Trans Woman Dares Bible-Quoting Councilman to Stone Her to Death [W:366]

[rocket88]

That argument would only work when dealing with government. As soon as you involve private individuals their pursuit of happiness comes into play.

And when you go back to the OP, this had to do with a "councilman." You know, government....

 

[CLAX1911]

They are part of the business, so I would say they are associating with them. Regardless, these laws put in place something that was never agreed to by the employer.

So, the employer's rights don't trump everybody else's.

 

[Henrin]

And when you go back to the OP, this had to do with a "councilman." You know, government....

The article says it bans discrimination in employment and housing. :shrug:

The ordinance, which bans discrimination in housing and employment within city limits on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, received its lone "no" vote from Councilman Ron Webb.

 

[Henrin]

So, the employer's rights don't trump everybody else's.

What rights? The government is holding the employer to terms they never agreed to and for what reason? If the employer was to fire people they would not be violating anyones rights.

 

[SBu]

Did you not read the article? They weren't forcing a business to hire her, it was the government that couldn't discriminate. As it should be.

There are no sexual rights, you haven't lost any. You can still associate with who ever you want. Why is it every time discrimination is pushed back people rant and rave about their right to associate being trampled? The government has no interest in your associations.

Way to play the victim card.

The article said it "bans discrimination in housing and employment within city limits on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." Doesn't sound like it was limited to government hiring etc.

It's a fine line to walk. I wouldn't mind hiring someone with unusual gender identity or sexual orientation issues, so long as they conformed to dress, behavior, and social norms. Businesses, after all, need to consider their clientele and their reaction to things that make them uncomfortable. That shouldn't be a basis for outright rejection of such employee candidates however. Suppose I refused to hire a transgender person if that person acted strangely and dressed inappropriately. Could I then be sued for discrimination?

 

[DiAnna]

The ordinance in question seems to ban discrimination in hiring. I assume that means the private sector as well as the public sector. And your whole "victim card" argument is just stupid, frankly. My freedom of association is universal. It does not end simply because I choose to open a business.

And if you don't want to hire no damned blacks, then you ain't hiring no damned blacks, amirite? :lol:

 

[CLAX1911]

What rights? The government is holding the employer to terms they never agreed to and for what reason? If the employer was to fire people they would not be violating anyones rights.

the government has that ability.

It depends on what the employee was fired for.

 

[sangha]

From the noted libertarian John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government

Sect. 88. And thus the commonwealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the commonwealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgments of the commonwealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legislative and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by standing laws, how far offences are to be punished, when committed within the commonwealth; and also to determine, by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from without are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members, when there shall be need.

Sect. 89. Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political, or civil society. And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government; or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it. And where-ever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, there they are still in the state of nature.

Locke later goes on to describe those who think they are somehow exempt from the force of a civil society as "flatterers"

But whatever flatterers may talk to amuse people's understandings, it hinders not men from feeling; and when they perceive, that any man, in what station soever, is out of the bounds of the civil society which they are of, and that they have no appeal on earth against any harm, they may receive from him, they are apt to think themselves in the state of nature, in respect of him whom they find to be so; and to take care, as soon as they can, to have that safety and security in civil society, for which it was first instituted, and for which only they entered into it. And therefore, though perhaps at first, (as shall be shewed more at large hereafter in the following part of this discourse) some one good and excellent man having got a pre-eminency amongst the rest, had this deference paid to his goodness and virtue, as to a kind of natural authority, that the chief rule, with arbitration of their differences, by a tacit consent devolved into his hands, without any other caution, but the assurance they had of his uprightness and wisdom; yet when time, giving authority, and (as some men would persuade us) sacredness of customs, which the negligent, and unforeseeing innocence of the first ages began, had brought in successors of another stamp, the people finding their properties not secure under the government, as then it was, (whereas government has no other end but the preservation of* property) could never be safe nor at rest, nor think themselves in civil society, till the legislature was placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please. By which means every single person became subject, equally with other the meanest men, to those laws, which he himself, as part of the legislative, had established; nor could any one, by his own authority; avoid the force of the law, when once made; nor by any pretence of superiority plead exemption, thereby to license his own, or the miscarriages of any of his dependents.**

He then goes on to say to such flatterers:

No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it: for if any man may do what he thinks fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society; unless any one will say, the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.

 

[CLAX1911]

The article said it "bans discrimination in housing and employment within city limits on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." Doesn't sound like it was limited to government hiring etc.

perhaps.

It's a fine line to walk. I wouldn't mind hiring someone with unusual gender identity or sexual orientation issues, so long as they conformed to dress, behavior, and social norms. Businesses, after all, need to consider their clientele and their reaction to things that make them uncomfortable. That shouldn't be a basis for outright rejection of such employee candidates however. Suppose I refused to hire a transgender person if that person acted strangely and dressed inappropriately. Could I then be sued for discrimination?

Dress code is perfectly okay for an employer to enforce. But the wording must be specific. In one instance I saw in an employee hand book that people must wear clothing appropriate to their gender. If you had gender reassignment than it would bf appropriate for them to wear clothing appropriate to their gender as it was reassigned.

I personally think this is splitting hairs. Some women look manly. I have seen them with mustaches and bulky hands. I have also seen girly looking men. Which one is a trans? Do you really want to know?

 

[SBu]

perhaps.
Dress code is perfectly okay for an employer to enforce. But the wording must be specific. In one instance I saw in an employee hand book that people must wear clothing appropriate to their gender. If you had gender reassignment than it would bf appropriate for them to wear clothing appropriate to their gender as it was reassigned.

I personally think this is splitting hairs. Some women look manly. I have seen them with mustaches and bulky hands. I have also seen girly looking men. Which one is a trans? Do you really want to know?

Well, being naturally ugly aside, I do think that it's reasonable to have employees wearing conservative clothing. I guess my position mostly comes from seeing British dudes dressed in women's clothing for Halloween in Tokyo (truly scarring). I'm all for equal rights and employers trying to maintain a blind eye during interviews etc. But who is to say that employer is not hiring someone based on gender reassignment bias or because the person simply dresses strange or acts strange, which would obviously hurt business? It's a rabbit hole that has loose definitions and boundaries. Now, when it comes to government hiring etc., obviously I think that the most qualified person should win out regardless of these issues. Should we hold private business to the same standard? I'm not convinced.

 

[Henrin]

the government has that ability.

It depends on what the employee was fired for.

In terms of rights it really doesn't depend. If we assume there isn't a contract then all reasons for termination are fine in this scope. If there is a contract then all reasons not permitted by the contract are not allowed while all others are fine. What is happening here is that the law is imposing itself on the employer putting on the table terms that were not agreed to.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well, being naturally ugly aside, I do think that it's reasonable to have employees wearing conservative clothing. I guess my position mostly comes from seeing British dudes dressed in women's clothing for Halloween in Tokyo (truly scarring). I'm all for equal rights and employers trying to maintain a blind eye during interviews etc. But who is to say that employer is not hiring someone based on gender reassignment bias or because the person simply dresses strange or acts strange, which would obviously hurt business? It's a rabbit hole that has loose definitions and boundaries. Now, when it comes to government hiring etc., obviously I think that the most qualified person should win out regardless of these issues. Should we hold private business to the same standard? I'm not convinced.

if you dress like it's Halloween for your interview you likely as going to be rejected on that reason alone.

 

[Henrin]

Wow sangha, I don't think I have seen someone use sect. 88 to mean supreme government power before. I'm kidding of course.

 

[SBu]

if you dress like it's Halloween for your interview you likely as going to be rejected on that reason alone.

Haha. True. What I meant is that they were men dressed as women, not Halloween being the discriminating factor. If it is that obvious, I don't think I would hire them.

 

[sangha]

Wow sangha, I don't think I have seen someone use sect. 88 to mean supreme government power before. I'm kidding of course.

I doubt you've ever seen sec. 88

 

[CLAX1911]

In terms of rights it really doesn't depend. If we assume there isn't a contract then all reasons for termination are fine in this scope. If there is a contract then all reasons not permitted by the contract are not allowed while all others are fine. What is happening here is that the law is imposing itself on the employer putting on the table terms that were not agreed to.

so what?

 

[Henrin]

I doubt you've ever seen sec. 88

I don't imagine you know why he wrote the 2nd Treatise of Government. What was his goal?

 

[CLAX1911]

Haha. True. What I meant is that they were men dressed as women, not Halloween being the discriminating factor. If it is that obvious, I don't think I would hire them.

me either. Yes it is discrimination but it is that which I can define and justify.

 

[sangha]

I don't imagine you know why he wrote the 2nd Treatise of Government. What was his goal?

I don't have to use any imagination to understand why you won't deny that his position blows all of your arguments to hell and back

 

[Henrin]

so what?

You have yet to tell me what rights the employee has in this equation or what rights are violated if they are fired. The only way the employer can be barred from firing someone without violating their rights is if it is done by contract, not by law or any other means.

 

[Henrin]

I don't have to use any imagination to understand why you won't deny that his position blows all of your arguments to hell and back

I have read the entire treatise a few times, while you clearly stopped after sec. 88.

 

[sangha]

I have read the entire treatise a few times, while you clearly stopped after sec. 88.

Yet you have no refutation

 

[Henrin]

Yet you have no refutation

You haven't answered my question either. :shrug:

 

[sangha]

You haven't answered my question either. :shrug:

Your question is off-topic and I have asked you no questions.

IOW, your entire post is dishonest and won't draw attention from the fact that your entire position is a fail.

 

[Henrin]

Your question is off-topic and I have asked you no questions.

IOW, your entire post is dishonest and won't draw attention from the fact that your entire position is a fail.

How is my question off-topic when you referenced the treatise to give merit to your position? The goal of the treatise is vastly important to the validity of your interpretation.

How did Locke define political power?