's needed to force people to be decent human beings. Sad, huh?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Well I "merely asked the question" if this was an alarmist thread, so if you are attempting to label me as someone who was labeling you, I would ask that you re-read that for clarification.
> 
> First of all, if you're an HR representative, you already know the rules so you are aware of the fact that a complaint must be filed, you must be informed that your actions were hurtful, and you must be given a chance to correct your behavior.
> 
> Now let's look at the behavior. Pretend you're born again, and every time you walk past one guy's desk he chuckles condescendingly or scoffs at the cross you wear around your neck. Nothing happens to him even though others have witnessed it. So now the bully does what bullies do and things escalate to comments. You complain to HR but your employer does nothing. This goes on until you cuss the guy out, and you are fired. This is the kind of crap that went on before someone started making rules. So what would you do? Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses? What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? A slap on the wrist? Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB...


Well, that might be a problem for others but I would take it in stride. A promise has been made to me but nowhere in that promise is there a clause that says that "no one will offend you."

In the many jobs that I have had in my life, all of them were involved in direct customer service. I am in Sales Management now. Within the last 10 minutes, I have had a customer that, surprise, was obviously transgendered. I passed this particular test and might be making a sale today. 

The person, dressed in feminine garb, tight jeans, frilly blouse, all the proper jewelry pieces, the Large Round Sunglasses, CowGirl boots, was as tall as I, had a deep voice, still used their masculine name, and I'm thinking that, "wow, The Quarter Million Dollar Fine people, who has been lurking on HT, has dispatched an Agent with lightning quickness." lol


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it's needed to force people to be decent human beings. Sad, huh?


And again it is not the government's place to do so. They haven't the right. Just because the law is there, doesn't mean that it is really needed. It is just as likely that this unconstitutional pile of legislative BS was made to score brownie points with local activist groups.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And again it is not the government's place to do so. They haven't the right. Just because the law is there, doesn't mean that it is really needed. It is just as likely that this unconstitutional pile of legislative BS was made to score brownie points with local activist groups.


That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

A couple of my co-workers have been reading through this thread. I'll try to put their comments here, without the cursing. LOL. Both are openly gay and they have a solution for the problem. If someone has such a problem with their name not being used properly wear a name badge. Now I know this sounds trite but both of the guys were really questioning the sanity involved in this new law. 

One of them thinks it is just a retribution type thing or looking for some votes. Neither think it is going to improve work place cohesiveness in any way just the opposite.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> A couple of my co-workers have been reading through this thread. I'll try to put their comments here, without the cursing. LOL. Both are openly gay and they have a solution for the problem. If someone has such a problem with their name not being used properly wear a name badge. Now I know this sounds trite but both of the guys were really questioning the sanity involved in this new law.
> 
> One of them thinks it is just a retribution type thing or looking for some votes. Neither think it is going to improve work place cohesiveness in any way just the opposite.


They are just a smidge egotistical too? Perhaps there _are_ people that will benefit?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are just a smidge egotistical too? Perhaps there _are_ people that will benefit?


Word of the day egotistical..

They are both well grounded professionals and democrats.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread isn't about rude people, it's about bullying/harassment. There will always be rude people and there shouldn't be legislation for being rude. Bullying is another thing all together.
> 
> *I think fines will be a deterrent, all it will take is a few people being fired to get the point across that bullying in the workforce won't be tolerated.*


Sure, that all sounds well and good. But a lot of other fines and even jail time don't seem to be a deterrent at all. Fine for speeding, people still speed. Jail time for drugs, drugs everywhere. And so on. 

It's just an unnecessary, over-reaching law. There are already laws in place to protect people from harassment in the workplace.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Sure, that all sounds well and good. But a lot of other fines and even jail time don't seem to be a deterrent at all. Fine for speeding, people still speed. Jail time for drugs, drugs everywhere. And so on.
> 
> It's just an unnecessary, over-reaching law. There are already laws in place to protect people from harassment in the workplace.


We're talking about gainful employment here, if you're (collective you) willing to risk it to bully and harass your coworker, I think the designation "special kind of stupid" applies...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Word of the day egotistical..
> 
> They are both well grounded professionals and democrats.


OK. That's nice, good for them.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. That's nice, good for them.


Yep they are good people and we enjoy our political discussions.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> We're talking about gainful employment here, if you're (collective you) willing to risk it to bully and harass your coworker, I think the designation "special kind of stupid" applies...


Special kind of stupid applies to a lot of things but you still can't legislate it away.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Special kind of stupid applies to a lot of things but you still can't legislate it away.


But legislation works pretty well on bullying and harassment, which is what this is all about.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> But legislation works pretty well on bullying and harassment, which is what this is all about.


Well I have a different observation about that, YMMV. 

You assume that anyone who calls another by the "wrong" name is doing it for the purpose of harassment. But according to this legislation, one honest mistake could still get you the fine. 

Out of over-zealousness to protect the rights and sensibilities of one group of people, a mine field has been laid for another.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Well I have a different observation about that, YMMV.
> 
> You assume that anyone who calls another by the "wrong" name is doing it for the purpose of harassment. But according to this legislation, one honest mistake could still get you the fine.
> 
> Out of over-zealousness to protect the rights and sensibilities of one group of people, a mine field has been laid for another.


I can't find where it indicates the first violation will result in a fine in the OP's link. Can you point it out please?

It's bullying, harassment, and discrimination, you're right it should not have to be legislated, but apparently it does. There are people that have to be threatened with fines to be decent human beings. And it's not just for one group of people, it's for everyone.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't find where it indicates the first violation will result in a fine in the OP's link. Can you point it out please?
> 
> It's bullying, harassment, and discrimination, you're right it should not have to be legislated, but apparently it does. There are people that have to be threatened with fines to be decent human beings. And it's not just for one group of people, it's for everyone.


Wow, refusing to read the entire citation provided? Asking someone to do your investigating? Just who's decent human being are they being?

The answer to your first question has already been quoted, you can't find it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

"But what exactly is PC? Let me take a stab at defining it: Political correctness is the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda."

https://mises.org/library/pc-about-control-not-etiquette-0

Explains this whole thread quite nicely...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Wow, refusing to read the entire citation provided? Asking someone to do your investigating? Just who's decent human being are they being?
> 
> The answer to your first question has already been quoted, you can't find it?


Why must you get personal? It's not nice.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> In my day, we were grown ups and didn't need anybody to keep our thin little skins from being punctured by hurted feelings.
> You know as well as I do that it won't stop there.


I've got pretty thick skin and a great sense of humor. I'm also one of the first 3 women in Canada to earn my industrial radiographer's certificate and the verbal abuse and insults (none of which come even close to passing HT censors) should be used on anyone. 

I'm not saying regulation is the answer but I can assure you my perception does not involve thin skin or hurt feelings. It was and in some sectors still remain as bad that I honestly thought my certificate would be made out in the name of female dog, various degrading slang for female genitals or just 'ho. 

In the 4 years I worked with the same company (because other companies indicated over the phone that they didn't hire 'ho's or *****) it was addressed with supervisors and HR many times and I was told quite simply that guys just act like that. 

It's stuck with me a long time and in some ways, it made me a better supervisor but I was hired to clean up a company for sale a couple years ago and women with professional designations were referred to as skanks to their faces, a lovely Catholic man was called Bible Boy, JC's buddy or Queer-ella and a nice rancher was called Dufus because he spoke slower than most Canadians. 

We were hiring for various positions within a week but the end result is that adults don't always act like adults.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't find where it indicates the first violation will result in a fine in the OP's link. Can you point it out please?
> 
> It's bullying, harassment, and discrimination, you're right it should not have to be legislated, but apparently it does. There are people that have to be threatened with fines to be decent human beings. And it's not just for one group of people, it's for everyone.


It was highlighted in a previous post. You can find it...if you really want to.

There are distinctions to be drawn between bullying, harassment and discrimination. In this proposed law, I think it falls under harassment which speaks to intent. I have known a lot of people who misspoke. They can't get a certain name straight, they always mispronounce certain words and so on. If someone wanted to be a pill, they could have the "verbally challenged" prosecuted under this law even though they are "decent human beings" in every other way. And fear of prosecution doesn't magically transform anyone into a "decent human being". They might fake certain behavior but it in no way changes their character.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why must you get personal? It's not nice.


Your lack of effort is why I asked specifically. The information that will provide an answer to your question is provided in the initial post. 

You asked the question as if it had not been provided. So if you have not been aware of the fact that it was answered then I must understand that you did not read the full PDF and are attempting to speak to it's intimate details. Oh, well...

Don't get so hurt when others hold you to task, please.

Section IV says:
"The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations" 

It sets forth no "probationary period" nor does it say that "a warning will be issued and upon subsequent instances..."


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only reason that some posters are upset about the fines is because they see it as slanted toward the transgender but it really is for everyone. .


No.

The issue isn't about transgenders.......or any other 'special' class. The issue is about 1st Amendment rights vs. using the umbrella of discrimination/bullying to restrict those rights. And this is where it leads......or worse.










I guess their Mommies didn't teach them the 'sticks and stones' adage.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it's needed to force people to be decent human beings. Sad, huh?


Then we should also FORCE people to be moral, too.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.


For now


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> We're talking about gainful employment here, if you're (collective you) willing to risk it to bully and harass your coworker, I think the designation "special kind of stupid" applies...


Do you honestly think this is more than a solution inventing a problem?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> *Bend over and take it? Or get a lawyer and start subpoenaing witnesses *Both are valid choices.
> 
> *What should the punishment be for an employer hauling in a million dollars a year? *A civil lawsuit would be fine.
> 
> *Or should they be compelled to protect the work environment on the grounds that EVERYONE NEEDS A JOB.. *They are not there to provide jobs, they are there to make money. A hostile work environment makes that a more difficult task, but, it is not up to government to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior in an office setting beyond preventing physical harm. Words do not, generally, meet that standard.


They may not be there to provide jobs, but they are an employer, and as such they must create a fair environment. There is absolutely no logical way to avoid the simple fact that if you hire a person, that person can not be subjected to bullying. They work there because they need to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. They do their job because that's the agreement. They should be treated fairly. Period. It isn't brain surgery, pal. This is really quite simple.

Yea. Lawsuit. Exactly. Do you think you're making a point? Because in order to be awarded anything in a civil lawsuit, there must be some kind of legal reason to file it. All NY is doing is making it clear that transgenderism is included on the list of things people cannot be bullied for. Again... This isn't brain surgery. Lawsuit. Good job. 

Funny joke about bending over being a valid choice. If you weren't joking...then that is the joke.

It's all symbolic anyway. It was already illegal for employers to allow a transgender person to be harassed at work, because it is illegal for an employer to allow anyone to be harassed at work.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> But legislation works pretty well on bullying and harassment, which is what this is all about.


Yes it is, but now how you think.
It's going to put some people up as untouchable, they will be the bullies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I'd like to see the bullies in the black panther movement fined or jailed.
> *The bully in the White House*
> *BLM bullies*
> If you are going to go after one bully, you better go after all of them.
> Well, the option is we could all grow up and act like adults, but I don't see that happening until we take our government back from the criminals.


Did you happen to read *the dates *of those statutes? 


> > NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
> > Legal Enforcement Guidance on the
> > Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression:
> > Local Law No. 3 (*2002*); N.Y.C. Admin. Code Â§ 8-102(23)
> ...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> Then we should also FORCE people to be moral, too.


You can be immoral all day in your head. You can blimp your first cousin for all I care. As soon as you harass someone at work, your employer is obligated to do something about it and it doesn't matter what your coworker looks like or believes. Follow the rules or deal with the consequences. Don't cry us all a river because you don't think it's fair that you can't be an unprofessional hostile bigot in the workplace.

And this NY thing is just symbolic. You already can't mock a transgender at work. It's already harassment.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I've got pretty thick skin and a great sense of humor. I'm also one of the first 3 women in Canada to earn my industrial radiographer's certificate and the verbal abuse and insults (none of which come even close to passing HT censors) should be used on anyone.
> 
> I'm not saying regulation is the answer but I can assure you my perception does not involve thin skin or hurt feelings. It was and in some sectors still remain as bad that I honestly thought my certificate would be made out in the name of female dog, various degrading slang for female genitals or just 'ho.
> 
> ...


I've dealt with my share of bullies over my years, been called my share of names, and usually, the name caller/bully worked his way into the other side.
People in this part of the country will tolerate a lot, and the grown ups don't usually call people names. those that act like children usually find life lonesome.
Sometimes, you just have to have a talk with the instigator, sometimes more.
Point is, we always handled our own issues as grown ups.
Having the government step in is like having your mommy tell the bully to leave you alone, and you will get no respect, and it will just make harder feelings.
People need to stand up for themselves, act like adults and people will respect them more.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It looked to me, that if you simply posses _common sense_ and _dignity towards others_, you will be just fine and save your hard-earned money.

We are so doomed!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Wow, refusing to read the entire citation provided? Asking someone to do your investigating? Just who's decent human being are they being?
> 
> *The answer to your first question has already been quoted,* you can't find it?


Actually there was no "answer" to *that question* given at all.

An out of context statement was posted and an opinion was given.

Had you read much at all you'd realize the law is far more complicated than the simple way you try to portray it



> Don't get so hurt when others hold you to task, please.
> 
> Section IV says:
> "The Commission *can* impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations"


That's not an answer to the question that was asked


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Your lack of effort is why I asked specifically. The information that will provide an answer to your question is provided in the initial post.
> 
> You asked the question as if it had not been provided. So if you have not been aware of the fact that it was answered then I must understand that you did not read the full PDF and are attempting to speak to it's intimate details. Oh, well...
> 
> ...


Where is the "first strike you're out" wording? Where does it say there won't be warnings before the fine? Are you assuming or is it in the code? If so, can you point it out please? 

I read the portion that was pertinent to the conversation, didn't find anything that indicated there would be no warnings, and asked the poster for the information. I still can't find anything that indicates there will be no warnings... and fined $250k for a first violation. Does that seem the least bit credible to you? No warning and a whopping big fine? It doesn't to me, but I'm not chuckling over harassment, bullying, and discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> No.
> 
> The issue isn't about transgenders.......or any other 'special' class. The issue is about 1st Amendment rights vs. using the umbrella of discrimination/bullying to restrict those rights. And this is where it leads......or worse.
> 
> I guess their Mommies didn't teach them the 'sticks and stones' adage.


You (collective you) want the right to call people ugly names? Or decide what they should be called based on _your_ opinion? I guess some mommies didn't teach common decency and simple human kindness.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> I've dealt with my share of bullies over my years, been called my share of names, and usually, the name caller/bully worked his way into the other side.
> People in this part of the country will tolerate a lot, and the grown ups don't usually call people names. those that act like children usually find life lonesome.
> Sometimes, you just have to have a talk with the instigator, sometimes more.
> Point is, we always handled our own issues as grown ups.
> ...


A dead gopher under the seat of an inspector's pickup in the middle of summer, leaves a strong message but it shouldn't come to that. 

I actually understand your point and our province doesn't have regulations this specific simply because most of it falls under workplace harassment which is already regulated, which is why I had sufficient legal grounds to fire employees who were acting like horrible children.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Often, the Government gets tasked to do thing we should, but cannot do ourselves.


> $250,000 for *chuckling at what a transgender calls themselves?*


Are we still in the 4th Grade?

I just wonder - under the guise of free speech, if people said disparaging, rude and hateful stuff, to *our* _heterosexual kids _(of any age), would we be perfectly ok with them, for exercising their "rights"?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> Well, that might be a problem for others but I would take it in stride. A promise has been made to me but nowhere in that promise is there a clause that says that "no one will offend you."
> 
> In the many jobs that I have had in my life, all of them were involved in direct customer service. I am in Sales Management now. Within the last 10 minutes, I have had a customer that, surprise, was obviously transgendered. I passed this particular test and might be making a sale today.
> 
> The person, dressed in feminine garb, tight jeans, frilly blouse, all the proper jewelry pieces, the Large Round Sunglasses, CowGirl boots, was as tall as I, had a deep voice, still used their masculine name, and I'm thinking that, "wow, The Quarter Million Dollar Fine people, who has been lurking on HT, has dispatched an Agent with lightning quickness." lol


I live in the opposite of NY...a few weeks ago on a Sunday there was a man and woman in front of me at the checkout line at dg...but she was a he..so I studied her..him...shaved legs..nails done...skirt...boots...understand that no same sex marriage licenses have been issued here..none...I found it very interesting...even more interesting two weeks later at the same store...dressed like a man...over 6 foot tall...you have to admire that.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> ..... Lastly, if a hulking person with a "man's" body sporting a 5 O'Clock shadow pops into HR and tells the HR person behind the desk that their preferred name is Priscilla and that they want to be called "Pris", well then, *if I'm that HR person then* *I don't think that I'm going to get by that without a fine*...


Why? If you were the HR person what would you do that would cause you to get fined?

Does some other person have a monopoly on the name Priscilla or Pris and nobody else is allowed to use the same name?

If a small statured person with a dainty feminine body sporting a long curly mane of exquisitely dyed shell pink hair comes to you and says to you in a sweet musical female voice that their preferred name is David and they want to be called Dave for short, would you get by that without a fine or with a fine?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where is the "first strike you're out" wording? Where does it say there won't be warnings before the fine? Are you assuming or is it in the code? If so, can you point it out please?
> 
> I read the portion that was pertinent to the conversation, didn't find anything that indicated there would be no warnings, and asked the poster for the information. I still can't find anything that indicates there will be no warnings... and fined $250k for a first violation. Does that seem the least bit credible to you? No warning and a whopping big fine? It doesn't to me, but I'm not chuckling over harassment, bullying, and discrimination.


All that to try to say that "The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations" means something else?

:shrug:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Why? If you were the HR person what would you do that would cause you to get fined?
> 
> Does some other person have a monopoly on the name Priscilla or Pris and nobody else is allowed to use the same name?
> 
> If a small statured person with a dainty feminine body sporting a long curly mane of exquisitely dyed shell pink hair comes to you and says to you in a sweet musical female voice that their preferred name is David and they want to be called Dave for short, would you get by that without a fine or with a fine?


HECK!!! A-Nother fine!!!


People are great entertainment and I appreciate a good belly laugh!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) want the right to call people ugly names? Or decide what they should be called based on _your_ opinion? I guess some mommies didn't teach common decency and simple human kindness.


No, I'm not defending true harassment or bullying, I don't condone that. But if you'll read the legislation, it talks about how a single incident could be considered harassment. It is so loosely worded as to be dangerous. Go read it for yourself.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> It was interesting. I didn't know the Shakespearean reference, but the article is no doubt historically accurate.
> Much like the word "*******" the meanings vary to different people according to their intent.
> Like the cultural group that it originated from, to label the meaning now (or then) as uneducated, bigoted racist is an act of bigotry itself.
> Real crackers were about as close to the class of people that started as African slaves as you can get. They were outcast and mistreated, discriminated against, yet persevered with their own strength and survival skills.
> As the article pointed out with the example of Jimmy Carter, that label would NOT be accurate, *wouldn't you say?*


No, I wouldn't say - because I couldn't say. 

I reported on what I've been given to understand through online research about what the definition and history of American crackers are. I learned that a southern USA cracker is certainly not anything like the same thing as a Pacific north west coast cracker. But that is all since having never met any southern American crackers I don't know if any of the information I learned online about them is true. Without having personal contact, acquaintanceship, conversations and observations of American crackers upon which to form my personal opinion about them, I still don't actually know for sure what an American cracker is. So I cannot say what label would be accurate or inaccurate.

Since Cornhusker calls himself a cracker and is the only person I've ever encountered online who openly does so, I was hoping that Cornhusker could enlighten me and explain what today's American cracker is and what the American crackers' general culture, attitude and ideology is from his personal experience and point of view. But I have a feeling he wouldn't be willing to explain anything about that so I'll probably never know for sure what a modern day American cracker is and will just have to go with what the online research turned up.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> HECK!!! A-Nother fine!!!
> 
> 
> People are great entertainment and I appreciate a good belly laugh!


I knew you couldn't allow yourself to give honest, straight forward answers to my simple questions.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Often, the Government gets tasked to do thing we should, but cannot do ourselves.
> 
> 
> Are we still in the 4th Grade?
> ...


If anybody tries being rude, disparaging and hateful to my "kid", now a grown man, he knows how to diplomatically deal with people. But if they insist on being a butthead, he knows how to handle that too. Because you can't change people, all you can change is how you deal with them. 

It just isn't possible to legislate that no one will ever be offended.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Often, the Government gets tasked to do thing we should, but cannot do ourselves.
> 
> 
> Are we still in the 4th Grade?
> ...


Not in my presence. If outside my presence, this subject has been discussed. I do not need the government to stand in my place, thank you very much...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OK, there are so many on here that are totally in love with the nanny-state, let's just have everyone fill out some government forms that list what offends them, how they wish to be addressed, including gender if not obvious, and then we'll all get name tags, and handouts that will be federally protected. Will that make this crowd happy?

Talk about fourth grade... sheesh...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Fennick said:


> No, I wouldn't say - because I couldn't say.
> 
> I reported on what I've been given to understand through online research about what the definition and history of American crackers are. I learned that a southern USA cracker is certainly not anything like the same thing as a Pacific north west coast cracker. But that is all since having never met any southern American crackers I don't know if any of the information I learned online about them is true. Without having personal contact, acquaintanceship, conversations and observations of American crackers upon which to form my personal opinion about them, I still don't actually know for sure what an American cracker is. So I cannot say what label would be accurate or inaccurate.
> 
> Since Cornhusker calls himself a cracker and is the only person I've ever encountered online who openly does so, I was hoping that Cornhusker could enlighten me and explain what today's American cracker is and what the American crackers' general culture, attitude and ideology is from his personal experience and point of view. But I have a feeling he wouldn't be willing to explain anything about that so I'll probably never know for sure what a modern day American cracker is and will just have to go with what the online research turned up.


Well then, read a little more about him and maybe you'll be able to form an opinion. 



You've probably met more than a few, but haven't realized it. I think you'll find there is a common thread if you look past the surface.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

*The Carters settled on a dirt road in nearby Archery, which was almost entirely populated by impoverished African American families. They eventually had three more children&#8212;Gloria, Ruth, and Billy. Carter got along well with his parents, although his mother worked long hours and was often absent in his childhood. Although Earl was staunchly pro-segregation, he allowed his son to befriend the black farmhands' children. An enterprising teenager, Carter was given his own acre of Earl's farmland where he grew, packaged, and sold peanuts. Carter also rented out a section of tenant housing he had purchased.[3]

Carter attended the Plains High School from 1930, first grade, to 1941. The Great Depression had by then impoverished Archery and Plains, but the family benefited from New Deal farming subsidies, and Earl took a position as a community leader. Young Carter was a diligent student with a fondness for reading.[note 2] Carter's teacher, Julia Coleman, was an especially strong influence. As an adolescent, Carter played on the Plains High School basketball team; he also joined the Future Farmers of America and developed a lifelong interest in woodworking.[4]

*




*Farming
Earl Carter died a relatively wealthy man, having also recently been elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. However, between his forgiveness of debts and the division of his wealth among heirs, his son Jimmy inherited comparatively little. For a year, Jimmy, Rosalynn, and their three sons lived in public housing in Plains; Carter is the only U.S. president to have lived in housing subsidized for the poor. Knowledgeable in scientific and technological subjects, however, Carter set out to expand the family's peanut-growing business. The transition from Navy to agribusinessman was difficult, as the harvest his first year failed due to drought; Carter was compelled to open several bank lines of credit to keep the farm afloat. Meanwhile, he also took classes and read up on agriculture while Rosalynn learned accounting to manage the business's books. Though they barely broke even the first year, the Carters grew the business and became quite successful.[15][16]

*

-------------and this last part might either puzzle you, or lead you to a better understanding---------------------



*The liberal former governor, Carl Sanders, was Carter's main opponent in the 1970 Democratic primary. Carter ran a more modern campaign this time around, employing printed graphics and statistical analysis. Responding to poll data, Carter leaned more conservative than before. He positioned himself as a populist, quickly going negative against Sanders for his wealth (labeling him "Cufflinks Carl") and associating him with the national Democratic Party. He accused Sanders of corruption, but when pressed by the media, could come up with no evidence.[26][27] Throughout the campaign Carter sought both the black vote and the "Wallace vote", after the prominent segregationist George Wallace. While he met with black figures such as Martin Luther King, Sr. and Andrew Young, and visited many black-owned businesses, he also praised Wallace and promised to invite him to give a speech in Georgia. He implied support or dislike of private schools depending on the audience. The appeal to racism became more blatant over time; Carter's senior campaign aides handed out a photograph of his opponent Sanders celebrating with black basketball players.[26][27]

That September, Carter came ahead of Sanders in the first ballot by 49 to 38 percent, leading to a runoff. The campaign grew even more bitter; Carter's campaign criticized Sanders for supporting Martin Luther King, Jr. Carter won the runoff election with 60 percent of the vote&#8212;winning 7 percent of the black vote&#8212;and went on to win the general election easily over the Republican Hal Suit, a local news anchor. Once he was elected, Carter began to speak confidently against Georgia's racist politics. Leroy Johnson, a black state Senator, voiced his support for Carter, saying, "I understand why he ran that kind of ultra-conservative campaign. ... I don't believe you can win this state without being a racist."[26]

Governor of Georgia (1971&#8211;75)
Carter was sworn in as the 76th Governor of Georgia on January 12, 1971. He declared in his inaugural speech that "the time of racial segregation was over. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever again have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity for an education, a job, or simple justice." The crowd was reportedly shocked by this message, contrasting starkly with Georgia's political culture and particularly Carter's campaign. The many segregationists who had supported Carter during the race felt betrayed. Time magazine ran a story on the progressive "New South" governors elected that year in a May 1971 issue, featuring a cover illustration of Carter.[28][29][30]*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fine, I'll answer your questions but you won't like them:
Why? If you were the HR person what would you do that would cause you to get fined?

In the case I suggested, if I did ANYTHING that this particular person was offended by and they were looking for people to make examples of - toast.

However, and it was a good thing, because I really feel that the visit by the Trans-Gendered person to our community today was indeed a plant, I was prepared for this and I was not caught off guard. A man calls you on the phone and when you finally make acquaintance, you find the person that I described in a later post. A man dressed like a woman that had either fake or real breasts. What a hoot. Thank you HT. 

I would sell them a home without batting my eyes but, wow, how can someone set themselves up like that. You think that they're normal?

Does some other person have a monopoly on the name Priscilla or Pris and nobody else is allowed to use the same name?

No, I am sure that there are many "Larry"s out there, a silly question that does not appear to have a point.

If a small statured person with a dainty feminine body sporting a long curly mane of exquisitely dyed shell pink hair comes to you and says to you in a sweet musical female voice that their preferred name is David and they want to be called Dave for short, would you get by that without a fine or with a fine?

The look on my face would probably warrant the fine, the person might just be able to say that I discriminated against them due to that.

I already compared this to the Domestic Violence laws on the books and how people use them for their own power over people, and the advocates for this law having so much latitude do not care how many innocent lives have been ruined, actually ruined because of these laws. Do you want to put more laws on the books for other innocent people to be harmed via power grabbing people?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> OK, there are so many on here that are totally in love with the nanny-state, let's just have everyone fill out some government forms that list what offends them, how they wish to be addressed, including gender if not obvious, and then we'll all get name tags, and handouts that will be federally protected. Will that make this crowd happy?
> 
> Talk about fourth grade... sheesh...


How do we deal with the public bathroom issue?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> How do we deal with the public bathroom issue?


The only way that no one gets offended is Single Stalls with no mirror and a locking door. Heaven forbid someone would have the chance to say that "something" offended them and thereby claim discrimination.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> The only way that no one gets offended is Single Stalls with no mirror and a locking door. Heaven forbid someone would have the chance to say that "something" offended them and thereby claim discrimination.


Depends on how many women will accept washing their hands next to a guy in a dress after using the potty.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> Depends on how many women will accept washing their hands next to a guy in a dress after using the potty.



As long as they DO wash their hands, I think the offenses will be avoidable.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> All that to try to say that "The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations" means something else?
> :shrug:


It means what it says, which is different from what you claim, since "can" is not "shall".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> No, I'm not defending true harassment or bullying, I don't condone that. But if you'll read the legislation, it talks about how a single incident could be considered harassment. It is so loosely worded as to be dangerous.* Go read it for yourself*.


Yes it says that, but it's covering far more than the "name calling".

A "single instance" of turning someone down for a job or a promotion is far different than calling them something they don't like.

It's really not loosely worded at all if you keep it all * in context* instead of cherry picking phrases from different sections


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes it says that, but it's covering far more than the "name calling".
> 
> A "single instance" of turning someone down for a job or a promotion is far different than calling them something they don't like.
> 
> It's really not loosely worded at all if you keep it all * in context* instead of cherry picking phrases from different sections


Now where in the world did you get an idea like that?
And more importantly, can I remind you that you said this, in the future?

:grin:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes it says that, but it's covering far more than the "name calling".
> 
> A "single instance" of turning someone down for a job or a promotion is far different than calling them something they don't like.
> 
> It's really not loosely worded at all if you keep it all * in context* instead of cherry picking phrases from different sections


It says what it says. I'm not cherry-picking, I'm quoting what the legislation says. As for context, I figure everyone can read it for themselves w/o me having to quote the entire piece for 'context'. 

So let's go over this again. This is what it says, emphasis mine:


> Under the NYCHRL, *gender-based harassment covers a broad range of conduct* and occurs
> generally when an individual is treated less well on account of their gender. While the
> severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is relevant to damages, the existence of
> differential treatment based on gender is sufficient under the NYCHRL to constitute
> ...


There's really no need to try to twist it as a means of explaining/justifying it. It's right there in black and white and cannot be construed any way other than what it says. 

Something else I'd like to know; how are these individuals going to be identified on their driver's licenses and can the DMV be fined for not identifying gender according to the individual's desires?

The whole thing is stupid. But I'd expect nothing less from de Blasio and NY liberals.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Often, the Government gets tasked to do thing we should, but cannot do ourselves.
> 
> 
> Are we still in the 4th Grade?
> ...


Can't speak for everyone, but, I would get upset, I may speak to the offender, or, parents of the offender, or, boss of the offender(of course, depending on the age of my child, at the time, I may let them fight their own battles) , but, I wouldn't try and use force of government to punish the offender.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> They may not be there to provide jobs, but they are an employer, and as such they must create a fair environment. There is absolutely no logical way to avoid the simple fact that if you hire a person, that person can not be subjected to bullying. They work there because they need to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. They do their job because that's the agreement. They should be treated fairly. Period. It isn't brain surgery, pal. This is really quite simple.
> 
> Yea. Lawsuit. Exactly. Do you think you're making a point? Because in order to be awarded anything in a civil lawsuit, there must be some kind of legal reason to file it. All NY is doing is making it clear that transgenderism is included on the list of things people cannot be bullied for. Again... This isn't brain surgery. Lawsuit. Good job.
> 
> ...


 Then why was this law passed? 

To prevail in a civil lawsuit, one must show damages. Calling "Sue" "Dave" doesn't rise to damages to a sane person.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> All that to try to say that "The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations" means something else?
> 
> :shrug:


It definitely indicates that there can be civil penalties up to $125K, but where is the wording that the first offense will generate a fine? All that very specific wording but they left out the part about no warnings. Odd, huh?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> But legislation works pretty well on bullying and harassment, which is what this is all about.


 Where does it stop? Are we going to have a government commission patrolling HT looking for name calling and using the name "Richard" no matter if that is their name, or, not? What should the fine be for that? 

I am reminded of a quote by Albert Jay Nock: 



> "In proportion as you give the state power to do things for you, you give it power to do things to you".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> It says what it says. I'm not cherry-picking, I'm quoting what the legislation says. As for context, I figure everyone can read it for themselves w/o me having to quote the entire piece for 'context'.
> 
> So let's go over this again. This is what it says, emphasis mine:
> There's really no need to try to twist it as a means of explaining/justifying it. It's right there in black and white and cannot be construed any way other than what it says.
> ...


The mayor of NYC at the time was Micheal Bloomburg, and he was republican. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Where does it stop? Are we going to have a government commission patrolling HT looking for name calling and using the name "Richard" no matter if that is their name, or, not? What should the fine be for that?
> 
> I am reminded of a quote by Albert Jay Nock:


My opinion? It stops when people can act like decent human beings and realize that just because someone isn't exactly like them doesn't make them "bad" it just makes them different.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The mayor of NYC at the time was Micheal Bloomburg, and he was republican. :facepalm:


 Well, for part of his tenure as mayor, he called himself a Republican, he now claims to be independent. I don't believe his "liberal" credit can be denied.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion? It stops when people can act like decent human beings and realize that just because someone isn't exactly like them doesn't make them "bad" it just makes them different.


 Who gets to decide what is a "Decent human being"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Well, for part of his tenure as mayor, he called himself a Republican, he now claims to be independent. I don't believe his "liberal" credit can be denied.


Was he elected _at that time_ as a republican?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Who gets to decide what is a "Decent human being"?


The "golden rule" - Treat others how you would like to be treated. Simple.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Was he elected _at that time_ as a republican?


 In NYC, it really doesn't count. It is obvious he was trying to ride the political coat tails of Giuliani. Nothing about the politics of ole Gun Grabbin Bloomberg screams "Republican".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The "golden rule" - Treat others how you would like to be treated. Simple.


 That is highly subjective. Some enjoy a good argument, some feel that arguing is akin to bullying. Shoot, judging by the S & M trade, some enjoy being degraded and humiliated. Some want to be left totally alone, other want a support system surrounding them. Again, who is correct, and how will it be legislated?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> In NYC, it really doesn't count. It is obvious he was trying to ride the political coat tails of Giuliani. Nothing about the politics of ole Gun Grabbin Bloomberg screams "Republican".


He was elected as a republican if you'll admit it or not. At the time of the law (2002) Micheal Bloomburg was mayor of NYC, not de Blasio, and he was a republican. You can try to spin it anyway you'd like but those are the facts, and the OP was absolutely wrong in her post.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The mayor of NYC at the time was Micheal Bloomburg, and he was republican. :facepalm:


I don't care what party he belonged to, Bloomberg is, was, and always will be a liberal.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> He was elected as a republican if you'll admit it or not. At the time of the law (2002) Micheal Bloomburg was mayor of NYC, not de Blasio, and he was a republican. You can try to spin it anyway you'd like but those are the facts, and the OP was absolutely wrong in her post.


 I have never denied that he was elected while calling himself a Republican.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That is highly subjective. Some enjoy a good argument, some feel that arguing is akin to bullying. Shoot, judging by the S & M trade, some enjoy being degraded and humiliated. Some want to be left totally alone, other want a support system surrounding them. Again, who is correct, and how will it be legislated?


That's my opinion, which you asked for by the way. 

If you'd like to argue about the law contact the NYC Commission on Human Rights. Tell them they are wrong, and try to get the law changed in a city and state you don't live in. Good luck, and may the force be with you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have two friends that are gonna get rich off this one. 
Dani (Daniel )a female and Sally (sallee) a male.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> The "golden rule" - Treat others how you would like to be treated. Simple.


Yeah, seems that doesn't happen in this forum. :whistlin:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's my opinion, which you asked for by the way.
> 
> If you'd like to argue about the law contact the NYC Commission on Human Rights. Tell them they are wrong, and try to get the law changed in a city and state you don't live in. Good luck, and may the force be with you.


 But you support legislating what constitutes a "decent human being". I simply wish to know which version of a decent human being do you advocate being forced, by government, on the rest of us.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> But you support legislating what constitutes a "decent human being". I simply wish to know which version of a decent human being do you advocate being forced, by government, on the rest of us.


I've told you as many times as I'm going to. Reread my posts if you're still confused. Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've told you as many times as I'm going to. Reread my posts if you're still confused. Have a wonderful day.


 
But, you haven't told me anything except you want the government to force a version of what it means to be a decent human being on us. You have not articulated which version should win.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It definitely indicates that there can be civil penalties up to $125K, but where is the wording that the first offense will generate a fine? All that very specific wording but they left out the part about no warnings. Odd, huh?


You are being obtuse.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> He was elected as a republican if you'll admit it or not. At the time of the law (2002) Micheal Bloomburg was mayor of NYC, not de Blasio, and he was a republican. You can try to spin it anyway you'd like but those are the facts, and the OP was absolutely wrong in her post.


Um... just out of curiosity, which "her" are you referring to? lol


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It definitely indicates that there can be civil penalties up to $125K, but where is the wording that the first offense will generate a fine? All that very specific wording but they left out the part about no warnings. Odd, huh?


It is odd that there is no explanation of the first offense punishment. But I do find this interesting.

Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination. 

Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> It says what it says. I'm not cherry-picking, I'm quoting what the legislation says. As for context, I figure everyone can read it for themselves w/o me having to quote the entire piece for 'context'.
> 
> So let's go over this again. This is what it says, emphasis mine:
> There's really no need to try to twist it as a means of explaining/justifying it. It's right there in black and white and cannot be construed any way other than what it says.
> ...


How did he pass a law in 2002?



> *The whole thing is stupid.*


On this we agree. 

The OP wants the right to call anyone anything, but is the first to get his panties in a wad at the least little perception of a slight towards him.

Also those complaining about "legislating morality" are many of the same ones who want to outlaw abortions, which is the same thing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> It is odd that there is no explanation of the first offense punishment. But I do find this interesting.
> 
> Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination.
> 
> Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior.


That is interesting, it also goes on to say: The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
&#8226;	
The severity of the particular violation;
&#8226;	
*The existence of previous or subsequent violations*;
&#8226;	
The employer&#8217;s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
&#8226;	
The employer&#8217;s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

Which, I think, makes it even more interesting.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How did he pass a law in 2002?
> 
> 
> On this we agree.
> ...


 Not even close. Those of us, who want abortions outlawed, are concerned with the lives of the unborn. Government is there to protect life. Laws that force people to "play nice" are insulting and unconstitutional IMO. Especially when there are already laws preventing harassment on the books.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is interesting, it also goes on to say: The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
> â¢
> The severity of the particular violation;
> â¢
> ...


Yeah, hopefully there is a more concise writing of the law or it could be shredded by a relatively skilled lawyer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Yeah, hopefully there is a more concise writing of the law or it could be shredded by a relatively skilled lawyer.


It hasn't in 13 years...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is interesting, it also goes on to say: The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
> â¢
> The severity of the particular violation;
> â¢
> ...





> The employerâs size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and


 How does this pass the Equal protection clause? Or, are we ignoring the Constitution? 

Plus the wording would seem to indicate that the amount of the fine is up to the commission. So, like most seemingly un-needed laws, this one would seem to be a way for members of the commission to line their pockets.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> Yeah, hopefully there is a more concise writing of the law or it could be shredded by a relatively skilled lawyer.


 
It likely hasn't been used yet. Just more pandering to activists and quiet pocket lining of government officials.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Not even close. Those of us, who want abortions outlawed, are *concerned with the lives of the unborn*. Government is there to protect life. Laws that force people to "play nice" are insulting and unconstitutional IMO. *Especially when there are already laws preventing harassment on the books.*


I really don't believe the "concerned for the lives" part since it's no one's business other than those directly involved. 

You still want the Govt to enforce *your views* and tell others what to do, which is what you also claim to be against.

This IS one of those laws preventing harassment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *It likely hasn't been used yet*. Just more pandering to activists and quiet pocket lining of government officials.


If it "hasn't been used" since 2002, why all the hysteria now?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Also those complaining about "legislating morality" are many of the same ones who want to outlaw abortions, which is the same thing.


Exactly my point. If it's OK to legislate 'decency', then it should be OK to legislate morality.

It's a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. :thumb:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It hasn't in 13 years...


Got to wonder how many times it was used and punishment applied?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Exactly my point. If it's OK to legislate 'decency', then it should be OK to legislate morality.
> 
> It's a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. :thumb:


Legislating "decency" is spin
Legislating against discrimination is the reality.

You don't have any "right" to insult or harass those with whom you disagree


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Exactly my point. If it's OK to legislate 'decency', then it should be OK to legislate morality.
> 
> It's a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. :thumb:


Actually, the the law is legislating against bullying, harassment, and discrimination. It was my opinion that it could be avoided simply by being a decent human being. 

It's the bigots that want to be able to call people who's lifestyles they don't agree with ugly names that are impacted by the law.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oops. Meant to start a new thread.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Actually, the the law is legislating against bullying, harassment, and discrimination. It was my opinion that it could be avoided simply by being a decent human being.
> 
> It's the bigots that want to be able to call people who's lifestyles they don't agree with ugly names that are impacted by the law.


That is false. Personally, I am against seatbelt laws, for adults, but I wear a seatbelt every time I get into a car.

I am against drug laws, but, have no intention, or, desire of ever taking currently illegal drugs. 

Impact of the law has little to do with my disapproval of the law.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I really don't believe the "concerned for the lives" part since it's no one's business other than those directly involved.
> 
> You still want the Govt to enforce *your views* and tell others what to do, which is what you also claim to be against.
> 
> This IS one of those laws preventing harassment.


 I want the government to protect life.

This is a redundant law that was likely enacted to line the pockets of government officials and appease activist groups.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it "hasn't been used" since 2002, why all the hysteria now?


 This is the first I have heard of this law and IMO it is a stupid and unconstitutional law that should be done away with.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Legislating "decency" is spin
> Legislating against discrimination is the reality.
> 
> You don't have any "right" to insult or harass those with whom you disagree


 You, most certainly do have the right to insult those with whom you disagree. Not harass, but, insult.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

no really said:


> This is one of those laws that someone thought would be helpful but will have some unintended consequences IMHO. I see employers avoiding hiring people who look the least bit transgender, the law as I read would be daunting for most businesses.



Who needs the hassle. It is better to bypass any drama by not hiring them. Also, it hurts any real acceptance they might find in a community because people are forced to accept them under threat rather then really accept them. People will only fear and resent them and not because they are different.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I live in NYC and it is getting worse and worse. We have always had a large gay community and cross dressers were common. We all use to live in our own little balance where you let people do whatever they want as long as it did not harm anyone else. Now though, The peace is slipping away.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

men are men and women are women and no amount of hormones or plastic surgery will change that. Truly intersexed people have a legitimate reason for a sex change but everyone else is just crazy. 

There are many legitimate mental illnesses that would make a person believe they are their opposite sex. I do not buy the argument that just because a small child makes such a claim that it proves that the tendency is natural and authentic. Children suffer from mental illness also. If the child is not intersexed then the kid needs a good shrink to sort him or her out.

The sad thing is that the majority of mainstream society will become delusional and neurotic themselves while trying to rationalize and conform to this insane logic.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> You, most certainly do have the right to insult those with whom you disagree. Not harass, but, insult.


You have the right to disagree with somebody. You do not have the right to insult those that you disagree with.

If you believe you have the right to insult those you disagree with then can you explain who it is that gave you the right to be insulting?

Do you believe that you give yourself the rights to do as you please? 

If you believe you have the right to insult someone you disagree with then do you also believe the person you insulted has the right to seek restitution and/or enact vengeance against you?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> You have the right to disagree with somebody. You do not have the right to insult those that you disagree with.
> 
> If you believe you have the right to insult those you disagree with then can you explain who it is that gave you the right to be insulting?
> 
> ...


A lot of wispy questions there that are quite empty of things to take hold of.

What standard rules out the act of insulting someone?

The premise of Freedom of Speech would seem to contain this "Right", can you provide an analysis that proves to a reasonable doubt that there is no "Right" to speak freely. [I understand the concept of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, please don't cop out with that]

"...do as you please?" - not going there, that has not been suggested and you have asked an amorphorus question.

"...has the right to seek restitution and/or enact vengeance against you?"

In a like manner? - Yes.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The perceived difficulty of dealing with this matter, just seem laughable, like we are worrying about communicating with Martians, who will melt us with ray-guns, if we say the wrong thing. 

it's pretty simple..

Bruce changes and now she is Kaitlyn.

Is it really that hard not to call her Bruce?



.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> The perceived difficulty of dealing with this matter, just seem laughable, like we are worrying about communicating with Martians, who will melt us with ray-guns, if we say the wrong thing.
> 
> it's pretty simple..
> 
> ...


For people who have known Bruce for years it may take a while to get used to it but one slip up and the company is fined. 

When I got married, I took my husband's last name but it took a while for people to get used to it. Since I wished to be called by my married name, under this law (if I lived in NYC) I could have cried harassment ... which, of course, would have been totally ridiculous. 

Have you (collective you) never slipped up and mispronounced someone's name or used the wrong name?


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

"Have you (collective you) never slipped up and mispronounced someone's name or used the wrong name?"


I think every parent has gone through the list of all their children's names, trying to get the right one......I have even been reduced to saying hey you....yeah you....in one of my finer mama moments!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FarmerKat said:


> For people who have known Bruce for years it may take a while to get used to it but one slip up and the company is fined.
> 
> When I got married, I took my husband's last name but it took a while for people to get used to it. Since I wished to be called by my married name, under this law (if I lived in NYC) I could have cried harassment ... which, of course, would have been totally ridiculous.
> 
> Have you (collective you) never slipped up and mispronounced someone's name or used the wrong name?



Well, one could conclude there is a little wiggle room for honest mistakes. People do make make them.

It seemed the regulation covered more blatant actions, as they usually do.


Yes, i have mispronounced names, but I'm pretty sure if I was looking at Kaitlyn, i don't think I be calling her Bruce.



> I could have cried harassment ... which, of course, would have been totally ridiculous.


Indeed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

roadless said:


> "Have you (collective you) never slipped up and mispronounced someone's name or used the wrong name?"
> 
> 
> I think every parent has gone through the list of all their children's names, trying to get the right one......I have even been reduced to saying hey you....yeah you....in one of my finer mama moments!


I've went through the dog's names when trying to come up with a kid's name too. It's hard to be stern when you're laughing and clutching your stomach.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> For people who have known Bruce for years it may take a while to get used to it but one slip up and the company is fined.
> 
> When I got married, I took my husband's last name but it took a while for people to get used to it. Since I wished to be called by my married name, under this law (if I lived in NYC) I could have cried harassment ... which, of course, would have been totally ridiculous.
> 
> Have you (collective you) never slipped up and mispronounced someone's name or used the wrong name?


It's a matter of intent.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a matter of intent.



So, all companies will have an Intent Investigation team on call?

I am sure that this will all be written up in an "Intent Handbook", no?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

This just keeps getting better and better... lol

Nanny State, here we come!!!!!


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> A lot of wispy questions there that are quite empty of things to take hold of.


Are you speaking on behalf of Farmerga? Did Farmerga give you the right to do that? If not then don't worry about whether or not you can take hold of what you think are wispy questions. My questions were directed at Farmerga so maybe you should just let Farmerga speak for himself. Maybe Farmerga is more capable than you are of getting a grasp on the questions.



Shine said:


> What standard rules out the act of insulting someone?
> 
> The premise of Freedom of Speech would seem to contain this "Right", can you provide an analysis that proves to a reasonable doubt that there is no "Right" to speak freely. [I understand the concept of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, please don't cop out with that]
> 
> ...


While I appreciate your convoluted attempt to address questions that I didn't ask you, in spite of your admitted inability to grasp them anyway, I'm sure you won't mind if I disregard your responses while I wait to see if the person they were actually asked of is able to answer them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> So, all companies will have an Intent Investigation team on call?
> 
> I am sure that this will all be written up in an "Intent Handbook", no?


The Intent Investigation Team you mention is called HR and it's all part of the job and IIT has to follow certain procedures before the world falls apart. 

Most issue can be handled by sitting down with each party or both together to work out a resolution if possible and if not, someone gets a formal letter requiring certain changes and an established date for reevaluation. 

Obviously, a work environment that allows harassment and verbal abuse of employees is neither productive or conducive to maintaining a company's most valuable assets so it's in nobody's best interest to allow such behavior.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> You have the right to disagree with somebody. You do not have the right to insult those that you disagree with.
> 
> If you believe you have the right to insult those you disagree with then can you explain who it is that gave you the right to be insulting?
> 
> ...


 Of course you have the right to insult someone. It is inborn in us. We do not have the right of not being insulted. 

Where do you get the idea that we have a right not to be insulted? For some, the very act of disagreeing is insulting. 

Again the right is inborn in us. 

People are free to try an insult me at will. (I won't even go crying to government thugs to fight my battles.) All I can tell them is good luck with that, in order for one to insult me, I must care what they think.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> Are you speaking on behalf of Farmerga? Did Farmerga give you the right to do that? If not then don't worry about whether or not you can take hold of what you think are wispy questions. My questions were directed at Farmerga so maybe you should just let Farmerga speak for himself. *Maybe Farmerga is more capable than you are of getting a grasp on the questions*.


 Who gave you the right to insult Shine? Would you like to pay your fine in cash or certified check? :nono:

You seem to be confused as to the nature of a right. Rights are not given by man, they are inborn in us all. They can only be restricted by man, not given. Privileges are given.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well now, Fennick is mighty offended that I replied to his post. How about that. Upset to the point that he uses insults to try and belittle another poster, kind of like bullying. Maybe they are right, there should be a "law". People just cannot be decent to each other. lol

Fennick, do you like being able to do that? Should it be within your "rights" to speak in such a fashion or should you be fined for that kind of talk?

He thinks that I am having problems understanding the concept... lol


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> Of course you have the right to insult someone. It is inborn in us. We do not have the right of not being insulted.
> 
> *Where do you get the idea that we have a right not to be insulted?* For some, the very act of disagreeing is insulting.
> 
> ...


Where did you get the idea that I said that, or even thought it? I did not say anyone has a right to not be insulted. Any fool knows that's not possible.

I said you do not have a right to insult someone. I asked you who you think gave you the right to be insulting?

There are no rights of any kind, anywhere, that are inborn. Where did you get the idea that there is any such thing as inborn rights? That is nonsense. 

And don't try to tell me that people have God given rights of any kind because that whole "God given rights" crap that people like to fall back on is a myth that people have made up to excuse themselves from taking personal responsibilty for their own bad behaviour. There is no such thing as God given rights either. Not for anyone.

Never mind trying to answer, clearly you are unable to answer the question and you know just as well as I do that nobody has a right to be insulting and nobody is in a position to give anyone such a right. People just do it because they enjoy doing it and they use that whole "rights" and "freedom of speech" garbage as their excuse for bad behaviour.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Any fool knows that's not possible. Insinuating that the poster is a fool?
> 
> Never mind trying to answer, clearly you are unable to answer the questionNow the person is "Clearly unable to answer the question...
> 
> ...


So, let's see, you in favor of only polite speech? You would have some nebulous body define what is or is not proper to speak among each another? Are you in favor of Free Speech or not? If so, it was enumerated in a document that calls it a "God given Right, not to be denied by the government" - unless, of course, you do not agree with that document either...

Please, do tell....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, let's see, you in favor of only polite speech? You would have some nebulous body define what is or is not proper to speak among each another? Are you in favor of Free Speech or not? If so, it was enumerated in a document that calls it a "God given Right, not to be denied by the government" - unless, of course, you do not agree with that document either...
> 
> Please, do tell....


A lot of wispy questions there that are quite empty of things to take hold of.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Fennick said:


> Where did you get the idea that I said that, or even thought it? I did not say anyone has a right to not be insulted. Any fool knows that's not possible.
> 
> I said you do not have a right to insult someone. I asked you who you think gave you the right to be insulting?
> 
> ...


:umno:

Putting aside the assertion that, *"There is no such thing as God given rights either. Not for anyone."*
(That one is a non starter)

Let me ask you this.
If no one has a "right to be insulting", how is it possible for it to ever happen?
Is there some national or global law that was passed that covers this nullified "right"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Let me ask you this.
> If no one has a "right to be insulting", how is it possible for it to ever happen?


That's pretty ridiculous


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty ridiculous


I gotta agree with you on that one. It still looked that way to me, even after I quoted it, and read it twice back to myself.:shrug:

I wasn't even gonna _attempt_ to explain God given rights.....:nono:.....he wasn't gonna hear it.....:nono:


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> If no one has a "right to be insulting", how is it possible for it to ever happen?
> Is there some national or global law that was passed that covers this nullified "right"?


If no one has a right to be born with pores in their skin how is it possible for it to ever happen?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, there are national and global laws that cover granted or nullified rights. The following website will explain some of that for you. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/


Rights is just another word for entitlements. All entitlements are things that are granted or taken away by recognized higher authorities on earth who have the power to give or take away those entitlements. 

If you have a right to be insulting then who is the higher authority that made it a right and then granted you that right? And why have you been granted that right?

It is not a hard question to answer.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A lot of wispy questions there that are quite empty of things to take hold of.


You've got to be kidding me, an elementary school trick or something?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Free Speech covers being insulting - show me how it does not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fennick, you accuse me of not answering your questions posed directly towards me. Will you now punish yourself for the same failings?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States

Read that. Be sure to take note of the common law exceptions to abridgement of speech.

Oh, what the heck. Read this whole thing. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I think you both are talking about different types of rights. There are legal rights and natural rights. Ie, the right to life is natural but the right to vote is legal. I don't think the right to harass is a natural right. 

That being said I still think the law is ridiculous anyway. Like PlowJockey or someone else said, their kids act better than we did when we were kids or something of that nature. Wouldn't that mean we are evolving into a better society and have no need for such laws anymore?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Fennick said:


> If no one has a right to be born with pores in their skin how is it possible for it to ever happen?


~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like we must have that right.
I got pores, how about you?
:thumb:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Fennick said:


> Yes, there are national and global laws that cover granted or nullified rights. The following website will explain some of that for you. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
> 
> 
> Rights is just another word for entitlements. All entitlements are things that are granted or taken away by recognized higher authorities on earth who have the power to give or take away those entitlements.
> ...




Nope, not hard at all. I found it at #5, from your link.........

*5. Rights and Reasons
5.1 Rights as Trumps
Though there are disputes over the function of rights and the history of rights language, most agree that rights have special normative force. The reasons that rights provide are particularly powerful or weighty reasons, which override reasons of other sorts. Dworkin's metaphor is of rights as &#8220;trumps&#8221; (Dworkin 1984). Rights permit their holders to act in certain ways, or give reasons to treat their holders in certain ways or permit their holders to act in certain ways, even if some social aim would be served by doing otherwise. As Mill wrote of the trumping power of the right to free expression: &#8220;If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind&#8221; (Mill 1859, 20).

How rights become imbued with this special normative force is a matter of ongoing scholarly inquiry. As Sreenivasan (2010) notes, a Hohfeldian claim-right in itself only entails the existence of a duty with a certain structure, and not a duty with a certain force. A has a claim against B if and only if B has a duty to A: in this definition it is the &#8220;direction&#8221; of B's duty (that it is owed to A) which correlates B's duty to A's right; nothing is said in the definition about the duty's strength. Why &#8220;directed duties&#8221;&#8212;as above, those owed to an entity&#8212;have greater normative priority remains an open question: the only broad consensus is that they do. (See Thompson 2004 on &#8220;bipolar&#8221; judgments.)*



I was expecting maybe, a list of U.N. sanctions against insults or something like that, but I read the link anyway. This might be what you were looking for, #7 in your link......

*7.1 Critiques of Rights Doctrine
Marx attacked the substance of the revolutionary eighteenth century American and French political documents that proclaimed the fundamental &#8220;rights of man&#8221;: liberty, equality, security, property, and the free exercise of religion. Marx objected that these alleged rights derive from a false conception of the human individual as unrelated to others, as having interests can be defined without reference to others, and as always potentially in conflict with others. The rights-bearing individual is an &#8220;isolated monad&#8230; withdrawn behind his private interests and whims and separated from the community.&#8221; (Marx 1844, 146)

The right of property, Marx asserted, exemplifies the isolating and anti-social character of these alleged rights of man. On the one hand, the right of property is the right to keep others at a distance: the legal equivalent of a barbed wire fence. On the other hand, the right of property allows an owner to transfer his resources at his own pleasure and for his own gain, without regard even for the desperate need for those resources elsewhere.

Similarly, Marx held that the much-celebrated individual right to liberty reinforces selfishness. Those who are ascribed the right to do what they wish so long as they do not hurt others will perpetuate a culture of egoistic obsession. As for equality, the achievement of equal rights in a liberal state merely distracts people from noticing that their equality is purely formal: a society with formally equal rights will continue to be divided by huge inequalities in economic and political power. Finally, these so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; rights are in fact not natural to humans at all. They are simply the defining elements of the rules of the modern mode of production, perfectly suited to fit each individual into the capitalist machine.*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Farmer Brown posted a quote that said: 

"*Those who are ascribed the right to do what they wish so long as they do not hurt others will perpetuate a culture of egoistic obsession." 

*IF one would read just this thread without any foreknowledge of any of us, they might be compelled to agree with this statement and possibly be able to identify the players.


----------



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

Hello citizen. I have no opinion. Good day citizen.
(allowed speech)


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

So what this law says is that I can be fined $250,000 for going to New York City, showing someone a picture of a Beagle puppy and saying "This is Bruce Jenners cat"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> So what this law says is that I can be fined $250,000 for going to New York City, showing someone a picture of a Beagle puppy and saying "This is Bruce Jenners cat"?


No, not at all. I imagine people would look at you funny, and perhaps give you a lot of space tho.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, not at all. I imagine people would look at you funny, and perhaps give you a lot of space tho.


Yeah, like that's never happened before.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol .


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> Where did you get the idea that I said that, or even thought it? I did not say anyone has a right to not be insulted. Any fool knows that's not possible.
> 
> I said you do not have a right to insult someone. I asked you who you think gave you the right to be insulting?
> 
> ...


 
Again, since you don't have the right to insult others, how do you want to pay your fine? Cash or certified check.

There are natural rights the concept is centuries old. That fact is not nullified because you don't like/understand it. 

Rights CANNOT be given, they can only be infringed upon. Again, you confuse rights with privileges. I have the right to speak freely, that is a natural right based on my humanity. I enjoy the privilege of driving. That can be licensed and regulated by government.


----------

