[QUOTE=geel9;50007622]It doesn't just affect the business, it affects the individual being discriminated against. Say there's one abortion clinic in a fifty mile radius, and they refuse service to blacks. As a result, blacks are forced into poverty at a much higher rate because they have more children they can't afford. Congrats, you fucked over an entire race in an area because "business rights"[/QUOTE]
The problem is that right now it is ok to discriminate for other reasons. Either everyone gets to choose who they deal business with or no one does.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50007534]His argument is based on an entirely imaginary scenario. He didn't back it with any evidence, not even anecdotal evidence.
What the hell do I have to address?[/QUOTE]
Technically, all laws are based off of "imaginary scenarios" in crimes.
we are currently arguing the likelihood of discrimination
in a thread about elected officials, that thousands voted for in support of their ideas, introducing laws designed to bring about the discrimination against LGBT people
how can you possibly argue that it wouldn't be a problem
this is absolutely asinine
[QUOTE=geel9;50007622]It doesn't just affect the business, it affects the individual being discriminated against. Say there's one abortion clinic in a fifty mile radius, and they refuse service to blacks. As a result, blacks are forced into poverty at a much higher rate because they have more children they can't afford. Congrats, you fucked over an entire race in an area because "business rights"[/QUOTE]
Okay, so, my issue with this is that the problem then isn't just discrimination-- it's that, one, abortion clinics are being treated as businesses with the rights of businesses, when such a necessary and even life-saving service shouldn't ever be treated as a fucking business, and that two, a city only has one abortion clinic in a fifty mile radius, which is a very, very serious problem in planning. I do note that there are quite a few places where such a situation exists, and I absolutely advocate for the direction of funds towards the building of these clinics in these areas.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50007743]Technically, all laws are based off of "imaginary scenarios" in crimes.[/QUOTE]
Well, no, murder, for an example, isn't based off of "hypothetical scenarios", because murder is a constant even in the earliest civilizations and forms a massive part of the various mythologies that define cultures both ancient and modern as something to be considered as wrong, sin, or whatever particular term is used for "perceived as incorrect". You'd have more of a point if your argument was that laws were based off of the perspectives of those in power-- which is absolutely true--, but that's quite clearly not what you're pointing out.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bitches;50007809]we are currently arguing the likelihood of discrimination
in a thread about elected officials, that thousands voted for in support of their ideas, introducing laws designed to bring about the discrimination against LGBT people
how can you possibly argue that it wouldn't be a problem
this is absolutely asinine[/QUOTE]
The scenarios you're comparing are not alike; I imagine you were referring to my "likelihood of all businesses becoming anti-x" situation as an example, which I find to be rather different and infinitely less possible than the much easier act of passing a discriminatory bill in Backwoods Shitcan, USA.
[QUOTE=shotgun334;50008140]
Well, no, murder, for an example, isn't based off of "hypothetical scenarios", because murder is a constant even in the earliest civilizations and forms a massive part of the various mythologies that define cultures both ancient and modern as something to be considered as wrong, sin, or whatever particular term is used for "perceived as incorrect". You'd have more of a point if your argument was that laws were based off of the perspectives of those in power-- which is absolutely true--, but that's quite clearly not what you're pointing out.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
[/QUOTE]
What? How is "murder a constant"? Laws are based off of hypothetical scenarios because they determine punishments for crimes that have not occurred yet. They're meant to discourage people from committing them. Even if nobody ever commit murder, I can assure you that the law would still be in place as the hypothetical scenario of someone committing murder is worthy of punishment.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50008162]What? How is "murder a constant"? Laws are based off of hypothetical scenarios because they determine punishments for crimes that have not occurred yet. They're meant to discourage people from committing them. Even if nobody ever commit murder, I can assure you that the law would still be in place as the hypothetical scenario of someone committing murder is worthy of punishment.[/QUOTE]
What? There are SO MANY laws directly based on the fact that someone did something and there wasn't a law to cover it. Have you been paying the slightest attention to the tons of kneejerk response laws that get passed?
[QUOTE=Levelog;50008189]What? There are SO MANY laws directly based on the fact that someone did something and there wasn't a law to cover it. Have you been paying the slightest attention to the tons of kneejerk response laws that get passed?[/QUOTE]
Laws can be instated as a result of a previously unaccounted for offense, but the reason that they're instated is to prevent and account for further offenses of the same nature in the future that havent occurred yet.
If nobody committed murder, then, one could assume, there would either be no motivation for murder or no concept of murdering someone in response to said motive. Therefore, there would be no hypothetical, because the human mind would not have the proper understanding to conceptualize murder in the first place.
[QUOTE=shotgun334;50008222]If nobody committed murder, then, one could assume, there would either be no motivation for murder or no concept of murdering someone in response to said motive. Therefore, there would be no hypothetical, because the human mind would not have the proper understanding to conceptualize murder in the first place.[/QUOTE]
But consider a country or civilization that is created after murder has occurred in other civilizations. Do they instate a law against the hypothetical crime of murder that has not yet occurred in said civilization, or do they wait for the first murder to happen to instate it in a reactionary fashion? There is a first for everything.
If crimes can be conceptualized before they are committed, in my eyes it would be wise to create laws against them before they occur.
Why exactly do you continue to refer to "misgendering" as a crime? If it's a matter of constant abuse then ok that falls under harassment. But to make a law against something that can be an honest mistake is unreasonable and abuse able.
In fact harassment already has similar problems as to what is considered harassment by law.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50008245]But consider a country or civilization that is created after murder has occurred in other civilizations. Do they instate a law against the hypothetical crime of murder that has not yet occurred in said civilization, or do they wait for the first murder to happen to instate it in a reactionary fashion? There is a first for everything.
If crimes can be conceptualized before they are committed, in my eyes it would be wise to create laws against them before they occur.[/QUOTE]
Unless said second civilization has pre-built knowledge of murder or knows of the civilizations before it, then they can't conceptualize murder yet.
[QUOTE=shotgun334;50008311]Unless said second civilization has pre-built knowledge of murder or knows of the civilizations before it, then they can't conceptualize murder yet.[/QUOTE]
This is very quickly becoming an overly-philosophical discussion that's exceeding the original premises. Upon further investigation the claims of the extent to which misgendering is a crime has been greatly exaggerated and I'm still not certain if it's an actual felony or not, I was foolish for venturing into this conversation without a source for these claims.
From what I've been finding upon further research is that the intensity of the punishment and what constitutes actually receiving that punishment has been greatly sensationalized by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart, "rightwingnews.com", and "redstate.com". Seriously, just try to look up info on misgendering punishments in New York and youll be flooded with it.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=mooman1080;50008296][B]Why exactly do you continue to refer to "misgendering" as a crime?[/B] If it's a matter of constant abuse then ok that falls under harassment. But to make a law against something that can be an honest mistake is unreasonable and abuse able.
In fact harassment already has similar problems as to what is considered harassment by law.[/QUOTE]
Because it is one under current guidelines as far as I can tell. It's actually been punishable by law since 2002 and the New York City council's Transgender Rights bill, but new guidelines were released in December of 2015 regarding it, including more explicit examples of violations, such as-
[QUOTE]
-Intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman ‘him’ or ‘Mr’ when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title.
-Refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender identity. For example, barring a transgender woman from a women’s restroom out of concern that she will make others uncomfortable.
-Enforcing dress codes, uniforms, and grooming standards that impose different requirements based on sex or gender. For example, enforcing a policy that requires men to wear ties or women to wear skirts.
-Failing to providing employee health benefits that cover gender-affirming care or failing to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals undergoing gender transition, including medical appointments and recovery, where such reasonable accommodations are provided to other employees.[/QUOTE]
Really nothing unreasonable. Given GravyKing's (the person who started this affair in the first place) post history we should've taken what he said with a grain of salt anyway, it's clear that he's hardly an example of an unbiased source of information.
Okay, so, that is perfectly understandable, although hopefully the clause on "failing to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title" only applies to businesses and employers and not to the general population (the language with which the law is written with those last three seems to imply such)
I'm of the opinion that a business should be able to deny service to anyone on any grounds. Of course, institutions like hospitals shouldn't be allowed to, but most businesses should. Anti-discrimination legislation is pointless, too, because the shopkeeper can just turn customers away on other grounds.
[QUOTE]Constant misgendering, especially in public in front of other people, is a form of emotional abuse and goes beyond merely being "rude." And that doesn't factor in that possibly being misgendered in front of friends/relatives (or possibly strangers) one isn't out to could possibly result in violence towards said trans person, so yeah slap a felony charge on the douche harassing and possibly endangering the life of a trans person just trying to live their life peacefully. [/QUOTE]
It's stupid that anything short of a plausible threat should be a felony. The law shouldn't serve to protect your feelings, no matter how intense the insult may be.
Ultimately, the government shouldn't try to force social change. That breeds resentment in the best case scenario and in the worst case scenario can cause serious unrest. The advent of mass media means that it's out of the government's hands.
[QUOTE=Moronic;50008520]I'm of the opinion that a business should be able to deny service to anyone on any grounds. Of course, institutions like hospitals shouldn't be allowed to, but most businesses should. [B]Anti-discrimination legislation is pointless, too, because the shopkeeper can just turn customers away on other grounds.[/B][/QUOTE]You say that like it's impossible to determine if someone is disingenuous with their reason of denying service. If you turn away all the black customers because they're "causing trouble" or some other bullshit excuse, I think people would catch on pretty quick.
Also no, you shouldn't be able to because that's fucking bullshit. A business has no fucking right to deny service to a person for discriminatory reasons, or any reason at all really, as long as they're not causing a disturbance or something of the like. There are still areas in the United States that are very racist/discriminatory. I absolutely guarantee there would be whole small towns that would refuse to offer services to most races other than white, and some areas that would refuse to service whites.
And on top of that, I believe it would just stir racial tensions. Ultimately benefiting no one but bigoted business people.
[quote]It's stupid that anything short of a plausible threat should be a felony. The law shouldn't serve to protect your feelings, no matter how intense the insult may be.
Ultimately, the government shouldn't try to force social change. That breeds resentment in the best case scenario and in the worst case scenario can cause serious unrest. The advent of mass media means that it's out of the government's hands.[/QUOTE]Ok so if I tell you to kill yourself every single day, then there should be nothing that can be done about it? Like what could you even do, if you kicked my ass, then you'd be the one in trouble. What kind of shit is that. It is in the interest of the law and government to protect their civilians, that doesn't [B]just[/B] include physical harm. Like obviously it's not the laws job to take care of some petty drama but I don't see any issue with trying to protect a vulnerable group of people from intentional abuse.
"gotta be NC"
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;50009377]"gotta be NC"[/QUOTE]
I sure do love my state
[QUOTE=Hervey;50008965]You say that like it's impossible to determine if someone is disingenuous with their reason of denying service. If you turn away all the black customers because they're "causing trouble" or some other bullshit excuse, I think people would catch on pretty quick.
Also no, you shouldn't be able to because that's fucking bullshit. A business has no fucking right to deny service to a person for discriminatory reasons, or any reason at all really, as long as they're not causing a disturbance or something of the like. There are still areas in the United States that are very racist/discriminatory. I absolutely guarantee there would be whole small towns that would refuse to offer services to most races other than white, and some areas that would refuse to service whites.
And on top of that, I believe it would just stir racial tensions. Ultimately benefiting no one but bigoted business people.
Ok so if I tell you to kill yourself every single day, then there should be nothing that can be done about it? Like what could you even do, if you kicked my ass, then you'd be the one in trouble. What kind of shit is that. It is in the interest of the law and government to protect their civilians, that doesn't [B]just[/B] include physical harm. Like obviously it's not the laws job to take care of some petty drama but I don't see any issue with trying to protect a vulnerable group of people from intentional abuse.[/QUOTE]
Over the internet? I'd just ignore you. In real life? Unless you were actively following me and trying to find me to yell that at me, in which case it'd be stalking which is a pretty uncontroversial felony, I'd either point and laugh, ignore it, or tell a non-legal authority to get this guy off my back. Furthermore, again, a business should not be forced to serve a customer, even if the reason for refusal of service is silly. To perform the same thing you just did with your more personal hypothetical; what if there was someone you didn't like, but you were legally obligated to give him your food?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
