XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc

alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in news:20160107Ju7DoGy45j@KiQF:

In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use
a Transgender Person's 'Preferred' Pronoun

Cultural Marxism rearing its ugly, ugly head in commie de Blasio's NY.

Wake up, America.

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS." ISIS: "We've contained Obama."

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who didn’t
ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill Clinton,
not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to have
committed perjury."--John Hinderaker

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:23:08 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<dragon40@removeunseen.is> wrote:

alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in >news:20160107Ju7DoGy45j@KiQF:

In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use
a Transgender Person's 'Preferred' Pronoun

Cultural Marxism rearing its ugly, ugly head in commie de Blasio's NY.

Wake up, America.

That's compelled speech ... essentially requiring you
to support somebody elses political views whereas
the constitution says you have a right to freely express
your own political opinions (even Bork would back that
minimalist interpretation) so don't think it'll stand up in
any court - even in NY.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

On 1/9/16 8:49 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:23:08 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper <dragon40@removeunseen.is> wrote:

alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in
news:20160107Ju7DoGy45j@KiQF:

In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use
a Transgender Person's 'Preferred' Pronoun

Cultural Marxism rearing its ugly, ugly head in commie de Blasio's NY.

Wake up, America.

That's compelled speech ... essentially requiring you
to support somebody elses political views whereas
the constitution says you have a right to freely express
your own political opinions (even Bork would back that
minimalist interpretation) so don't think it'll stand up in
any court - even in NY.

Which gives you a clue that the claim is complete bullshit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:XMednWyt8ZObug7LnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com:

Which gives you a clue that the claim is complete bullshit.

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law
No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON
GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity- legalguidance.shtml>




--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

On 1/11/16 2:39 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:XMednWyt8ZObug7LnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com:

Which gives you a clue that the claim is complete bullshit.

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law
No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity- legalguidance.shtml>

This isn't about you (or any individual acting in a social situation).
It's basically about employers, which you should have been able to
figure out from numbers 4 and 5.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:9eSdne8extgRIQnLnZ2dnUU7-L-
dnZ2d@giganews.com:

On 1/11/16 2:39 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:XMednWyt8ZObug7LnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com:

Which gives you a clue that the claim is complete bullshit.

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on
Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local

Law

No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code õ 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW'S PROHIBITIONS

ON

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual's Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-
legalguidance.shtml>

This isn't about you (or any individual acting in a social situation).
It's basically about employers, which you should have been able to
figure out from numbers 4 and 5.

Didn't read the whole thing, I see.

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

On 1/12/16 11:14 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:9eSdne8extgRIQnLnZ2dnUU7-L- dnZ2d@giganews.com:

On 1/11/16 2:39 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:XMednWyt8ZObug7LnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com:

Which gives you a clue that the claim is complete bullshit.

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on
Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local

Law

No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code õ 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW'S PROHIBITIONS

ON

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual's Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-
legalguidance.shtml>

This isn't about you (or any individual acting in a social situation).
It's basically about employers, which you should have been able to
figure out from numbers 4 and 5.

Didn't read the whole thing, I see.

Don't kid a kidder, Sparky. You couldn't see your way to your own ass
with a flashlight.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on
Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law
No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON >> GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-
legalguidance.shtml>

This isn't about you (or any individual acting in a social situation).
It's basically about employers, which you should have been able to
figure out from numbers 4 and 5.

So where does it SAY anything about the law applying to employers only?
(Ok, this is obvious for #5 only).
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to landlords?
(#2 and #6 could apply here. Perhaps #4 also if you have dress codes
for common areas like a swimming pool.)
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to schools?
(#2 and #4 and #6 could apply here)
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to store (restaurant) owners? (#2, #4, and #6 could apply)
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to social situations?
(#1 could apply. So could #4 if you routinely don't let males show up
nude at your teen's birthday party but allow female strippers.
#8 could also apply for such things as "stealing (or sleeping with) my boyfriend".)
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to complete strangers?
(#1 could easily apply, in the form of failing to refer to them AT ALL.)

Courts tend to interpret laws broadly: consider what Congress has done with the "interstate commerce" clause in the constitution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.philosophy, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.misc

On 1/12/16 10:13 AM, Gordon Burditt wrote:

I suppose someone who believes that could claim abject ignorance of
reality, but who'd believe them?

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on
Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law
No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

VIEW AS PDF

INDEX

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

II. DEFINITIONS

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON >>> GENDER DISCRIMINATION

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities &
Programs Consistent w/Their Gender

3. Sex Stereotyping

4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or
Gender

5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations

7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment

8. Engaging in Retaliation

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Read more: <http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-
legalguidance.shtml>

This isn't about you (or any individual acting in a social situation).
It's basically about employers, which you should have been able to
figure out from numbers 4 and 5.

So where does it SAY anything about the law applying to employers only?

It says
<quote>
Gender discrimination is prohibited in employment, housing, public accommodations, discriminatory harassment, and bias-based profiling by
police.
</quote>

This doesn't apply to you in your private capacity as an individual.

(Ok, this is obvious for #5 only).
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to landlords?
(#2 and #6 could apply here. Perhaps #4 also if you have dress codes
for common areas like a swimming pool.)

Is your pool a public accommodation? Then you can't discriminate.

Where does it SAY anything about not applying to schools?
(#2 and #4 and #6 could apply here)

Schools aren't listed, except as employers.

Where does it SAY anything about not applying to store (restaurant) owners? (#2, #4, and #6 could apply)

Accommodations is a term of art for the handicapped.

Where does it SAY anything about not applying to social situations?

Right up there, where it says where it does apply.

(#1 could apply. So could #4 if you routinely don't let males show up
nude at your teen's birthday party but allow female strippers.

Nonsense. Your teen's birthday party isn't in the purview of the law.

#8 could also apply for such things as "stealing (or sleeping with) my boyfriend".)
Where does it SAY anything about not applying to complete strangers?
(#1 could easily apply, in the form of failing to refer to them AT ALL.)

Retaliation is a term of art for employment discrimination. It doesn't
apply to your boyfriend.

Courts tend to interpret laws broadly: consider what Congress has done with the "interstate commerce" clause in the constitution.

Cite me an instance where any discrimination law has affected anyone in
their private capacity and we'll talk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)