Little Greta comes clean

[oxmixmudd]

What if company policy meant you had to publicly denounce your faith?

...Or you had to wear a MAGA hat?

Then we would no longer be living in the US, or someone like Trump will have succeeded in undoing its constitution.

There is a huge difference between forcing someone to denounce their faith and telling them the cant force their religious views on another person.

My job is such there just isnt a necessity that these issues ever come up. If I were in a job were part of carrying out my duties meant these issues would be breached, then you would see me express what I believe is true, to the extent it was necessary to do so to do the job. A public school teacher, for instance, is much more likely to run into a situation where they have to take a stand on this issue than I am. I work with computers and I do research related to them. They dont have a gender, or a religion, and those topics never come up in the work I do, and none of the people I work with represent challenges in this arena.

I have no legitimate reason to ever bring up or otherwise discuss this issue at work. So for me to bring it up would be an aggressive action to talk about it at all. I would have to seek out an individual that would care and then force the conversation into that topic just so I could say the thing that would offend them.

And I have no reason to do that, nor do I believe being faithful to my Lord requires I do that.

[Tassman]

I said nothing about equality Tass, I'm not speaking about denying them work or the vote or property rights etc... I'm talking about me or you or anyone being forced by law to refer to a man as a woman or visa versa under the threat of penalty (in other words to participate in a lie). If you don't get that distinction you really are an idiot. And in your godless world what is your justification for human equality?

[Tassman]

I dare you to come down to South Central Los Angeles and make an argument of gay rights being equivalent to the civil rights movement.

LGBT rights are just as much a part of the 'civil rights movement' as black and Latino rights and female emancipation are a part of the 'civil rights movement'. The 'civil rights movement' comprises the basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

[Abigail]

I’m talking about discrimination against citizens whom you dislike or of whom you disapprove for whatever reason - religious or racialist or mere sexual bigotry.

[seer]

So you are not dealing with the points I'm making. How unusual! So let me ask you straight out Tass, do you believe that people should be sanctioned by law for not using a person's preferred pro-noun? Yes or no?

[seer]

The 'civil rights movement' comprises the basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

You mean like not being forced by threat of law into using particular pro-nouns? I'm glad we agree! Or do your freedoms only run one way?

[Sherman]

Psst! Privileged, not priviledged. It's not on a ledge.

It's more called the spoiled brat syndrome.

[Starlight]

So let me ask you straight out Tass, do you believe that people should be sanctioned by law for not using a person's preferred pro-noun? Yes or no?

I'm not Tass, but my own answer would be: I'm not sure.

This is one of those edge cases with various pros and cons, and multiple freedoms / rights interact. I can see arguments both ways. At the end of the day I would say this is likely to be a situation that just doesn't occur very often, so it probably doesn't overly matter what the law is.

Maybe I would split the difference and say in general it's allowed but not in the workplace. I can imagine a situation of workplace harassment where a person decides they don't personally like someone else in their workplace who happens to be transgender, and they decide to deliberately use the wrong pro-nouns just to harass and annoy that person. The harassed person should probably have some form of recourse within the workplace to request that this stop occurring. That remedy might consist of their manager moving them away from that person, or giving that person a warning to stop harassing other employees, but there should be some sort of legal onus on the management to provide a remedy if requested just as there would be in other cases of workplace harassment or a health and safety complaint etc. Whereas if the incident were occurring just in public in general, the transgender person could just shrug it off and walk away easily and never talk to that person again, whereas in the workplace they've got to interact with the same person day after day.

I do find your vehement interest in the topic somewhat bizarre though Seer. I get that you do work with a transgender person, so you care more about the topic personally than I do (I've never worked with one as far as I know). But you say that you're okay with addressing them in the way they wish to be addressed out of politeness, so why care overly much if there was or wasn't a law requiring you to behave as you already do?

[seer]

I'm not Tass, but my own answer would be: I'm not sure.

This is one of those edge cases with various pros and cons, and multiple freedoms / rights interact. I can see arguments both ways. At the end of the day I would say this is likely to be a situation that just doesn't occur very often, so it probably doesn't overly matter what the law is.

Maybe I would split the difference and say in general it's allowed but not in the workplace. I can imagine a situation of workplace harassment where a person decides they don't personally like someone else in their workplace who happens to be transgender, and they decide to deliberately use the wrong pro-nouns just to harass and annoy that person. The harassed person should probably have some form of recourse within the workplace to request that this stop occurring. That remedy might consist of their manager moving them away from that person, or giving that person a warning to stop harassing other employees, but there should be some sort of legal onus on the management to provide a remedy if requested just as there would be in other cases of workplace harassment or a health and safety complaint etc. Whereas if the incident were occurring just in public in general, the transgender person could just shrug it off and walk away easily and never talk to that person again, whereas in the workplace they've got to interact with the same person day after day.

I do find your vehement interest in the topic somewhat bizarre though Seer. I get that you do work with a transgender person, so you care more about the topic personally than I do (I've never worked with one as far as I know). But you say that you're okay with addressing them in the way they wish to be addressed out of politeness, so why care overly much if there was or wasn't a law requiring you to behave as you already do?

I had two cases in my work place. The one is still there, Donna, is a sweet kid who had a hard upbringing, and prefers to be called by her male name. She never demanded it, but just asked if we could. We all accommodated her. The other was a man named Christopher, who demanded in no uncertain terms to be called Jennifer - of course I did not comply. None of us went out of their way to call him Chris, but if I had to address him, for instance calling on him in an engineering meeting, I would use his male name. That may be bad manners, but should never be a question of law.

[JimL]

I had two cases in my work place. The one is still there, Donna, is a sweet kid who had a hard upbringing, and prefers to be called by her male name. She never demanded it, but just asked if we could. We all accommodated her. The other was a man named Christopher, who demanded in no uncertain terms to be called Jennifer - of course I did not comply. None of us went out of their way to call him Chris, but if I had to address him, for instance calling on him in an engineering meeting, I would use his male name. That may be bad manners, but should never be a question of law.

I think, like Star pointerd out, in the work place, that would be considered harrassment. I'm surprised your company hasn't talked, or reprimanded you about it. Why would you want to harrass the person when just like the sweet kid that you like the person just wanted to be called by their prefered name?

[seer]

I think, like Star pointerd out, in the work place, that would be considered harrassment. I'm surprised your company hasn't talked, or reprimanded you about it. Why would you want to harrass the person when just like the sweet kid that you like the person just wanted to be called by their prefered name?

I think it is harassment to force me to partake in a lie.

[JimL]

I think it is harassment to force me to partake in a lie.

Except, like with the sweet kid, obviously no one forced you in either case. Besides, it's not a lie. If someone's name is Jennifer, then calling them Chris would be the lie.

[seer]

Except, like with the sweet kid, obviously no one forced you in either case. Besides, it's not a lie. If someone's name is Jennifer, then calling them Chris would be the lie.

He is NOT a girl, he is a man. It is a lie. And his actual name is Chris. And BTW - I never refer to Donna as he or him.

[JimL]

He is NOT a girl, he is a man. It is a lie. And his actual name is Chris. And BTW - I never refer to Donna as he or him.

Right, you refer to Donna as Donna, but to Jennifer as Chris. Seems like you just respect the one but not the other so you're being respectful to the one you like and disrespectful to the one you dislike. "Can't you all just get along."

[Tassman]

You mean like not being forced by threat of law into using particular pro-nouns? I'm glad we agree! Or do your freedoms only run one way?

not discriminate against those you dislike or disapprove, whether they are blacks refusing to give up their seat on buses, women exercising authority over men, Jews, Latinos or LGBT people.