Democrat hate crime proposal

by **saxitoxin** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:03 am

Contenders for the Democrat Party presidential nomination have called on it to be made a hate crime to refuse to have sex with someone on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. Do you agree?

by **Bernie Sanders** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:47 pm

*yawn*

by **jimboston** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:46 pm

Huh?

I try to not pay attention to the barrel full of monkeys currently vying for the Democratic nomination.
Too much noise and only one of them will matter in the end.

That said, I’m pretty sure I would’ve heard this proposal.
So I’m guessing you are modifying the meaning slightly of some comment that has come from one or more candidates.

In other words you’re lying.

Please provide a link or quote.

by **riskllama** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:00 pm

congrats to jimbo for murdering this thread.

by **Dukasaur** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:05 pm

riskllama wrote:congrats to jimbo for murdering this thread.

Only in jurisdictions where euthanasia is illegal.

by **saxitoxin** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:58 pm

How ideologically consistent is it to say that an unincorporated individual cannot withhold services from a person based on gender or sexual orientation but to declare that certain services, such as penetrative intercourse, can be withheld on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?

There is a clear continuum of intent, even if it hasn't been explicitly described yet.

"That's so extreme they don't really mean that, saxi, whether or not there is a logical continuum. No one is that crazy!"

Exhibit A: the Leader of the Democrat Party

by **Bernie Sanders** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:10 pm

saxitoxin wrote:How ideologically consistent is it to say that an unincorporated individual cannot withhold services from a person based on gender or sexual orientation but to declare that certain services, such as penetrative intercourse, can be withheld on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?

There is a clear continuum of intent, even if it hasn't been explicitly described yet.

"That's so extreme they don't really mean that, saxi, whether or not there is a logical continuum. No one is that crazy!"

Exhibit A: the Leader of the Democrat Party

She's a freshman Saxi.

Leader of the Democratic Party????? You are either just spreading lies or you are a moron.

by **riskllama** on Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:43 pm

could be both, couldn't it? i mean, he def. has a flare for hyperbole & he seems to be really impressed with the current POTUS. sounds like it's both of those things, to me.

by **saxitoxin** on Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:19 am

Bernie Sanders wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:How ideologically consistent is it to say that an unincorporated individual cannot withhold services from a person based on gender or sexual orientation but to declare that certain services, such as penetrative intercourse, can be withheld on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?

There is a clear continuum of intent, even if it hasn't been explicitly described yet.

"That's so extreme they don't really mean that, saxi, whether or not there is a logical continuum. No one is that crazy!"

Exhibit A: the Leader of the Democrat Party

She's a freshman Saxi.

Leader of the Democratic Party?????

Sorry, I mean co-leader.

by **mrswdk** on Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:20 am

I think the best example of this is refusing to have sex with someone for no reason other than their biological sex.

"I just don't find their kind attractive."

If a racist non-Nike wearing southerner like OT poster saxitoxin said this about a non-white person, he would be rounded on. But when he says it about another man, society shrugs and moves on.

Say no to bigotry in all its forms. Vote Bernie!

by **Bernie Sanders** on Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:21 am

mrswdk wrote:I think the best example of this is refusing to have sex with someone for no reason other than their biological sex.

"I just don't find their kind attractive."

If a racist non-Nike wearing southerner like OT poster saxitoxin said this about a non-white person, he would be rounded on. But when he says it about another man, society shrugs and moves on.

Say no to bigotry in all its forms. Vote Bernie!

Primaries don't start until January 2020

It's just a beauty pageant right now.

Feel thd Burn!

by **mrswdk** on Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:13 pm

They're going to spend the next 6 months arguing over who should be the Democrat candidate? Don't these people have jobs to do?

by **saxitoxin** on Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:22 pm

mrswdk wrote:They're going to spend the next 6 months arguing over who should be the Democrat candidate? Don't these people have jobs to do?

No, Daddy's doing all the work running the country right now.

by **jimboston** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:20 am

saxitoxin wrote:How ideologically consistent is it to say that an unincorporated individual cannot withhold services from a person based on gender or sexual orientation but to declare that certain services, such as penetrative intercourse, can be withheld on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?

There is a clear continuum of intent, even if it hasn't been explicitly described yet.

"That's so extreme they don't really mean that, saxi, whether or not there is a logical continuum. No one is that crazy!"

So it’s a big leap.

That said, it’s not applicable in social interactions, only in commercial interactions.

Therefore it’s kinda moot, from a legal point of view, in MOST of the country.

That said, you do have a point where prostitution is legal.

So in Nevada (the only place I know where prostitution is legal,though it may be ‘decriminalized’ in other state) you may have a point.

If a baker can’t refuse to bake a cake for a wedding/event he/she disapproves of... then theoretically a prostitute in NV would also have to have sex with anyone who is willing and able to pay for said services. You can make that legal argument. It seems ridiculous but it’s a valid argument.

... i’m also curious to know if things other than sexual orientation have been used to deny services and if these situations have been tested in court...

Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? How about for an Atheist wedding?
Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a new-nazi or KKK rally?

Can a KKK group hire a DJ to run the sound system system at a rally... and could they force the DJ to provide said service even if he/she was opposed to their message?

Going further... if a musician or musical act licenses their music through the standard system that radio stations use, how can that same musician deny Trump the ability to play their music at a rally? The music is commercially licensed and the copyright holder is getting paid, so why do they have the right to deny their services to Trump?

Saxi does have a valid point.

by **mrswdk** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:47 am

jimboston wrote:Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? How about for an Atheist wedding?
Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a new-nazi or KKK rally?

Can a KKK group hire a DJ to run the sound system system at a rally... and could they force the DJ to provide said service even if he/she was opposed to their message?

Going further... if a musician or musical act licenses their music through the standard system that radio stations use, how can that same musician deny Trump the ability to play their music at a rally? The music is commercially licensed and the copyright holder is getting paid, so why do they have the right to deny their services to Trump?

It depends what the equalities laws in America say (if there are any).

In the UK there are specific characteristics that are protected under the Equalities Act, including (off the top of my head) ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, sex, disability and age. Discriminating against someone on the basis of those or any other protected characteristics is illegal. Political views are not a protected characteristic, so people are free to discriminate based on political views.

So here, you can refuse to bake a cake for a Nazi or KKK wedding, but can't refuse to bake it for a Muslim or atheist wedding.

by **saxitoxin** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:43 am

jimboston wrote:Saxi does have a valid point.

/thread

by **mrswdk** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:56 am

saxitoxin wrote:
jimboston wrote:Saxi does have a valid point.

/thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/

by **tzor** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:01 am

saxitoxin wrote:Contenders for the Democrat Party presidential nomination have called on it to be made a hate crime to refuse to have sex with someone on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. Do you agree?

I disagree. No one ever tells a person why they don't want to have sex with them. :twisted:

More over, terms as "sex" (ask President Clinton for the reasons for this one) and "gender" (being so fluid as it were) are exceptionally vague from a legal standpoint. Does this mean a straight white male can ask a lesbian Hispanic woman for sex and if she says no, then he slaps her with a "hate crime?" (Now was that a violation of gender or a violation of sexual orientation or both? In fact doesn't sexual orientation fly out the window at this point because the law doesn't care what the gender is you have to have sex with everybody that asks or it's a gender hate crime violation.)

by **mrswdk** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:17 am

sex = biological/physiological characteristics
gender = behavioural and personality traits, generally associated with one or other sex

by **jimboston** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:17 am

mrswdk wrote:
jimboston wrote:Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? How about for an Atheist wedding?
Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a new-nazi or KKK rally?

Can a KKK group hire a DJ to run the sound system system at a rally... and could they force the DJ to provide said service even if he/she was opposed to their message?

Going further... if a musician or musical act licenses their music through the standard system that radio stations use, how can that same musician deny Trump the ability to play their music at a rally? The music is commercially licensed and the copyright holder is getting paid, so why do they have the right to deny their services to Trump?

It depends what the equalities laws in America say (if there are any).

In the UK there are specific characteristics that are protected under the Equalities Act, including (off the top of my head) ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, sex, disability and age. Discriminating against someone on the basis of those or any other protected characteristics is illegal. Political views are not a protected characteristic, so people are free to discriminate based on political views.

So here, you can refuse to bake a cake for a Nazi or KKK wedding, but can't refuse to bake it for a Muslim or atheist wedding.

Political views aren’t a ‘protected’ characteristic... but free speech is protected.

So if my protected free speech is used to support Trump, could a baker refuse to make me an awesome “I love Trump” cake for my election night party?
I think that’s debatable.

by **mrswdk** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:44 pm

Free speech doesn't mean that private companies have to give you a platform to express your views. If CC wants to make a rule saying 'no using naughty words' and censor any use of naughty words in people's posts then it is free to do so.

by **jimboston** on Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:58 pm

mrswdk wrote:Free speech doesn't mean that private companies have to give you a platform to express your views. If CC wants to make a rule saying 'no using naughty words' and censor any use of naughty words in people's posts then it is free to do so.

... but they theoretically have to apply this rule evenly.

by **mrswdk** on Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:17 am

Whose theory is that? Far as I'm aware, legally they're free to do what they want.

by **mookiemcgee** on Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:57 am

mrswdk wrote:sex = biological/physiological characteristics
gender = behavioural and personality traits, generally associated with one or other sex

I do feel this modern definition of gender has a few holes in it, but it does seem pretty widely accepted at this point. Fun fact: This is all a Kiwi's fault! Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.

1828 Websters definition of gender: A sex, male or female.

Honest question... Are there two different words in Chinese for Gender & Sex?