Politics California To Have Harsher Penalty For Pronoun Violations Than For Knowingly Spreading HIV

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Hahahaha. Oh fuck that would be funny. Maybe spill some water on yourself and scream I'm MELTING!!!!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Well if they are a medical professional I'm sure a criminal conviction will hurt future employment opportunities.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they'll figure out the loopholes. They're always there.
 
You say 'fuck 'em'? Fune. Fuck you. FUCK YOU. Education is torture? Changing minds is torture?! FUCK OFF. I'm done again.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
You say 'fuck 'em'? Fune. Fuck you. FUCK YOU. Education is torture? Changing minds is torture?! FUCK OFF. I'm done again.
Click to expand...

I say be proud of who you are and that's all that matters.
 
So the HIV thing is a completely different issue, not at all related to the gender topic, and on that issue I think that 6 months isn't nearly enough of a punishment for someone willfully exposing someone to a potentially deadly disease. That's ridiculous. I'm not sure how to quantify what kind of punishment would fit that crime, but 6 months is not enough. Kinda reminds me of someone who falsely accuses someone of rape and gets that person sent to prison for 10+ years, finally confesses and only gets 12 months of probation or something like that. The punishment doesn't nearly fit the crime.

In regards to that new bill to protect LGBTQ seniors, it sounds like they're trying to make sure that seniors are receiving the medical care that they need, and are not being mistreated because of their LGBTQ status. I would hope that in some situations, if someone was found guilty they would be terminated from the position, but if negligence was found and lives were put at risk, that person should absolutely face charges.
 
Denny Crane said:
There you go.
Click to expand...

999999-6845914617.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
I say be proud of who you are and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fuck having a healthy relationship with your family, friends, and community. Fuck trying to educate those around you about the variety of life. Fuck trying to foster a sense of community that includes your identity. Just withdraw from everyone instead of communicating, and live the baddass libertarian lifestyle of your dreams, where you are invisible and don't make anyone else uncomfortable. It's a win-win!
 
hoojacks said:
Yeah, fuck having a healthy relationship with your family, friends, and community. Fuck trying to educate those around you about the variety of life. Fuck trying to foster a sense of community that includes your identity. Just withdraw from everyone instead of communicating, and live the baddass libertarian lifestyle of your dreams, where you are invisible and don't make anyone else uncomfortable. It's a win-win!
Click to expand...

Fuck them if they refuse to accept you.

Get it?

Why should you try to please them at terrible cost?
 
Denny Crane said:
Fuck them if they refuse to accept you.

Get it?

Why should you try to please them at terrible cost?
Click to expand...

I think you're latching on to the smallest part of that law. Most of it has to do with someone using their power to deny entrance or transferring or basically abusing someone in an assisted living for seniors. Do you think someone working at an assisted living facility should be able to use their position to abuse seniors because they don't like their sexual orientation, or their race, or their religion or whatever? Do you think seniors can stand up for themselves in a situation like that?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think you're latching on to the smallest part of that law. Most of it has to do with someone using their power to deny entrance or transferring or basically abusing someone in an assisted living for seniors. Do you think someone working at an assisted living facility should be able to use their position to abuse seniors because they don't like their sexual orientation, or their race, or their religion or whatever? Do you think seniors can stand up for themselves in a situation like that?
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Why the fuck is everyone acting like this is about using the wrong pronoun? Though it's fucked up to willfully call a trans person the wrong pronoun, this isn't a sweeping law for society.

It's clearly about employees in assisted living for the elderly abusing their patients.

B 219 strengthens protections for LGBTQ seniors living in long-term care facilities against discrimination

This is about protecting people who can't protect themselves from the people who are supposed to be taking care of them.
 
I went into business with a fellow. Shortly after we got started, he told me he was born a man but is really a woman. It didn't phase me in the least. We were partners for several years. We hired several trans people and promoted them and gave them regular raises and so on. We let them use the bathroom of their choice and nobody seemed to care. I gave my executive assistant time off to have THE surgery, and she had her job when she was ready to come back. I danced with her at company parties. This was in the '90s, before it was hip to do these sorts of things.

That's how it's done. No law they passed could have forced us to hire and treat our employees as we did or make me dance with a trans woman.

A generation later, these friends of mine are setting examples for everyone else. They've accomplished a great deal in their careers, in spite of what other people might think.

There's no point in a law about pronoun usage. It's just downright silly and dangerous. It almost certainly violates the 1st amendment (free speech) if not all sorts of individual liberties provisions.

However, if a person wants to sue or even bring up a class action suit, that's how you address that kind of grievance.

Government can make all the rules it wants regarding its operations and employees. We all have a say in that (we elect people who enact our favored policies).
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think you're latching on to the smallest part of that law. Most of it has to do with someone using their power to deny entrance or transferring or basically abusing someone in an assisted living for seniors. Do you think someone working at an assisted living facility should be able to use their position to abuse seniors because they don't like their sexual orientation, or their race, or their religion or whatever? Do you think seniors can stand up for themselves in a situation like that?
Click to expand...

Existing laws cover LGBT descrimination.

Discrimination at assisted living facilities would be a violation of the fair housing act and the existing California State "California Fair Employment and Housing Act."


upload_2017-10-11_15-17-49.png


https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/transgender-people-and-law

upload_2017-10-11_15-19-36.png
 
Denny Crane said:
See my post after yours.

How do you explain away the penalties for wrong pronouns?
Click to expand...

Do you think an employee verbally abusing a senior in assisted care facility is something that could be grounds for criminal prosecution?

Let me rephrase, what would you want to happen to someone that called a black senior in an assisted care facility a n****r?
 
Natebishop3 said:
Do you think an employee verbally abusing a senior in assisted care facility is something that could be grounds for criminal prosecution?

Let me rephrase, what would you want to happen to someone that called a black senior in an assisted care facility a n****r?
Click to expand...

No. I think it's a civil issue. Sue the bastards into oblivion.

If you can make the case that pronouns somehow mean discrimination in terms of care, you'll win.
 
"I lost my father recently."

"Fuck 'em! I'm going to argue with you on things I care nothing about and know nothing about until you leave!"
 
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219

Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top