Internet Censorship.

[Michchamp]

No, that?s what society is doing now on the fly. To accommodate everyone all the time.

I just don't see this - ie respecting someone's gender and sexual preference - as some sort of slippery slope that's going to lead to some vague terrible place like you're worried about.

 

[byco42]

I haven't, but I don't think this element is fundamentally new. We worry about intent and motive and who knew (believed) what when in relation to crime all the time, but not independent of a crime.

HR 5 changes the definition of gender to one that I oppose and states it?s unlawful to discriminate (read: believe) that that amended definition is in error. Gender identity and sexual orientation has already been ?judged? into the definition of ?sex.? Now, HR 5 says that I have to accept that definition.

It won?t be long before we see this law being tested and targeted.

 

[Gulo Blue]

states it?s unlawful to discriminate (read: believe)

I think discrimination requires actually doing something differently, like charging a different interest rate or selling/not selling to. Like how it's already applied with race. People are legally allowed to be as racist as they want. They just can't provide a governed service on that basis.

Is religion exempt? Can you have a racially discriminatory religion? Deny marriages according to race?

 

[byco42]

I just don't see this - ie respecting someone's gender and sexual preference - as some sort of slippery slope that's going to lead to some vague terrible place like you're worried about.

I respect an individual on other grounds than sexual orientation. It?s not even a consideration to me. And to ?respect? someone?s sexual gender or sexual ?preference? means that they can change it at anytime and I am compelled to ?respect? it, again and again. Sexual orientation or gender is not a ?respectable? quality; it?s biological and unchanging, no matter what someone ?declares? to be in a given moment of time.

The ?vague, terrible place? you refer to is the proscription of my Church, when it refuses to marry two men or two women, or when a satanist teacher sues a diocese because ?they? (sic) were denied a job interview to work in a Catholic school, or when a CYO event refuses to let a boy compete in a girls? athletic event, or when a legion of these events occur simultaneously.

Or that there is even the possibility of them occurring.

 

[byco42]

I think discrimination requires actually doing something differently, like charging a different interest rate or selling/not selling to. Like how it's already applied with race. People are legally allowed to be as racist as they want. They just can't provide a governed service on that basis.

Is religion exempt? Can you have a racially discriminatory religion? Deny marriages according to race?

The Church can refuse to marry any couple that refuses to abide in the requirements of being married in the Church, and it does. EDIT: I anticipate that this will be challenged in ways not seen until this bill became passed in the House.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The Church can refuse to marry any couple that refuses to abide in the requirements of being married in the Church, and it does.

But could it, I mean hypothetically some other church, could they just choose to not marry certain races? Didn't the Mormons go a long time before integrating?

Because racial discrimination is illegal, so if religious marriage isn't regulated in this way, then I think this law won't apply differently.

 

[zyxt9]

I personally believe there is a big difference between religious weddings and state legalized weddings, even when papers for both are signed for the same wedding. One officially recognizes the union in accordance with state laws, the other is recognized by that religion's laws. Often the state union is more easily dissolved than the religious should the couple divorce, which makes sense as the state laws are merely an agreement with the state that 2 individuals are considered married. It is this weak requirement that has been used by some wishing to become American citizens to find someone willing to marry them without loving them with both recognizing they are merely jumping through hoops in order for someone to become a US citizen. That is within their legal rights, and I am speaking from perspective of someone who knows this has happened, not a hypothetical or sourced from some media rag. I personally know people who have done this. In each situation it was prior to LGBTQ weddings becoming recognized by the states and people from that community willingly using their known preferences to marry someone who just wanted to become a US citizen. At Walt Disney World, several employees did this who I knew personally. In each case the person they married was a friend who was otherwise going to be sent back home but desperately wanted to stay in the US. I actually have less issue with their actions than I do with the government not making it easier for them to become US citizens to the point where this was the only option available. To this day there are several on the International Program who attempt this path in order to keep working for WDW. SOME actually married for love though and remained in a true marriage for decades (as opposed to claiming to live with a spouse but actually living separately). Government should not make it so challenging for these individuals to become US citizens IMO.

 

[byco42]

But could it, I mean hypothetically some other church, could they just choose to not marry certain races? Didn't the Mormons go a long time before integrating?

Because racial discrimination is illegal, so if religious marriage isn't regulated in this way, then I think this law won't apply differently.

HR 5 dissolves the very concept of ?man and woman? as the only two sexes.

Summary below:

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.​

There is a lot of latitude here for interpretation.

 

[zyxt9]

State laws cannot force a religion to perform a wedding that violates the laws of that religion. Religious leaders should equally recognize a State approved wedding is different and separate from a wedding in accordance to the laws of that religion. The 2 should be viewed through separate lenses, with the States choices having zero authority upon the religious requirements. Keeping these 2 elements separate is the only solution.

I personally feel a State marriage should be referred to as something other than a marriage as religions have the historical precedent to that term and states are infringing into Religious Freedom in their use of it. There is no reason States cannot change their term for a State Legalized Union in order to prevent this infringement.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I personally believe there is a big difference between religious weddings and state legalized weddings, even when papers for both are signed for the same wedding. One officially recognizes the union in accordance with state laws, the other is recognized by that religion's laws. Often the state union is more easily dissolved than the religious should the couple divorce, which makes sense as the state laws are merely an agreement with the state that 2 individuals are considered married. It is this weak requirement that has been used by some wishing to become American citizens to find someone willing to marry them without loving them with both recognizing they are merely jumping through hoops in order for someone to become a US citizen. That is within their legal rights, and I am speaking from perspective of someone who knows this has happened, not a hypothetical or sourced from some media rag. I personally know people who have done this. In each situation it was prior to LGBTQ weddings becoming recognized by the states and people from that community willingly using their known preferences to marry someone who just wanted to become a US citizen. At Walt Disney World, several employees did this who I knew personally. In each case the person they married was a friend who was otherwise going to be sent back home but desperately wanted to stay in the US. I actually have less issue with their actions than I do with the government not making it easier for them to become US citizens to the point where this was the only option available. To this day there are several on the International Program who attempt this path in order to keep working for WDW. SOME actually married for love though and remained in a true marriage for decades (as opposed to claiming to live with a spouse but actually living separately). Government should not make it so challenging for these individuals to become US citizens IMO.

Wait, what???

Yeah, uh no.

It isn’t within anyone’s legal right at all.

There are numerous other websites that corroborate what the site I linked to reports, including this from the dear United States Government itself.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wait, what???

Yeah, uh no.

It isn?t within anyone?s legal right at all.

All I know about this if from sitcoms where fake couples have to fool agents tasked with figuring out if a marriage is legit.

 

[tinselwolverine]

All I know about this if from sitcoms where fake couples have to fool agents tasked with figuring out if a marriage is legit.

And why are those fictional agents trying to figure out if the fictional marriage is legit?

Because in reality it happens.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Seems more proactive rather than reacting to mainstream changes.

https://apnews.com/article/lawmaker...girls-sports-914a982545e943ecc1e265e8c41042e7

Legislators in more than 20 states have introduced bills this year that would ban transgender girls from competing on girls? sports teams in public high schools. Yet in almost every case, sponsors cannot cite a single instance in their own state or region where such participation has caused problems.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Seems more proactive rather than reacting to mainstream changes.

https://apnews.com/article/lawmaker...girls-sports-914a982545e943ecc1e265e8c41042e7

Makes sense.

Because there are documented events where biological women or young/women (high school girls) have claimed they felt unfairly disadvantaged.

By a chick...with - or who had - a dick.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Makes sense.

Because there are documented events where biological women or young/women (high school girls) have claimed they felt unfairly disadvantaged.

By a chick...with - or who had - a dick.

I don't know that we need laws allowing or disallowing any of this. Or we shouldn't anyway. Once we make laws, people think everything that isn't against the law is ok and that's not true. We've had girls playing on guys teams in rare cases forever. If it was a good idea and girl was sufficiently tough and she wanted to be a kicker and not a lineman, it's allowed. Size discrepancies where people are getting their heads smashed isn't allowed, even if it's two people of the same gender. You start smashing skulls, someone puts a stop to it. We knew what was ok when we saw it and no law would be sufficient for all situations.

 

[Michchamp]

If we don't stop this outrage by passing laws,
next thing you know, millions of guys are going to get sex change operations just so they can compete in and win amateur women's track and field events.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If we don't stop this outrage by passing laws,
next thing you know, millions of guys are going to get sex change operations just so they can compete in and win amateur women's track and field events.

I don?t know about millions?and also do they have to get sex change operations? Can?t they just show up and say they?re identifying as a female that day?

Aren?t the people who are feeling potentially victimized young women?

 

[Spartanmack]

And why are those fictional agents trying to figure out if the fictional marriage is legit?

Because in reality it happens.

sounds like another hilarious conservative freakout...

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know that we need laws allowing or disallowing any of this. Or we shouldn't anyway. Once we make laws, people think everything that isn't against the law is ok and that's not true. We've had girls playing on guys teams in rare cases forever. If it was a good idea and girl was sufficiently tough and she wanted to be a kicker and not a lineman, it's allowed. Size discrepancies where people are getting their heads smashed isn't allowed, even if it's two people of the same gender. You start smashing skulls, someone puts a stop to it. We knew what was ok when we saw it and no law would be sufficient for all situations.

Size discrepancies aren't the issue - same-size males have huge advantages over same-size females in all sports. Fallon Fox, a transgender female mma fighter had twice fractured the skulls of her biological female opponents in her weight class. She has not been banned from fighting actual women, even ones her size. In fact "Outsports" a sports news website that focuses on LGBT issues in sports called Fallon Fox the "bravest athlete in history" - for being teased for beating the living shit out of women but still having the courage to go out and do it again. Slightly more mainstream outlet, Vice had this to say about Fox: "Fallon was born with a peen. No one’s perfect. I throw away too much salad. She was raised as a dude, as I am told is traditional in Ohio for babies born with outwardly expressive genitalia. But that peen never did sit right with her and, since 2008, she has been a woman in mind, body, and soul."

One of her first ever opponents who at the time was not told that Fox was transgender had this to say about fighting Fox: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night,” Brents said, recounting her experience fighting Fox. “I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right… I still disagree with Fox fighting. Any other job or career I say have a go at it, but when it comes to a combat sport I think it just isn’t fair.”

 

[Spartanmack]

If we don't stop this outrage by passing laws,
next thing you know, millions of guys are going to get sex change operations just so they can compete in and win amateur women's track and field events.

why does it have to be millions? For every trans athlete that dominates girls high school sports, that displaces an actual girl who has worked her whole live to compete and earn an athletic scholarship to someone who has a clear unfair advantage. Seems like an odd position for a guy who literally has 100s of posts complaining about the unfair advantages rich people have, but guys pretending to be girls and taking their spots on teams, winning their championships and scholarships? Totally cool.