"Will Jack be happier if we all pretend he's Jill" ?

not in the court of public opinion that gets people fired, or threatened.


Gays are off limits to just normal fights. just like they have an extra layer of protection from getting fired for gross negligence. Noone wants to be accused of firing him because he's gay, and that's the go to response when a gay is fired.


I mean, look at Zimmerman. You apparently can't defend yourself from an attack with deadly force if the person attacking you is black. He was cleared of all charges, and yet people on PF.com still label him a racist murderer..... despite the evidence not supporting that.

If I shout the N-word at a black guy I just knocked out for hitting on my wife.... it's not a hate crime
if I shout the F-word at a gay guy while I'm beating him up for cawk-blocking me in Jr High.... it's not a hate crime.


it's simple a regular crime that should be treated as such no matter what color/what way they have sex the victim is

 

I really don't give a damn about the court of public opinion, and please give some examples of people who have been fired or threatened for things that are not related to the sexuality of another, but the public have assumed it is.

I don't believe either of the above, proof is required.

That was not the contention of the case, the case was did Zimmerman act in self-defence or not, the jury found there was not enough evidence to say he didn't and as such he was acquitted .. Even the foreman of the jury did not believe that Zimmerman acted in self-defence but could not act on beliefs, only on the evidence available.

unless it can be shown that the reasoning was racially or sexuality motivated.

Agreed, unless there is evidence to show the crime is motivated for those reasons.

 

After reading the OP's link it seems to me that parents should be the first ones to receive a psychological assessment with family counseling. Most significant mental problems children have are the result of their family situation.

 

It wouldn't be ... unless the reason you were beating him up was because he was gay.

It's not illegal to beat up a gay person (well, not any more illegal than it is to beat up anyone). It's illegal to beat up a gay person simply because they are gay.

It's not illegal to beat up a white (or black) person. It's illegal to beat up a white (or black) person simply because they are white (or black).

People constantly misunderstand how hate crime laws work -- and that they work in two direction, not just one. Making "race" a protected class protects white people just as much as it protects black people.

 

sure you do... when a legit self-defense can be turned into a media circus that costs you your job.... you care. If I am legally protecting myself from a person attacking me... it's not a hate crime and I don't get fired....

but if the guy happens to be a gay.... all of a sudden, my boss can't take the risk of "employeeing a bigot" and there is the issue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ic-bosses-mocked-appearance-article-1.1936431


and now that "we are unable to comment" leaves it to the gaymafia to spin it in the media any way they want

and here's your typical comment based on just ONE side of the story being presented....

"sorry but she has been there for nine years so your assessment of the situation is all wrong."

Already assuming that it was harrassment and bigotry....

but despite no evidence to convict, the commentary that he was a racist looking to kill a black has stuck....

saying the word during the fight does not mean that was the reason FOR the fight. Just that while in anger, it was said with the intent to get the person angrier....

but when no evidence exists, don't you dare hire them or your company will be targetted for boycotts.

 

Why will society be better off? What actual harm does Jack wanting to be Jill cause society?

 

nope I don't, I look at the evidence and come to my own conclusion, and as stated before whether the guy is gay or not isn't relevant unless the attack is motivated by that reason.

BTW. I see no evidence to your assertion "not in the court of public opinion that gets people fired, or threatened.", can you please provide examples of people this has happened to.

I see nothing in that report that does not come under the remit of a "hate" crime should it be found to be true, to deride someone due to their sexuality is demeaning and discrimination .. that being said employers in certain industries can certainly state the type of clothing and general appearance of their staff, what needs to be shown here is whether the reason for her not being allowed on the shop floor is due to her sexuality or her decision not to conform to company accepted dress code. If it is the former then she has no case, if it is the latter then she has every right to sue.

and as I said that is of no interest to me, what is of interest is the evidence in the case ergo there was not enough evidence to say whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defence or not therefore Zimmerman was acquitted, as is right, just as it is in any other case.

I never said that, one would have to examine the sequence of events leading up to the fight and any prior confrontations between the parties involved to see if there were any racial or sexuality relevant to the attack.

Where no evidence exists I personally would have no problem employing a person who was fit to do the job regardless of the public opinion .. I cannot legislate for what other people decide to do as far as boycotting a business is concerned, for I am me and not other people.

 

Well I have no real agenda regarding transgenders. You apparently do.

So you think it's a myth that people have gender disphoria? I'd personally believe there is a serious mental condition. My vested interest is them getting help and coping.

I'd say you pretending that nothing is wrong is a vested interest in a myth.

 

sure you do,

and here is your agenda....


I agree with you on that though. It is a mental issue. Being forced to accept them like nothing is wrong, even going as far as being forced to call a girl, a guy, or vice versa is rediculous appeasement for them

Do I suggest we go up and yell "BANG" behind a PTSD sufferer.... no
Do I suggest we mock and make fun of a tranny? no


but, I shouldn't be forced to keep a PTSD employee that keeps snapping at customers, or give him extra breaks so he can cry in the back room to accomodate. I shouldn't be forced to allow a boy into a girl's lockerroom, or call him a girl, or be fired from my job, either.

 

that case is the same thing as 'hate crime' accusations. A person who automatically sues when fired, taking their story to the press where the accused is not able to comment on pending litigation, is the same person that does 3/4 of a backflip while druink, busts his teeth out, and then tweets that it was a hatecrime attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...video-hitting-HIS-OWN-head-flipping-curb.html

Meanwhile, while this "harrassment" is being investigated, people are boycotting the business when zero evidence exists. Just the mere accusation is enough and now businesses are scared to fire bad employees that are gay for fear of the false accusation.

 

Nope.

Well, don't do it than.

If you have a locker room you can allow anybody you want in it.

 

yep

than what?

public school scenarios is what I mean

and if your daughter is uncomfortable with a 16 yo anatomical male that is playing makebelieve.... something is wrong with your daughter, and she must be re-educated.

 

Nope.

Don't accept them.

I don't think one person's opinion really matters than.

You don't have to keep your children in public schools.

 

in my area you do.... Tehre are no private schools within an hour's drive.

 

Well it sounds like if you have a trans you at your school, and they want to put them in your child's gym class where they will be changing in the locker room. You are going to have to stand up and fight for what you believe is right. That's part of being a parent.

 

No that case is not the same, the case you mentioned (from the Daily Mail, which has an appalling reputation in the UK) WAS investigated correctly and the person was found to have been lying .. IMO he should have faced charges for wasting police time. Whether or not the public boycott a business is something nothing can be done about, the exact same thing happens when someone is accused of other crimes and is not specific to accusations of "hate crimes" against homosexuals.