• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination law?

Is NYC in violation of the first amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • No

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Total voters
    24
H

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The law basically states that businesses can be fined up to $250,000 if they intentionally use an not preferred name or gender when referring to transgender employees.

Do you believe this is a violation of the first amendment? I would say it is since nothing in the first amendment would protect people from businesses or anyone else from being rude to them or referring to them in ways they don't desire. What you desire to be called either in name or in gender is your own personal opinion and might not be the opinion of others or even be in line with facts or reason. It is quite nonsensical to be perfectly honest to suggest that one mans preferences trumps facts or trumps the opinion of everyone else. It is frankly tyrannical for the government to even suggest, let pass a law, that bars people from speaking their opinions or the facts of the matter on anything whatsoever.

Btw, the title was supposed to say anti-discrimination law, not discrimination law, but I couldn't make it all fit, so deal with it.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Unsure about Constitutionality, it will take a careful crafting of a challenge after a fine is issued to see where that goes. Presumably if I read the law right, something as simple as saying "yes, sir" to a transgender man on their way to becoming a woman is enough to warrant a complaint. Assuming an actual fine is levied on the business, then it becomes a matter of debate on what should have happened even when a respectful oriented response ends up offending someone. The courts are going to have all sorts of problems to contend with dealing with laws that protect how someone feels. I do not see a good outcome for the law itself but we cannot be sure in today's climate how the courts will react.

So, I think NYC is making a mistake with this sort of law but the vote is out on Constitutionality.

BTW, I voted yes purely on how the law was written (or what I could find on this, which was also problematic.)
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

It's hard enough to remember to use a newly married woman's new last name for awhile, much less refer to someone you know as one thing, by another name or gender.

I've been around several employees that have undergone the surgery or just were transitioning. It's difficult to remember sometimes. Some even change their names. But mistakes would never have been malicious on my part.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Lursa said:
It's hard enough to remember to use a newly married woman's new last name for awhile, much less refer to someone you know as one thing, by another name or gender.

I've been around several employees that have undergone the surgery or just were transitioning. It's difficult to remember sometimes. Some even change their names. But mistakes would never have been malicious on my part.
Click to expand...

I think this law is about intentional misuse. And in that case it is likely meant as an insult. But being fined a quarter mil for verbally insulting someone seems extreme to me.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

No, intentional disrespect/harassment is wrong whether it be by calling an adult boy/girl or using some other gender, ethnic or racial label that is known to be objectionable. It may be damed hard to enforce because, while proving the offense (use of the pronoun or slur) is fairly easy, proving that the offender deliberately made use of the offensive term toward one who they were previously warned of the offense taken by may not be so easy.

Example: the boss enters the break room and says "good to see all of you guys are enjoying our new coffee maker". One employee, that previously demanded to be addressed only as a woman, may then become extremely offended and wish to lay claim to that $250K grand prize.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

OrphanSlug said:
Unsure about Constitutionality, it will take a careful crafting of a challenge after a fine is issued to see where that goes. Presumably if I read the law right, something as simple as saying "yes, sir" to a transgender man on their way to becoming a woman is enough to warrant a complaint. Assuming an actual fine is levied on the business, then it becomes a matter of debate on what should have happened even when a respectful oriented response ends up offending someone. The courts are going to have all sorts of problems to contend with dealing with laws that protect how someone feels. I do not see a good outcome for the law itself but we cannot be sure in today's climate how the courts will react.

So, I think NYC is making a mistake with this sort of law but the vote is out on Constitutionality.

BTW, I voted yes purely on how the law was written (or what I could find on this, which was also problematic.)
Click to expand...

Actually from what I remember reading and from the Snopes article I just pulled up the act has to be an intentional one and the person has to refuse to use the correct name. So it seems like a one time yes sir, yes ma'am would not fall under this law. It would have to be you said yes sir and then when corrected refused to correct yourself and intentionally continued to say yes sir.

Article: New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community : snopes.com
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

ttwtt78640 said:
No, intentional disrespect/harassment is wrong whether it be by calling an adult boy/girl or using some other gender, ethnic or racial label that is known to be objectionable. It may be damed hard to enforce because, while proving the offense (use of the pronoun or slur) is fairly easy, proving that the offender deliberately made use of the offensive term toward one who they were previously warned of the offense taken by may not be so easy.

Example: the boss enters the break room and says "good to see all of you guys are enjoying our new coffee maker". One employee, that previously demanded to be addressed only as a woman, may then become extremely offended and wish to lay claim to that $250K grand prize.
Click to expand...

I don't see how being disrespectful is not covered by the first amendment. As for harassment, they can just leave if they don't like it. Since when did we protect peoples feelings by imposing fines on others?
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

soccerboy22 said:
Actually from what I remember reading and from the Snopes article I just pulled up the act has to be an intentional one and the person has to refuse to use the correct name. So it seems like a one time yes sir, yes ma'am would not fall under this law. It would have to be you said yes sir and then when corrected refused to correct yourself and intentionally continued to say yes sir.

Article: New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community : snopes.com
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said in the OP it has to be something they intentional do. I guess I should have also said it has to be something they refuse to stop doing as well, but that isn't all that important since neither would not make it a violation of the first amendment.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
I don't see how being disrespectful is not covered by the first amendment. As for harassment, they can just leave if they don't like it. Since when did we protect peoples feelings by imposing fines on others?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, how is continually using an not preferred pronoun harassment? That seems to be stretching the definition of harassment to the point of meaninglessness.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

BrewerBob said:
I think this law is about intentional misuse. And in that case it is likely meant as an insult. But being fined a quarter mil for verbally insulting someone seems extreme to me.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that making "the business" responsible for the actions of an employee is tricky. Let's say John conspires with a coworker (or underling) to split the $250K and tosses out an insulting blast on his, obviously, last day of work. Does it really make sense to blame Widget Corp. for John's "crime" and have them award the "victim" $250K?
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

soccerboy22 said:
Actually from what I remember reading and from the Snopes article I just pulled up the act has to be an intentional one and the person has to refuse to use the correct name. So it seems like a one time yes sir, yes ma'am would not fall under this law. It would have to be you said yes sir and then when corrected refused to correct yourself and intentionally continued to say yes sir.

Article: New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community : snopes.com
Click to expand...

Fair point, thank you for posting that. There does seem to be some points that might hang this up, like what is "Engaging in Retaliation" (p9) and "Failing to grant accommodations" (p10) of the guide.

I still think NYC is making a mistake here, the business is on the hook for the actions of employees (sort of.)

Included is what I was reading...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_InterpretiveGuide_2015.pdf
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

ttwtt78640 said:
Not to mention that making "the business" responsible for the actions of an employee is tricky. Let's say John conspires with a coworker (or underling) to split the $250K and tosses out an insulting blast on his, obviously, last day of work. Does it really make sense to blame Widget Corp. for John's "crime" and have them award the "victim" $250K?
Click to expand...

This seems like nothing more than a way to control peoples speech and push a PC motivated narrative down peoples throats. No longer can you speak your mind in this country because peoples have feelings and preferences and you have to respect that stuff, you know.

:2bigcry:
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
I don't see how being disrespectful is not covered by the first amendment. As for harassment, they can just leave if they don't like it. Since when did we protect peoples feelings by imposing fines on others?
Click to expand...

There seem to be laws very close to this at the federal level. I am not sure that they offer such a big grand prize.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age;
Click to expand...

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
I don't recall those laws barring language choices.
Click to expand...

Thus NYC is acting to fill what they perceive to be an obvious void in government protection of the feelings of transgendered folks or even non-surgical gender benders (probably not the PC term). ;)

That is why I choose not to live among so many yankees who tend to elect such morons.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
The law basically states that businesses can be fined up to $250,000 if they intentionally use an not preferred name or gender when referring to transgender employees.

Do you believe this is a violation of the first amendment? I would say it is since nothing in the first amendment would protect people from businesses or anyone else from being rude to them or referring to them in ways they don't desire. What you desire to be called either in name or in gender is your own personal opinion and might not be the opinion of others or even be in line with facts or reason. It is quite nonsensical to be perfectly honest to suggest that one mans preferences trumps facts or trumps the opinion of everyone else. It is frankly tyrannical for the government to even suggest, let pass a law, that bars people from speaking their opinions or the facts of the matter on anything whatsoever.

Btw, the title was supposed to say anti-discrimination law, not discrimination law, but I couldn't make it all fit, so deal with it.
Click to expand...

I think that would constitute excessive fines.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

ttwtt78640 said:
Thus NYC is acting to fill what they perceive to be an obvious void in government protection of the feelings of transgendered folks or even non-surgical gender benders (probably not the PC term). ;)

That is why I choose not to live among so many yankees who tend to elect such morons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you pretty much have to avoid the whole northeast if you want to avoid the please government protect my feelings people. Of course, you also have to avoid the west coast too, so pretty much you have the center of the country and the south. Well, all of the south besides Florida that is.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

BrewerBob said:
I think this law is about intentional misuse. And in that case it is likely meant as an insult. But being fined a quarter mil for verbally insulting someone seems extreme to me.
Click to expand...

It can be pretty hard to prove intent for something like this, dont you think?
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
Yeah, you pretty much have to avoid the whole northeast if you want to avoid the please government protect my feelings people. Of course, you also have to avoid the west coast too, so pretty much you have the center of the country and the south. Well, all of the south besides Florida that is.
Click to expand...

Fine by me, it cuts down on my travel expenses. ;)
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

BrewerBob said:
I think this law is about intentional misuse. And in that case it is likely meant as an insult. But being fined a quarter mil for verbally insulting someone seems extreme to me.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter if it is an insult? Doesn't the first amendment protect insults? If insults aren't protect speech does that mean that one day the government could fine people for insults like calling someone stupid or a moron?
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
Furthermore, how is continually using an not preferred pronoun harassment? That seems to be stretching the definition of harassment to the point of meaninglessness.
Click to expand...
Well, if I remember correctly, you are against a former "he" being a "she" so, no amount of 'splaining would matter.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
This seems like nothing more than a way to control peoples speech and push a PC motivated narrative down peoples throats. No longer can you speak your mind in this country because peoples have feelings and preferences and you have to respect that stuff, you know.

:2bigcry:
Click to expand...

To me, it seems very related to "fire". Your not forbidden speech just the misuse of.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

MACS-24 said:
Well, if I remember correctly, you are against a former "he" being a "she" so, no amount of 'splaining would matter.
Click to expand...

Well, that was a useful post. If you can't explain how using he instead of she is harassment then just say so.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

MACS-24 said:
To me, it seems very related to "fire". Your not forbidden speech just the misuse of.
Click to expand...

How is it at all related to yelling fire in a crowded theater under false pretenses? That has nothing to do with feelings, but with possible harm that could occur because of the speech. Try again.

It was somehow related people would get punished because someone preferred people not speak of the fire or something like that. lol.
 
Re: Do you think NYC is violating the first amendment with their new discrimination l

Henrin said:
Well, that was a useful post. If you can't explain how using he instead of she is harassment then just say so.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that I believe several posters "tried" to explain it to you. You just fail to accept the definitions because it goes against your view of gender. Hence, no matter how often, it will fail. Your mind is made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom