You cannot legislate against the beliefs of bigotry but you can legislate against actions resulting from said bigotry.
Maybe you should guess again, you had a 50% chance of being right before and blew it. Now you have a 100% chance if you pick the remaining choice.
Just stating, laws are not going to fix the problem. Especially not in a short period. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/05/17/shopper-upset-man-allowed-to-use-womens-dressing-room-in-ross/
http://www.infowars.com/nyc-to-fine-businesses-that-dont-use-correct-gender-pronouns/ Now you have to learn over 70 new pronouns. Just a few: HE/SHE HIM/HER HIS/HER HIS/HERS HIMSELF/HERSELF zie zim zir zis zieself sie sie hir hirs hirself ey em eir eirs eirself ve ver vis vers verself tey ter tem ters terself e em eir eirs emself
Correct but having discriminatory laws on the books will make the problem worse. With legislation to support those being discriminated against there is a mechanism of support for them, which will make them more likely to be able to overcome more of the discrimination they experience.
The boycott is not against LGBT, but is so connected to the discriminatory legislation there is no other way to define it? Why does this sound just like the anti-same sex marriage and the anti-racial integration of the past?
That is essentially what the rule stated before the spin was added. “Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title"
What if someone tells you that their preferred pronoun or title is God? Will you call them that? It doesn't give a list as to all the acceptable words. I hope you can see how this is a slippery slope.
You can call them God if you wish but it will not be required. This logical fallacy of what extremes may be somehow legalized as a slippery slope is useless when compared to the actual statistics and what the medical professionals tell us.
No, because that title has nothing to do with the law, but I am sure some might try to make such a claim after getting partial information and making assumptions. http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-legalguidance.shtml#3.1 1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth. All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL. Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses. b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity. c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11 d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title. Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.
So where does it say in that law that if I tell you that my preferred pronoun is God, and you refuse to call me God, that is not a violation?
When God becomes a recognized gender pronoun you can try to make the case. Or you can change you name to God and try that but then again the whole gender aspect is not on your side given it is the Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3. That is the reason the laws concerning motor vehicles do not also apply to aircraft.
But the laws would apply to aircraft just as they do motor vehicles if the aircraft started using the roads(facilities) on a regular basis.
Sorry you had trouble with understanding what was written. That would be the same situation as if the term "God" became a recognized gender pronoun.
I believe his/her point was; if one person decides that is their pronoun, it will HAVE to be recognized.
Which is an incorrect point. The guidance and the law covers gender identity or expression and that term is unrelated to either. The basis is a logical fallacy. Unless and until the term becomes a recognized gender pronoun the regulation will not apply just as motor vehicle laws will not apply to aircraft unless they regularly use roadways, as you have already indicated.
