|
Aylee -> RE: In NYC You Could be Fined for ‘Misgendering’ Someone. MASSIVE Fines… (5/21/2016 6:55:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: respectmen
http://louderwithcrowder.com/in-nyc-its-now-a-250000-find-for-misgendering-someone/
Another blow from the totalitarian left.
Basically, if a man is pretending to be a woman, you can be punished for not pretending along with him.
From your link
New York City has warned landlords, employers and businesses they could be running afoul of the law by purposely calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” when she prefers a female title and pronoun, or by barring her from using a women’s restroom.
New guidelines detail the legal protections of transgender and gender-nonconforming New Yorkers and what constitutes discrimination under the city’s Human Rights Law, the New York City Commission on Human Rights said on Monday.
Some 25,000 transgender and gender non-conforming people live in New York City, where discrimination based on gender identity and expression has been illegal since 2002.
Please go check out the actual gender identity legal guidance site to get the actual wording, Crowder and his buds are throwing out bullshit.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-legalguidance.shtml#3
IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
* The severity of the particular violation;
* The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
* The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
* The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
Now I know you hate lefties and you hate feminism(females and males), but you are just too arrogant to look for facts.
But the thought police arent actually gonna slap you with a fine for being an ignorant douche bag for refusing to call a trans woman her.
Not unless you are a business/landlord/employer.
Compelled speech is not free speech. I do not see this passing a first amendment case.
We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978).
The words "ze," “sie” (not the German version), “ey,” “ve,” “tey,” “e,” “(f)ae,” “per” and “xe," do carry an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender.) This regulation is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that message.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-legalguidance.shtml
quote:
The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …
Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.
What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)
|
|
|
|
