California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

The establishment clause says the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Forcing a religious institution to accept something against its doctrine would be doing just that.

Religious institutions do get special treatment, if they didn't, they would be taxed.

[Aellex]

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?

If my employer wanted me to call him "Master", I wouldn't. Calling someone names isn't the same thing as refusing to call someone by the name he prefer.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

That's not quite what the establishment clause means. It prohibits the government from making a state religion or showing preference to one over another, simply allowing religious institutions the ability to decide such things doesn't violate that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

Depends on the institutions.

[Herskerstad]

^ 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.

A loaded statement is the same as a loaded question. It's an incredibly bad intellectual habit to foster.

[Lexicor]

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?

If my employer wanted me to call him "Master", I wouldn't. Calling someone names isn't the same thing as refusing to call someone by the name he prefer.

My gender identity is a mushroom powered helicopter. If you don't use my preferred pronouns after I've informed you of this fact, you're guilty of harassment.

[Vassenor]

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

The establishment clause says the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Forcing a religious institution to accept something against its doctrine would be doing just that.

Religious institutions do get special treatment, if they didn't, they would be taxed.

"[R]especting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with setting one up. Per the decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

[Rikatan]

There are already-existing laws against harrassment, abuse, and more. There is no need to create a new law specifically for one small part of harrassment. Cases of harrassment need to be judged within context, not using hundreds of laws targeting specific parts of speech. Instead of having a pronoun law, an adjective law and a verb law that you need to take into account in a trial, you can have a harrassment-related law.

[Lexicor]

The establishment clause says the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Forcing a religious institution to accept something against its doctrine would be doing just that.

Religious institutions do get special treatment, if they didn't, they would be taxed.

"[R]especting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with setting one up. Per the decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

to [force] a religious institution to adopt views contravening their deeply held beliefs is a violation of freedom of association/disassociation. Everson v. BoE is irrelevant in this context.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The establishment clause says the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Forcing a religious institution to accept something against its doctrine would be doing just that.

Religious institutions do get special treatment, if they didn't, they would be taxed.

"[R]especting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with setting one up. Per the decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

It's not doing any of those things to allow religious institutions decide how they react to things that go against their doctrines. It's the same reason it's not discrimination for Catholics to not give communion to non-Catholics.

[Vassenor]

"[R]especting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with setting one up. Per the decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

to [force] a religious institution to adopt views contravening their deeply held beliefs is a violation of freedom of association/disassociation. Everson v. BoE is irrelevant in this context.

...A SCOTUS judgement on how the clause applies is irrelevant to a discussion on how the clause applies?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

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

No, it's uncivilized to imprison me for calling a man a man or a woman a woman. It's uncivilized to suppress my freedom of speech in order to shelter the feelings of the mentally ill or their allies, or, frankly, anyone. It's uncivilized to compel speech.

Simply put: you have freedom of speech, or you do not have freedom of speech. With the sole exceptions of death/physical/terrorist threats and libel (and other criminal acts), you cannot pick and choose what speech is free and what is not. Otherwise, you cease to have free speech.

[Qashistan]

What even is this piece of sh*t law? Commiefornia used to be funny. Now it's alarmingly serious.

[Fauxia]

"[R]especting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with setting one up. Per the decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

to [force] a religious institution to adopt views contravening their deeply held beliefs is a violation of freedom of association/disassociation. Everson v. BoE is irrelevant in this context.

100% correct. A SCOTUS case that ruled you can pay private schools, including religious ones, is completely irrelevant.

[Fauxia]

What even is this piece of sh*t law? Commiefornia used to be funny. Now it's alarmingly serious.

That was my response.

[Omnonia]

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.

Much as you love to construct that strawman... I don't hate freedom, I just despise anarchy and the stepping stone to tyranny by the next best charismatic dictator that it provides.

Germany has excellent freedom of speech, and I love that fact.

[Lexicor]

to [force] a religious institution to adopt views contravening their deeply held beliefs is a violation of freedom of association/disassociation. Everson v. BoE is irrelevant in this context.

...A SCOTUS judgement on how the clause applies is irrelevant to a discussion on how the clause applies?

How the clause applies to one aspect of the First Amendment does not inherently make it relevant to another. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association have overlap, but the case you're citing has to do with preferential treatment of religious institutions by the state, not the beliefs of an individual person.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

Much as you love to construct that strawman... I don't hate freedom, I just despise anarchy and the stepping stone to tyranny by the next best charismatic dictator that it provides.

Germany has excellent freedom of speech, and I love that fact.

It's not a strawman when it's true.

[Omnonia]

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

No, it's uncivilized to imprison me for calling a man a man or a woman a woman. It's uncivilized to suppress my freedom of speech in order to shelter the feelings of the mentally ill or their allies, or, frankly, anyone. It's uncivilized to compel speech.

Simply put: you have freedom of speech, or you do not have freedom of speech. With the sole exceptions of death/physical/terrorist threats and libel (and other criminal acts), you cannot pick and choose what speech is free and what is not. Otherwise, you cease to have free speech.

Civilization can only thrive in the absence of what you call "freedom of speech". If you put it as such a black and white fundamentalist concept, freedom of speech indeed is crap I oppose, will never stop opposing, and am happy my home country has deemed unconstitutional.

[Omnonia]

It's not a strawman when it's true.

I'm fed up with your lies and propaganda. /blocked

[Benuty]

It's not a strawman when it's true.

I'm fed up with your lies and propaganda. /blocked

That is not how that works.

[Omnonia]

That is not how that works.

Thanks, but I know how to use the foe list... basic survival skill on here.

[Benuty]

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*

Improvement how exactly? The first amendment among many others of the early republic were a mixture of English law amongst others. So arguably it could be seen as an improvement upon the past interpretations.

[Telconi]

What even is this piece of sh*t law? Commiefornia used to be funny. Now it's alarmingly serious.

It has never been funny. It has always been dangerous.

[Benuty]

That is not how that works.

Thanks, but I know how to use the foe list... basic survival skill on here.

To be honest that isn't the first time someone has done that, and then been surprised when it didn't work.