>>207314>part of me hopes that in the super long run, society will have advanced to the point where cultural morality is ingrained enough, technology is advanced enough, and resource usage is sustainable enough that we'll look back on the need for governments and laws in general as obsolete; something that primitive barbaric 21st century humans needed to keep themselves from destroying each other.
Thats a pretty romantic notion, but if thats the way it went, i would have no complaints at all haha. >The First Amendment is a law, just as the Civil Rights Act is a law, and it exists to protect those with less power from those with more power.
I would argue that the first amendment is a reminder of an inalienable right, laws prescribe punishment. But i see what you are saying, because you could say that of civil rights, but the ACT is a law. Again, a constitutional amendment as short and sweet as No person shall be discriminated against for any legal choice, would be something i fully endorse. >Trump would probably love to lock up every single CNN reporter if he could, but he can't, and that's a good thing.
HA! I agree its a good thing, but I dont think Trump would lock them up, as they are giving him exactly what he wants haha.> If she was a cis woman, they would have no problem with her dressing as she did.
Right, but she wasn't. >it'd be kind of like if your job required you to wear something "girly" all the time.
I would ether do what was asked of me, or quit. >And I'm not sure they would have stopped at only clothes; clothes were the line she drew, but if she gave in on that front they probably would have also said she can't wear makeup, has to keep her hair short, perhaps even has to introduce herself by her male name.
But your not sure they wouldnt have ether, nether and I though. I would actually give them the makeup, and short hair, if they said that of any person working there. Thats the thing, if they required a standard for ALL the employees, it would have been a better way to go, that even female employees had to wear pants. I would for sure not back up the name thing, because thats dehumanizing, esp if its a legal name. I'm not saying the business didnt handle their end poorly too, but I think it would have been better if she had just started looking for another job, rather than picking that battle.
I know thats hard too. Its not a perfect paralell, but iv been looking for a job and iv had people tell me they wouldnt even consider me because i worked at a gun store. Thats discrimination, and its something i have to consider every time i send out a resume, that it might just be trashed based on that one thing, and i never had a chance in the first place. So while not a perfect example, i have an idea of what it feels like to think you wont even be given the opportunity to present yourself in the first place. >And when you're trans, acting the part is an existential nightmare.
This is the part that i fully admit, i can never fully understand, but i think its also the part that can make judgment clouded and create a bias. Not saying that of you, but i could def see how having a personal steak in something can lead to a bias. >The fact that it's a funeral home complicates the situation and lends emotional weight to their side, but I don't think that it invalidates her indignation.
I dont think it invalidates her indignation at all, i just think the more dignified route would be to put in her 2 weeks notice and move on. Again, like mikie said, what would it be like for her at that job if they were forced
to keep her? It would have been hostile to say the least, and i dont think that would have been a better situation for her.>Well, if the law says you can't kick someone out of a homeless shelter for being trans (which is part of what extending the Civil Rights Act would do), that's one way it'd help their situation.
I'll give you that, for sure. > And if you have a job and have been saving money from it, enough for even a few months' rent and groceries in a cheap studio apartment, getting kicked out from your parents' house is way less of a "damn, now I gotta suck dick just to survive" than it otherwise would be.
But i feel like you have to work under the assumption that, atm, its impossible for trans people to find employment, which simply isnt true.>would you say that society has become more racist, or less racist, as a result of the Civil Rights Act?
Its become less racist, but imho I think the civil rights act had little to do with it, i think it was trending that way to begin with, or LBJ, a huge
racist, would have never signed it in the first place. > it seems to me like in most of the country, people of color have it much better now than they did in the 1950s
I think they are protected more, you can call stuff like the civil rights act and affirmative action as being "better off" because they are legally entitled to special treatment, but is it better for their community? I would argue that they dont have it better off, because their community has fallen to shit, we have billboards around the city pleading with black people not to kill each other, idk if id call that better off.
They have become an "other" instead of just a person.
Italians and Catholics were just as discriminated against in my area when my grandfather came over, as were the irish, but the Italians and Irish didnt get special laws and stuff, but what they did do was work hard, make their community better, embrace and laugh at the hate speech, and in the long haul, have it WAY better than people of colour.
They didnt ask for special laws protecting them, they changed the culture itself to accept them.
Look at black culture of the 1950s vs today, and seriously tell me its better. >>207317>Well, in the case of weed it's kind of a fundamentally different situation. With weed, changing the law is quite literally the root of what they're fighting for.
I agree, but its a good correlation for how changing the minds of the people can have a hard impact. Marijuana users rights were way behind the 8 ball, and still have come out on top.
But it took a lot of hard work. >Run for office. Please.
Still think that? haha. >that's what I think anti-discrimination law should be: discriminate solely on legitimate safety risk, and base employment solely on qualification.
Ill back you up 100% on that.
And, im not AGAINST
the civil rights act being extended to anyone, i just dont think its a "solution" to the problem, and see it as a really cheap band aid that, when it dosnt include everyone, can actually be its own form of social segregation.I also think that was the point of it when LBJ signed it >>207323
This post was edited by its author on .