Just Don't call me Karen....

yep, heard that, just as wrong when the other side does it

kids and teens love Harry Potter and if it gets them to read, that is a great thing

 

I did answer your question. Another good way to fight the media establishment is to avoid buying what they have to sell.

 

No, you didn't. You avoided it. Like the plague. And we both know why. Shall I repeat the question again in hopes that you reverse course and discover some intellectual honesty?

 

I think you should acknowledge that people who control the media, those who stifle alternative viewpoints, are now mostly on the left.

 

Please tell me why you think I avoided the question.

 

fake news, the reason the Trump supporters left fox is they made the mistake of being honest for a change

this is just conspiracy theorists looking for a safe space that agrees with all their conspiracies

 

Because you haven't. Maybe you didn't read it, so I will try again in the blind hope that you will dig into your pockets for some intellectual honesty: Should we fire people if they are deliberately rude about a co-worker's religious beliefs and continue being so after being repeatedly asked to stop?

 

Trump has literally argued that it should be illegal to call his building plans ugly. You can be a 1st Amendment supporter or a Trump supporter, but you can't rationally be both.

@Anansi the Spider

 

Whatever floats your boat but keep it to yourself. There ought to be civility with regards to trans folks but they ought to be as considerate by not demanding that we participate in their delusion. You can give yourself any name you want and go by any pronoun but I will still address you by your biological assignment. Don't make your problem my problem and we'll get along fine.

 

And when it comes to the workplace, your workplace gets to make the determination about what the workplace requires, right?

 

Same would be true of Christians and their delusion, as far as a he\she pronoun, most will go by the looks as not sure how you would know the 'biological assignment' otherwise

now for medical records, they should go by the biological assignment for treatment options and such when appropriate

 

We're apparently "Going Global" with the incoming oligarchy/corporatocracy which is focused on "Diversity and Equity", because apparently old-fashioned equality isn't good enough for the left. Part of "Equity" is the tamping down of free speech and the compelling of speech the speaker may not which to use.

Europe is setting the "politically correct" precedents, and the Democrat Party is determined to have America follow them into a dystopian 1984 world...




https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/...der-people-in-private-homes-or-conversations/

 

You can't attack someone's religion at work. You can't decide to call your male coworkers by female names and use female pronouns for them, or to decide to call your female coworkers by male names and decide to use male pronouns for them.

You already can't do all those things. If you don't think so, try insisting on calling your male coworkers "she" or your female coworkers "he" and see how long it takes you to get the boot.

Nor can you call them "ugly" and offer the defense that you are just telling the truth.

 

I will call him Elliot until the instant it becomes illegal for me to call him Ellen.

 

I'm against hate speech laws too, but you are citing a non-credible site and the article you cite is full of nonsense.

Here's a serious report on what's going on: https://www.reuters.com/article/norway-lgbt-lawmaking-idUSKBN2852DL

 

If a coworker named "Harold" tells you that he hates the name "Harold" and asks you to call him "Elliot" instead, do you do it, or do you tell him that you will call him "Harold" because that's his real name?

 

If I like the **** I'll call him Elliot. If he's a dog **** I'll take the piss, hard.

I have no beef with Page, therefore I pick the former.

 

They're easy to spot, I haven't seen one yet that pulls it off. The voice is usually a giveaway,

 

I wouldn't work for anyone with that policy, it is not covered by any law...yet. Most companies will not hire controversial people, especially if the job requires working with the public. Facial tattoos, multiple piercings, body modifications are a ticket to chronic unemployment. It's just good business, and it's not discrimination as there are no specific laws prohibiting it. Employers have the right to create a peaceful and productive environment for their employees and in some cases where there is such an applicant it just makes sense to not hire them. These days because of social media and employer may summarily fire anyone who posts things that are not in line with the company's values.

 

I kind of look at it the same way as I do friends who like to be referred to by their middle name instead of their first name. If that's how you wish to be referred to, I'm going to respect those wishes rather than sit here and complain about it

 

Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at Georgetown University. He ranks in the top 100 most cited public intellectuals and is in the top 10 most cited law professors.

Have you better credentials to call Turley's blog site "non-credible" or his article "full of nonsense"?

The Reuters article you linked by journalist Rachel Savage which you cite as a "serious report" indicates nothing which contradicts Turley's article. Her article merely notes that the "TQ's" of LGBTQ+ have been extended special legal privileges without mentioning the potential consequences of "hate speech" laws. Turley's article addresses the possible negatives of those laws.

Savage's article may be "serious", but it addresses a different aspect of the subject.

 

Many things do not affect my general everyday life, should I not care about happenings in the world unless it affects me personally?

 

Unfortunately (or some think fortunately) the U.S. is beginning to see punitive legal measures taken against employers' right to hire the people who project the image they want for their company.

For instance, a funeral home hired a man back in 2007, who signed a document that agreed to a dress code for men and women which projected a "dignified appearance" to the community's grieving families. Six years after working for the home (as a man), the man announced to the employer that he would begin wearing women's clothes to work and wanted to be called "Aimee" instead of "Anthony". The funeral home fired him. He sued, and though he died during the legal proceedings, the Supreme Court awarded "her" $250,000 out of the funeral home's pockets.

Excerpts from full article: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/o...ke-transgender-supreme-court-case/2431576001/




---

---


--- (End excerpts)


Ruling a couple days ago in favor of Anthony/Aimee...

 

Do you have a link to support that charge?