Gender identity is more than "a way of dressing". I think the specifics of each class needs to be handled individually, but I wouldn't go in for making some classes more protected than others. Agreed. On the other hand, patronizing a public bar doesn't strike me as one of the tricky scenarios. Use of bathrooms/showers is about the only place where it gets tricky. And then only in cases where the bathroom/shower is a semi-open shared facility. Plenty of places have unisex bathrooms.
Well, dont you think that correcting the hormonal imbalances would be the first step before you go cutting of your genitalia? In case you havent noticed, dudes with mutilated genitalia, dont really function in society..... Personally, I think its cause their nuts, no pun intended.... Furthermore, I dont believe obama would let his daughters minds get warped, by showering with them......
Reminds me of a local business that was fined and forced to install handicapped ramps and bathrooms. It was an editing business who in 20yrs NEVER had a client that needed that sort of access. He had to use one of 4 parking spaces as a handicapped space for customers who don't exist. There wasn't really even room to install a ramp without pulling out trees. It was a tiny office and the small bathroom had to be expanded into the editing room just to make space. This all came when there was a complaint, NOT from a potential client, but a random passer by who reported it. The owner had no clue. It was cheaper for him to relocate than do the work. Its THAT kind of crap which makes you doubt the sincerity of "discrimination".
Then someone didn't understand the law. For instance, with only four parking spaces, the only requirement is that at least one of them be "van-accessible". It does not have to be marked as "handicapped-only" or reserved for handicapped people; it just has to be wide enough so that someone with a wheelchair lift can park there. Most of the other rules have a "reasonable cost and effort" standard, and allow for workarounds. For instance, if it's not economically feasible to make his office and bathroom handicapped-accessible, he could either have pleaded excessive cost or proposed an alternative -- for instance, meeting with a handicapped client offsite. So if your story is actually true, it represents a misapplication of the ADA law.
I've often thought that protecting religion on the same level as gender and race was silly. Race and gender are things you're born with, whereas religion is a choice. Bathrooms were what I was thinking of, but yeah, a lot of other applications wouldn't be that difficult to accommodate. - - - Updated - - - It depends on the situation. Some people have a brain that is a different "gender" than the one their body is designed for. In those cases, hormone treatments alone wouldn't rectify things.
True, religion is clearly a choice (which btw undercuts all the people who oppose protection for sexual orientation by claiming it's a choice). But it's not a choice that should have any bearing on where one can live, eat, work, etc., which is really the basis for anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately, religion has a long history of being used precisely that way. As such, it's as deserving of protection just as much as more immutable characteristics such as race.
And by that logic, why not tell people who complain of gender discrimination to get gender-reassignment surgery if they're unhappy about it? The fact that something *can* be remedied doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect an individual to take that step -- especially when the problem isn't the individual, but some people's reactions to that individual.
Here's where I think a lot of people worry about the future of anti-discrimination laws. Where does it stop? So far, we've included things that are understandable in many contexts -- with the most recent one being sexual orientation, but it seems that there may be another one coming soon -- obesity. A lot of people have complained that exceptionally overweight people are discriminated against in certain things. When it comes to medical conditions, one could view that sort of obesity as a physical handicap, but what about people who reach that state through neglect? I guess what I'm saying is... where do we say discrimination is acceptable? Clearly, we have to discriminate when looking at potential hires, for example. Employers definitely discriminate against candidates with less experience or less education. Sometimes, they'll do the same regarding health (physical or mental). There is also discrimination regarding age. - - - Updated - - - Well, if said reactions have a monetary effect, then a business should be able to do something about it in order to follow their own self interest.
Agreed. That's why the list of protected classes should be short and meaningful, and address widespread real-world discrimination problems, rather than becoming a "flavor of the month" sort of thing. That's easy to say, of course. The question of "where does it stop" is a tough one, no doubt. By blaming the victim? Remember, the transgender folks weren't causing any trouble. Why should they be the ones to be punished? It's similar to the argument that was once used to keep gays out of the military. The claim was that it would cause trouble because there were a lot homophobes in the military. But if that's the case, shouldn't any response address the actual cause of the problem -- the homophobes -- instead of punishing gay would-be soldiers? I'd like to think there was room for an adult discussion between the bar owner and the LGBT group that might have ended in an agreement that addressed everyone's concerns. Maybe he could give them a reserved section of the bar and some special consideration for their regular patronage. They get to use the bar in a way that doesn't seriously impact other patrons, and it's done in a way that doesn't treat them like second-class citizens. Instead we appear to have a bar owner whose first impulse was to ban them from his establishment, and a group that decided to sue rather than talk. Though that's an assumption: we don't know if the bar owner tried talking to them first, or if the LGBT group tried talking before suing.
I agree for the most part. Although I would argue that the military is a government entity and therefore should be held to a higher standard than a private establishment.
We know why he was fined. The central government is infringing on his private property rights. The rule of law is overruled by petty emotional concerns in this country.
Of course it's "acceptable". Everyone does it, including you. I guess only racists have to worry about private property rights being eroded under the pretext of "equality"...
You were ASSERTING a "protected class" without actually explaining WHY we should accept that some "classes" of people are entitled to more "protection" than others. Under the law, we are all equal, so nobody is entitled to be part of some legally constructed "protected class". We are ALL a "protected class" under the law.
Oh BS. Skin color, female, Jewish isn't a valid comparison, how about we use gang member, hooker, cowboy, skin head, or something else that's a real choice instead.
My, you must have lived a sheltered life. If you go to most nations in the world except English speaking ones and ask where the "men's room" is, they look at you funny. You see, bathrooms have these things called "stalls" where they use an arrangement of these things called "walls" and a "door" to ensure your privacy I doubt very much that the bar owner could document he was losing business because of the cross-dressers. Maybe he should have stopped watering his drinks or taken down the Klan posters. If you run a bar you are obligated by law to serve the PUBLIC. If you don't want to serve the public you should find another business.
It depends on the cultural context. When anti-discrimination laws were first put into place, we didn't have much choice other than to have government get involved. Now that a lot of time has passed since the end of segregation, there's more of an argument for ending said intervention, but at least initially, it made sense.
Why? I believe there was a choice and that we should have erred on the side of private property rights. The "desegregation" of the public sphere was legitimate because theoretically it belongs to everyone. A private business, however, does not belong anyone except the rightful owner of the business. We may find his private exercise of racial discrimination to be offensive or distasteful, but that does not empower us to infringe upon his private property rights and his rights of association. The most important time to stand up for rights is when someone unpopular or controversial is being attacked. What about the segregation in Northern cities like Chicago? It's every bit as worse as it was in the south during Jim Crow.
Next time make the bar a private business. Patrons pay an dollar to enter. Next time they ask someone to leave there is nothing they can do.
if a white man enters a traditionally black bar, and if that white man makes the black people in that bar fell "uncomfortable," should they be able to kick the white man out under current moral/legal law ?
Yes of course . Minorities need special privilege. White people are not a protected class , unless they choose to be .
If we had only banned governmental segregation, how long do you think it would've taken to end segregation among businesses?
This is obviously a ridiculous fine. It violates the seventh and eighth amendments of the constitution and will be thrown out in court. The bar owner may be fined $400 but the amount stated is clearly destructive of his livelihood. Not acceptable except under mob rule. And no I don't believe the US has gotten to that. You right wing CIA shills will have to work harder.
