Posted on 01/07/2016 1:49:08 PM PST by detective
Raising the bar for other cities throughout the country, New York City announced "strong" and "bold" protections for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.
The new legal guidance, issued Dec. 21 by the New York City Commission on Human Rights, came as part of an expansion of the city's 2002 Human Rights Law, which protects against discrimination in a range of categories. The updated policy specifically protects transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from discrimination in areas of employment, public accommodation, and housing.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
Where is the logic? If I call someone an idiot, or a jerk, they aren’t entitled to any money, yet if I call a certain man “he” (which is true, he’s male), the drag queen is entitled to $250,000?
I keep saying that the liberals are going to go too far someday, and that good people will step up and stop them. I am consistently wrong.
So hypothetically should I call a transfigured female with a male pronoun or vice versa and am taken to court in violation of this new BS law, the burden of proof they’d have to provide that they were what they said they were would be impossible to provide. Can’t chage the chromosomes!
Case dismissed and counter-sue!
“Why in Hell does anybody choose to remain in New York?”
This new rule is another good reason for me to never go back.
Just another reason to avoid that liberal cesspool. That and the rats that outnumber the humans!
No...really? /s
That reminds me of something. “Free beer tomorrow” is on a sign in front of a local restaurant...and it’s been there for years. But there’s not been any free beer that I know of.
A landlord would be smart not renting to someone who could cost him big bucks if he didn’t look at right.
The so-called “Incorporation Doctrine” is a gross misinterpretation and departure from the Constitution, not supported by the intent of the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment, but consistent with the Left giving the feds ever-increasing, but not constitutionally supportable, power
The 14th Amendment was one of three post-Civil-War reconstruction amendments intended strictly to give ex-slaves full status as citizens. There is no evidence of intent by the ratifiers to give the feds such new, sweeping powers not contemplated by the Founders and having nothing at all to do with the purpose of reconstruction and ex-slave citizenship. As Robert Bork said, one must therefore judge the Incorporation Doctrine as a “counterfeit” doctrine.
Actually, right. See post #48.
We need to dump a million muzzies in that city of Sodom and Gomorrah.
[[So what do you call a lesbian? Sir? Madam? Hey you?]]
Sinner will do
I’m thinking the rights of free speech as provided in the Federal Constitution apply to the states via the 14th Amendment. They can set a standard that is less restrictive than the US Const., but they cannot set a standard more restrictive of individual rights protected by the Constitution.
This could be challenged on federal constitutional grounds, I think.
Actually wrong. Unless of course you do not think the SCOTUS is a valid Article III court with the power to interpret the Constitution. I mean this isn’t debatable. The court has held that the First Amendment applies to the states.
My new pronoun for people in NYC shall be comrade, tovarisch, or åŒå¿—. It’s 1967 in Beijing again! Let the struggle sessions begin!
Just follow the example set by the Kim Dynasty. If not putting the immediate family to death, maybe just put them in the camps for three generations.
If you think that’s crazy - take a look at this... Americans congratulating North Korea on the H Bomb test....
No, the so-called “Incorporation Doctrine” is a fraud and not to be followed.
See post #48.
The feds do not have such sweeping powers and it is very important for people to wake up and realize it is not the states but the feds who are the REAL threat to our freedoms. The parade of horribles that has followed from the perversion of allowing the feds to enforce against the states that which they themselves are prohibited from include banning prayer and the Bible from public schools, blocking state anti-abortion laws leading to the infanticide of 70+ million unborn, meddling with state marriage laws and overturning anti-gay-marriage laws, and now federal attempts to curb your rights to own guns.
Wake up America. The unconstitutional feds are THE enemy, not the states. The states are easily controlled by its citizens and are by-and-large not anywhere near the threat the feds are.
Again the Constitution binds the feds NOT the states as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm.
I would agree that incorporation via the 14 th Amendment has improperly imposed the power of the federal government to dictate law in areas that historically were left to the states, the most recent being so-called gay marriage. But it would be an odd federal arrangement if, for example, the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press restricted only the Feds and not the states. The Founders were very mindful of the possibility of the tyranny of state legislatures as well as the Congress.
Read Article III again. It gives power to SCOTUS to rule over certain individual cases and conservatories, NOT to make national law. The scope of the authority of their decisions, as the judicial branch, is limited to case at hand and as precedent for any other case with like facts and questions of law.
And if a SCOTUS decision is not based on sound constitutional-based reasoning, like most of its decisions these days, then it may be questioned and overturned as unconstitutional. Again, it is the Constitution, not SCOTUS that is the Supreme Law of the Land (Art IV, Cl 2).
And again, if the feds including SCOTUS stray beyond their constitutional limits and/or act or decide without a sound constitutional basis, the states and the people have every constitutional right to challenge and nullify such acts and decisions, as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well as the above-cited Supremacy Clause.
The key to recovering our political freedom is to put the Constitution back FRONT AND CENTER against the feds. Political freedom is governance by the Rule of Law (the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended) NOT Rule of Man which is tyranny (the perverse “living constitution” and incorporation doctrines which basically erase constitutional limitations, giving the feds basically unlimited power and taking away more and more of your freedoms).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.