Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Georgia ACLU leader resigning over Transgender bathroom order

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Don't you think that there is a possibility - based on past history with this kind of thing - that the freedom of businesses and other organisations to choose and enforce their own policies will someday be restricted?

    I expect that once the foot is in the door (so to speak) regulations will follow, and after that people looking for opportunities to sue or prosecute.
    From a structural, legal standpoint its no different than any other time in us history where people previously allowed to be flatly told they weren't welcome gained legal protections. People bitched about interfaith, interracial, marriage, tons of stuff that you don't care about because you didn't grow up when that prejudice was commonplace.

    Short version? Your grandkids are going to be really confused why there was such a fuss over this

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
      From a structural, legal standpoint its no different than any other time in us history where people previously allowed to be flatly told they weren't welcome gained legal protections.
      Can't parse this... What I think you're saying kind of supports my point, anyway.

      Originally posted by Jaecp
      People bitched about interfaith, interracial, marriage, tons of stuff that you don't care about because you didn't grow up when that prejudice was commonplace.
      Nope.

      Originally posted by Jaecp
      Short version? Your grandkids are going to be really confused why there was such a fuss over this
      Wrong again, and irrelevant to boot.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • #33
        Basically, I'm saying that this has happened before, people are flipping out, but it's a bump on the record, not a broken player. It doesn't support your point.

        The thing with your kids, yeah, kinda does. When's the last time you waxed nostalgic for miscegenation laws?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
          Basically, I'm saying that this has happened before, people are flipping out, but it's a bump on the record, not a broken player. It doesn't support your point.

          The thing with your kids, yeah, kinda does. When's the last time you waxed nostalgic for miscegenation laws?
          It looks to me very much like your memory is shorter than mine.
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            Don't you think that there is a possibility - based on past history with this kind of thing - that the freedom of businesses and other organisations to choose and enforce their own policies will someday be restricted?

            I expect that once the foot is in the door (so to speak) regulations will follow, and after that people looking for opportunities to sue or prosecute.
            True. This is already happening with accessibility situations. There was a special news item where they interviewed people regarding lawsuits over bathrooms. This one bar owner said that she had put aside money to renovate the bathrooms for acessability, but lost it (twice, if I'm not mistaken) because she got sued and had to pay damages to the aggrieved parties. I can believe that...although I do wonder if there could have been leniency by the judge if she could have shown that she was in the process of compliance.

            But I digress. This is Lawsuit City.
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              Don't you think that there is a possibility - based on past history with this kind of thing - that the freedom of businesses and other organisations to choose and enforce their own policies will someday be restricted?

              I expect that once the foot is in the door (so to speak) regulations will follow, and after that people looking for opportunities to sue or prosecute.
              Sure. There's definitely precedent to expect attempts to restrict choosing and enforcing of policies. Should that happen, there's definitely reason to expect lawsuits. But so what? Assess the risks and liabilities. Be ready to face the consequences of your actions. Act as you see fit. Laws don't stop that process, they just influence it.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                True. This is already happening with accessibility situations. There was a special news item where they interviewed people regarding lawsuits over bathrooms. This one bar owner said that she had put aside money to renovate the bathrooms for acessability, but lost it (twice, if I'm not mistaken) because she got sued and had to pay damages to the aggrieved parties. I can believe that...although I do wonder if there could have been leniency by the judge if she could have shown that she was in the process of compliance.

                But I digress. This is Lawsuit City.
                That's pretty goofy. If there are mandated accessibility requirements, there should be a means of enforcing them. Lawsuits shouldn't even enter the picture.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  That's pretty goofy. If there are mandated accessibility requirements, there should be a means of enforcing them. Lawsuits shouldn't even enter the picture.
                  I don't recall all the details - this was about five years ago.

                  I do know that at my work, as long as our main facility could show they had budgeted for an accessible elevator that would cost tens of thousands of dollars due to the age (1940s) and design challenges (don't get me started on the wiring diagrams showing decades of workarounds) plus all kinds of paperwork and approval levels (California as well as federal)...they had leeway in getting the thing built. I imagine there might have been similar guidelines for private businesses. Unfortunately, I don't imagine private businesses have the same level of protection from lawsuits as federal agencies..
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Another goofy issue... there was one of those investigative reports on lawsuits that mentioned a business that had very accessible parking etc already ... no modifications were required at all...and a very high percentage of their customers were disabled (don't know how much were wheelchair bound) and yet there were no handicapped parking set aside . No complaints were filed by any customer about this. Apparently nobody cared..they still patronized the place. The lawsuit over those parking spots were filed by a lawyer citing the law. He wasn't impacted by the lack of special parking spots and nobody came to him - yet he decided to sue. I do not know the status, but the report was about people profiting from that type of ligitation. Meaning he would have got some money from it.

                    I can't even comprehend the chaos that would arise from THIS insanity.
                    Last edited by DesertBerean; 06-07-2016, 01:56 PM.
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      I don't recall all the details - this was about five years ago.

                      I do know that at my work, as long as our main facility could show they had budgeted for an accessible elevator that would cost tens of thousands of dollars due to the age (1940s) and design challenges (don't get me started on the wiring diagrams showing decades of workarounds) plus all kinds of paperwork and approval levels (California as well as federal)...they had leeway in getting the thing built. I imagine there might have been similar guidelines for private businesses. Unfortunately, I don't imagine private businesses have the same level of protection from lawsuits as federal agencies..
                      Even if they did, that doesn't mean they pay for (or can afford) the same quality of legal defense.


                      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      Another goofy issue... there was one of those investigative reports on lawsuits that mentioned a business that had very accessible parking etc already ... no modifications were required at all...and a very high percentage of their customers were disabled (don't know how much were wheelchair bound) and yet there were no handicapped parking set aside . No complaints were filed by any customer about this. Apparently nobody cared..they still patronized the place. The lawsuit over those parking spots were filed by a lawyer citing the law. He wasn't impacted by the lack of special parking spots and nobody came to him - yet he decided to sue. I do not know the status, but the report was about people profiting from that type of ligitation. Meaning he would have got some money from it.

                      I can't even comprehend the chaos that would arise from THIS insanity.
                      I haven't seen anyone proposing to mandate the provision of restrooms for transgenders, so I'm not sure the comparison works very well. It's easy to sue when you can prove someone is not complying with mandated standards. It's harder to show actual discrimination.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        I don't make the rules about what's necessary. I just try to figure them out and prepare accordingly. I'm not in support of this intervention. I don't see the need at all. I don't agree with all the outrage over it, either. It's mostly just a cultural thing anyway.
                        Fair enough.


                        Originally posted by Carry
                        Frankly, I think it's a bit delusional to think recourse ever existed. But they can still question them, and they might do so anyway, just like people refuse to bake cakes and whatever else. There's no obligation to provide restroom access (a lot of stores around here don't), and there's no restriction against setting restroom policy (as if that's necessary). There's plenty of leeway and room for people to set policy however they like.
                        Hmm, I don't think we're on the same page here. Recourse, in this instance, is the ability to request intervention and that intervention be forthcoming. As such, it very much has existed and been used by scores of women and men advocating for them over the years. When the laws/regulations/rules are changed such that any one can use either facility with impunity, the recourse no longer exists.

                        In practical terms, where standard mores/laws/et al govern, a woman finding a male in the restroom can go to a security guard or other authority and complain or question the man's presence and expect it to be investigated and dealt with if necessary. Where the rules/laws/etc prohibit restrictions by gender, she has no such recourse and either has to chance that the man means no harm or go elsewhere (at my age and with my bladder, that's not always a real option. )
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          It looks to me very much like your memory is shorter than mine.
                          This supposed to constitute a reply? Tsk

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            It looks to me very much like your memory is shorter than mine.
                            You're just watching the ultra liberal argument of, "You're on the wrong side of history!" when they can't refute a word you said. Many act as though they have a crystal ball in their hands and know that liberals are always right (and likewise, conservatives are always wrong). I mean, do you hear about the racist views the progressive presidents had? Of course you don't because those are shoved down the memory hole and ignored because they don't tote the line that liberals are always right. Likewise, they seem to pretend that race mixing didn't happen before the 1960's. I know I'm a product of race mixing long before the 1960's and lots of people were too. He just ran out of arguments and can't admit that he's wrong (as always).
                            Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 06-07-2016, 10:00 PM.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              Sure. There's definitely precedent to expect attempts to restrict choosing and enforcing of policies. Should that happen, there's definitely reason to expect lawsuits. But so what? Assess the risks and liabilities. Be ready to face the consequences of your actions. Act as you see fit. Laws don't stop that process, they just influence it.
                              That sounds very reasonable. But we're not talking about a law that most can agree is needed, or addresses a situation that is dangerous to the community, like fire regulations, or safety regulations for public places. If you owned a restaurant, and there was going to be a change in something like that, you would plan accordingly, and carry on.

                              IF you felt that the changes were going to make your business unworkable - say it would cost too much to comply with the new regs - at least you would feel that (a) there was an objective reason why you now had to close; (b) you were not being specifically targeted for a moral belief. I suspect that the future will show that people who have moral objections to this kind of thing are going to be compelled to comply, or face the risk of someone seeking a cause for a lawsuit or official complaint.

                              In short: You're treating this as if it was about an objective issue, where the wider community interest is clearly at stake. It's not objective - people can simply say they 'identify as X' and potentially launch a lawsuit if your small business somehow fails to cater to their feelings. It doesn't involve the wider community interest insofar as the affected group is a very small percentage of that community.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                That sounds very reasonable. But we're not talking about a law that most can agree is needed, or addresses a situation that is dangerous to the community, like fire regulations, or safety regulations for public places. If you owned a restaurant, and there was going to be a change in something like that, you would plan accordingly, and carry on.

                                IF you felt that the changes were going to make your business unworkable - say it would cost too much to comply with the new regs - at least you would feel that (a) there was an objective reason why you now had to close; (b) you were not being specifically targeted for a moral belief. I suspect that the future will show that people who have moral objections to this kind of thing are going to be compelled to comply, or face the risk of someone seeking a cause for a lawsuit or official complaint.

                                In short: You're treating this as if it was about an objective issue, where the wider community interest is clearly at stake. It's not objective - people can simply say they 'identify as X' and potentially launch a lawsuit if your small business somehow fails to cater to their feelings. It doesn't involve the wider community interest insofar as the affected group is a very small percentage of that community.
                                I feel like you've got things backwards. There's no law or ordinance being proposed that requires a business provide additional facilities. I don't see how any of this is a legitimate concern short of that.

                                There's nothing morally wrong with sharing a restroom. You might have a moral objection to the behaviors of transgender people, but that's something different. If there are safety and/or comfort concerns, I'm all for addressing them. So far, I've seen little merit to complaints about additional risk.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X