California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[The East Marches II]

With the fine folks on the identity left, I do not doubt this will make it into the mainstream. Its not laughable, its what will happen. Just because you happen to be blind to the matter doesn't mean the rest of us are. Some poor fucker is going to have to fight a lawsuit and spend money to get this taken to the Supreme Court when it spreads.

Just like we took yer guns away, amirite?

Just like you'd like to try :^)

But hey keep it up! I'm sure you'll win the Midwest back with this sort of stuff!

[Vassenor]

Never going to survive a supreme court review.

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

[Herador]

Just like we took yer guns away, amirite?

Just like you'd like to try :^)

But hey keep it up! I'm sure you'll win the Midwest back with this sort of stuff!

It took this thread a whole page to get off topic.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This law is limited in effect, and doesn't really matter one way or the other.

However, I don't think this law should be implemented on the fact of it's redundant. Harassment laws are already things, so why pass a whole new law when that charge already exists?

If it should pass into law, it will be labeled unconstitutional, taken to court, and die.

How?

The bill SB219, a mouthful titled "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident's Bill of Rights", was proposed just recently after a similar bill took effect all across Canada, America's hat, states that

Are you talking about the Ontario law that did something like this for teens?

Because: Ontario is not all of Canada, this groups mentioned in the bills are completely different in age range, and the laws them self's are put in for different reasons.

[Germanic Templars]

Compelled speech is not free speech.

/thread

[Telconi]

With the fine folks on the identity left, I do not doubt this will make it into the mainstream. Its not laughable, its what will happen. Just because you happen to be blind to the matter doesn't mean the rest of us are. Some poor fucker is going to have to fight a lawsuit and spend money to get this taken to the Supreme Court when it spreads.

Just like we took yer guns away, amirite?

Yup

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1135

[The East Marches II]

Just like you'd like to try :^)

But hey keep it up! I'm sure you'll win the Midwest back with this sort of stuff!

It took this thread a whole page to get off topic.

Are you surprised? Are you really?

[Aellex]

Never going to survive a supreme court review.

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

>not referring to someone by the pronouns they want to
>"""""""""""""harassment""""""""""""""""
Wew lad.

[Herador]

It took this thread a whole page to get off topic.

Are you surprised? Are you really?

Not in the slightest.

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

>not referring to someone by the pronouns they want to
>"""""""""""""harassment""""""""""""""""
Wew lad.

>meme arrows
>again
sure is fucking summer in here

[Cinnabarra]

Assuming the bill is passed, first you'd have to repeatedly and willingly misgender someone and the offended person would have to go to the court over it. Even if this happens I guess even an average lawyer will argue that jail time isn't necessary. As for the meaning of the bill, well, it's not even worth complaining about it anymore. This is a widely accepted view in some states, it seems, and there's nothing we can do about it.

[Grand Britannia]

>Pointing out to something I had already said is back tracking

lmao

Also it's unconstitutional because of the first amendment.

>meme arrows

Sure.

" forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves"
Quote is yours, unless you were shitposting I have no reason to assume you didn't just write a kneejerk reaction and are backtracking to just the first thing now. Like I said, it's cool do you man.

So was the rest of the post I wrote, which apparently makes me referring to something I've already mentioned as back tracking instead of referencing.

But hey, NSG is only good at mental gymnastics and shitty reddit tier bait so I can't say I'm surprised ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Germanic Templars]

Never going to survive a supreme court review.

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

Personal beliefs are harassment then?

[Lexicor]

Compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment. This crap might've survived in Canada because of the "reasonable limits" clause in our Constitution but it will never pass through the court system in the United States. I look forward to a comfy 9-0/8-1 ruling that renders this law null and void.

[Grand Britannia]

Compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment. This crap might've survived in Canada because of the "reasonable limits" clause in our Constitution but it will never pass through the court system in the United States. I look forward to a comfy 9-0/8-1 ruling that renders this law null and void.

Thank you.

Someone fucking gets it.

[Fartsniffage]

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

Personal beliefs are harassment then?

They certainly can be.

[Salus Maior]

Well this is just ridiculous.

[Germanic Templars]

Personal beliefs are harassment then?

They certainly can be.

Then you are no different than those nations that suppress free speech with things such like blasphemy laws.

[Vassenor]

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

>not referring to someone by the pronouns they want to
>"""""""""""""harassment""""""""""""""""
Wew lad.

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which is not at all what the bill does, states, or intends. Hell, it's not even intended for the wider public.

It actually clearly states that its only for long-term care providers, and it also only applies in situations where said provider has clearly been told by the individual they are caring for what their preferred pronoun is.

Now, if you still have issue, then take issue with what the fucking bill does, and not what the misleading title says. There is no ambiguity in what a person is to be called under the law, and it does not apply to random people on the streets.

"It will only apply in this limited context"

"This will never escape that one scenario"

Yeah, yeah I'm sure. Canada style speech restrictions belong in the trash. If there is an issue with an employee doing that, they can be fired for violating misconduct rules. No need for Johnny Law to step in here other than an attempt to set a precedent for this sort of nonsense.

This^

[Lexicor]

>not referring to someone by the pronouns they want to
>"""""""""""""harassment""""""""""""""""
Wew lad.

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

>tfw to intelligent
>using a hashtag with maymay arrows
>this is why people say the left can't meme laddie

[Seangoli]

Assuming the bill is passed, first you'd have to repeatedly and willingly misgender someone and the offended person would have to go to the court over it. Even if this happens I guess even an average lawyer will argue that jail time isn't necessary. As for the meaning of the bill, well, it's not even worth complaining about it anymore. This is a widely accepted view in some states, it seems, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Not quite.

If the bill is passed, first you must be providing another person with long-term assisted care, and be legally responsible for their well-being due to, you know, being a long term care provider. Then, you would have to repeatedly misgender someone knowlingly and willingly. The first part is what people are missing. This applies to people who have an actual legal obligation towards the care of the individual.

[Vassenor]

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

>tfw to intelligent
>using a hashtag with maymay arrows
>this is why people say the left can't meme laddie

Well then perhaps you can explain how wilful and repeated abuse is not harassment.

[Aellex]

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

If I willfully and repeatedly refer to someone by his full name rather than his diminutive or nickname, am I "harassing" him? Because that's essentially what you're claiming here.

[Seangoli]

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

If I willfully and repeatedly refer to someone by his full name rather than his diminutive or nickname, am I "harassing" him? Because that's essentially what you're claiming here.

First, yes. It is harassment. Now whether it is criminal harassment is a different story.

Second, are you a long-term care provider who has a legal obligation towards the well being of your client?

[Herador]

>wilful and repeated

>not harassment

#kek

If I willfully and repeatedly refer to someone by his full name rather than his diminutive or nickname, am I "harassing" him? Because that's essentially what you're claiming here.

One has complicated identity issues behind it, the other is because your name is too long and people want to say something shorter.

Even if you're against the law, and I do understand your reasoning there and to a degree sympathize, that line of reasoning has to seem at least a little off to you.