California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[Omnonia]

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.

The First Amendment is what's crap in this regard.

But yeah, I have to agree that's the likely outcome. The unhealthy obsession the US has about freedom of speech will squash all attempts of improvement, yet again. *sigh*

[Lexicor]

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.

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

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

[Seangoli]

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

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

Which is a fair point, but ultimately isn't the one that people are making.

[Herador]

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

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

Now that is a point of contention I'd like to see debated in court.

[United Democratic Christian States]

Welp min as well burn the 1st admendment down.

It doesn't mean anything to anyone anymore.

[Aellex]

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

We're trying to define what is and isn't abuse here because if this law pass and we're recognizing not accepting one's "preferred pronouns" as jail worthy, then a very bad precedent has been set which means that said law could then be expended and widened as, for all the mockery of the "slippery slope" fallacy, there does seems to be an awful lot of truth to it.

[Herskerstad]

Never going to survive a supreme court review.

So when is harassment going to be decriminalised then?

Subjective personal standards for referrals cannot become law in a nation with a positive right to freedom of speech whereas it may very well with a nation that has a negative right to freedom of speech, and specifically in the US the precedence on the most enshrined right is continually protected to the point that the westboro baptist church survives most of their far more malicious strides.

[Seangoli]

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.

The First Amendment is what's crap in this regard.

But yeah, I have to agree that's the likely outcome. The unhealthy obsession the US has about freedom of speech will squash all attempts of improvement, yet again. *sigh*

First Amendment right are unassailable.

Rather, it's that a lot of Americans decide that just because they can be assholes because of their freedom of speech rights, they are going to be an asshole. I never really understood why it's so damn hard for people to be half-decent humans being and not be an intentional asshole for the sake of being a spite-filled asshole, but that's me.

[Galloism]

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

Which is a fair point, but ultimately isn't the one that people are making.

It feels very arguable to me when we're talking about a duty of care situation.

I can see that point that's being made, but couldn't you also use that same argument for a worker who continually refers to the female clientele as "sugar tits", even though he or she has been repeatedly asked to stop? Or, to make sure we're gender neutral here, a worker who continually refers to male clientele as "dick face"?

[Seangoli]

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

We're trying to define what is and isn't abuse here because if this law pass and we're recognizing not accepting one's "preferred pronouns" as jail worthy, then a very bad precedent has been set which means that said law could then be expended and widened as, for all the mockery of the "slippery slope" fallacy, there does seems to be an awful lot of truth to it.

On a similar note, would you be as accepting if a care provider continuously called their client "Fucking dirty Cunt-bag" on a regular basis? Would you not consider that sort of harassment abusive, given the nature of the relationship?

[Lexicor]

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

Now that is a point of contention I'd like to see debated in court.

The state can legalize gay marriage in the civil sense, but it cannot compel a priest to perform the service for a homosexual couple. It's essentially a staple of common law that ancillary effects on individual rights cannot be ignored and when there is a conflict between a constitutional right and legislative decree, the legislative decree loses.

[Fauxia]

Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

Only in California...

[Omnonia]

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

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

If it gets "free speechers'" knickers in such a twist to use someone's preferred pronoun, they have no business in working in a job like long term care. Enough other job options available - there's no need to enable them to pick a vocation they're unqualified for by attitude.

First Amendment right are unassailable.

As long as that Amendment stands, yes. Obviously, I do not support it as written.

[Seangoli]

Which is a fair point, but ultimately isn't the one that people are making.

It feels very arguable to me when we're talking about a duty of care situation.

I can see that point that's being made, but couldn't you also use that same argument for a worker who continually refers to the female clientele as "sugar tits", even though he or she has been repeatedly asked to stop? Or, to make sure we're gender neutral here, a worker who continually refers to male clientele as "dick face"?

See above, as I came to the same argument.

[Vassenor]

Which is a fair point, but ultimately isn't the one that people are making.

It feels very arguable to me when we're talking about a duty of care situation.

I can see that point that's being made, but couldn't you also use that same argument for a worker who continually refers to the female clientele as "sugar tits", even though he or she has been repeatedly asked to stop? Or, to make sure we're gender neutral here, a worker who continually refers to male clientele as "dick face"?

Probably. I'd call that just as harassing as what this is aimed at.

[Lexicor]

Just as the state cannot compel a religious surgeon to perform an abortion, the state cannot compel a long-term care provider to use pronouns.

If it gets "free speechers'" knickers in such a twist to use someone's preferred pronoun, they have no business in working in a job like long term care. Enough other job options available - there's no need to enable them to pick a vocation they're unqualified for by attitude.

It's not about this specific issue, it's about the legal precedent that it would set on the issue of compelled speech.

[United Muscovite Nations]

On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

Religious institutions should get to decide how they interact with the transgendered; secular institutions, I'm not really bothered by.

[Omnonia]

It's not about this specific issue, it's about the legal precedent that it would set on the issue of compelled speech.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. I'd be happy about that precedent being set, and the reform of the 1st Amd it would necessitate.

[Herskerstad]

Which is a fair point, but ultimately isn't the one that people are making.

It feels very arguable to me when we're talking about a duty of care situation.

I can see that point that's being made, but couldn't you also use that same argument for a worker who continually refers to the female clientele as "sugar tits", even though he or she has been repeatedly asked to stop? Or, to make sure we're gender neutral here, a worker who continually refers to male clientele as "dick face"?

Technically if an employee conducts what is considered to be a breach of duty of fidelity, which while specific depending on where you are generally means "Acting with intentional malice to damage the brand." Can lead to more than just dismissal and allow an employee to sue for damages. It would be different I imagine if the employee made a charter where 'misgendering' is cause for dismissal which would be less controversial than a abrogation to the first amendment in the main. Though I suspect a breach of such would be grounds for dismissal rather than outright firing, as employer-employee lawsuits are often quite messy things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not about this specific issue, it's about the legal precedent that it would set on the issue of compelled speech.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. I'd be happy about that precedent being set, and the reform of the 1st Amd it would necessitate.

Yeah but you hate freedom, it's something we should avoid.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

First Amendment right are unassailable.

^ This.

Imprisoning me for calling a man a man (or a woman a woman), in spite of a serious mental illness causing them to think otherwise, is not only scientifically and biologically wrong, but it is the very antithesis of free speech. The fact that ANYONE in a civilized nation could possibly support this terrifies me. If the state can compel me to address someone by a specific pronoun (even when it's the wrong one), what can't the state compel me to do, or prohibit me from doing?

Much like the case of coerced speech and compelled servitude forced against the fundamentalists in bakeries, floral shops, etc. etc., who refused to participate in a pro-LGBT event, this is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.

Regardless of how effectively their "costume" (and the constant stream of hormones and chemicals their body rejects, etc.) is, and regardless of how well they can LARP as the opposite sex, I will continue, if I am aware of their status, to address them through pronouns solely derived from their biological sex.

You don't have to oppose transgenderism to see how frightening this path is to the civil liberties of all men. Not even the ACLU would be on board with this: any court would strike it down unanimously. I'd bet money on it.

[Vassenor]

On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

Religious institutions should get to decide how they interact with the transgendered; secular institutions, I'm not really bothered by.

Establishment clause. Religious institutions do not get special treatment under the law.

[Lexicor]

It's not about this specific issue, it's about the legal precedent that it would set on the issue of compelled speech.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. I'd be happy about that precedent being set, and the reform of the 1st Amd it would necessitate.

Allowing the state the authority to compel a person to speak in a manner contrary to their beliefs is a blatant dismissal of the whole point of the First Amendment. You cannot have freedom of speech if the state can compel you to speak in a manner contrary to your views, it's a violation of freedom of association (and disassociation by extension.) Here's an example, Donald J. Trump, according to the precedent this law would set, would be allowed to compel members of his administration to call him "Supreme Lord Emperor" [his preferred pronoun!], and failure to do so would constitute willful harassment. Gender identity is so poorly defined as a legal concept (HINT: It isn't defined at all because it's subjective to the person) that it holds no water in court.

[Vassenor]

First Amendment right are unassailable.

^ This.

Imprisoning me for calling a man a man (or a woman a woman), in spite of a serious mental illness causing them to think otherwise, is not only scientifically and biologically wrong, but it is the very antithesis of free speech. The fact that ANYONE in a civilized nation could possibly support this terrifies me. If the state can compel me to address someone by a specific pronoun (even when it's the wrong one), what can't the state compel me to do, or prohibit me from doing?

Much like the case of coerced speech and compelled servitude forced against the fundamentalists in bakeries, floral shops, etc. etc., who refused to participate in a pro-LGBT event, this is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.

Regardless of how effectively their "costume" (and the constant stream of hormones and chemicals their body rejects, etc.) is, and regardless of how well they can LARP as the opposite sex, I will continue, if I am aware of their status, to address them through pronouns solely derived from their biological sex.

You don't have to oppose transgenderism to see how frightening this path is to the civil liberties of all men. Not even the ACLU would be on board with this: any court would strike it down unanimously. I'd bet money on it.

So apparently it's uncivilised to treat other people as human beings.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

Religious institutions should get to decide how they interact with the transgendered; secular institutions, I'm not really bothered by.

What about secular institutions owned by and run according to the values of religious people? Truly religious people do not put their faith aside when they go outside of the church. They live all aspects of their lives according to their religion. Compelling them to participate in something they see as a sin and/or abomination is wrong.

For the same reason a Muslim caterer or butcher should not be force by the state to provide pork for a client, a Christian should not be forced to participate in a pro-homosexual event, and an Atheist should not be forced to produce content affirming the existence of God or a god. A black man should not be forced to bake cakes with pro-KKK messages, and so on and so forth.

In the case of criminal "mis-gendering", this is a First Amendment issue. In the case of forcing businessmen to participate in an event, it is a First and Thirteenth Amendment issue. The Thirteenth Amendment covers more than slavery, and frankly, if businesses exist only to serve and the state can force them to provide a good or service, then the businessmen cease to be freemen.