Not sexually attracted to a trans-queeer? You may be charged with federal crimes.

[Anti Globalist]

Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.

 

[Sammy]

Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.

Why?

 

[TheCount]

Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.

No, it's stating that you can't discriminate against them because of their romantic or other relationships, or the lack thereof.

Basically it's saying, from my understanding, that you have to accept their sexual identity to be the thing that they say it is whether or not they actually do that thing. So if they say that they're gay but they aren't in a relationship with another man, you couldn't discount their gayness.


I can't imagine how this would come up in reality. It seems like the only thing this does is prevent people from evaluating the accuracy or correctness of a person's claimed sexuality or asexuality.

 

[oyarde]

You all see where this could go?

I want Christy Myers from my high school punished under law because she turned me down for a date because she was way hotter than me

Shes probably really hot now

 

[oyarde]

Why is the LGBTQ agenda only promoted in western countries?

Perversions of this nature for the most part happen in societies with wealth and free time . If your busy working every day to eat and keep a roof over your head you dont have time, energy or inclination to cut your dick off and make a trans flag .

 

[TheTexan]

I have come to agreement on this.

This no longer has anything to do with vague libertarian notions about "Not caring with who sleeps with whom".

This is a front on the war of Marxist revolution.

The weirdosexuals are being used, wittingly or unknowingly, to spearhead the normalizing of the very worst vices and crimes people can commit, and they are by no means finished.

Their end objective (aside from the collapse of western civilization from rot, vice and lack of children) is the normalization of pre-pubescent pedophilia and "snuff", both recorded and in "real time".

Pretty much this.

Racism and transphobia have been turned into weapons of political suppression.

They use these labels of "racist", "homophobe", to censor, coerce, and destroy.

To advance their Leftist agenda.

By any means necessary.

The simple truth of "male and female" is a proxy war in the larger battle against the Left.

To give ground on such a simple truth, is to give them free exercise of the weapons they have chosen to wield.

The Left chose this -- Not us.

 

[106459]

Yes, that is the phrase that made me sit up and take notice.

I still maintain that, with very little legal parsing or tortured logic, as the law is written, it could be taken to mean what I have said all along: a sexual advance from a hommosexual or trans-queeer that was declined, again, this is the key point, based simply on the fact that the advancee was, in fact, a weirdosexual and the subject of the advance was not, could be on the face of it, proof of criminal discrimination.

I'm still trying to unpack that idea, and see if it has merit or is even possible.


It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.

No snarkiness taken . Brian's subsequent post gave me some added POV clarity. So - I do see what you're saying, in the interest of de-mucking this crap (IE: if any of ABC, then could be LMN, and any of XYZ), here's the language:

Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.

I don't want to (and probably can't) go a full legalese route, but here's the (2) issues/interpretation missing:

-The LGBTQXYZ+ has been adding letters by the day. The way I read that legislation is: "You can't discriminate based on a person's sexuality, or asexuality, on the basis of gender".

-Why didn't they just say asexuality? Well because there's over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY types of asexuality, don't you know! Wow. Unbelievable.
-Additionally: Yes, asexual is a "mainstream" orientation you'll see on dating apps.​

-The other hurdle that I don't see being overcome is Equal Protections. To quote JMDrake:

To sue you for NOT being attracted to men would be "discrimination based on......sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof on the basis of gender."

...So, they're fighting discrimination by...being discriminatory to you? That's going to be a tough sell.​

Footnote sampling of asexualities, apparently:
Abroromantic, Acoromantic, Aidoromantic, Proquuromantic, Quoiromantic

 

[TheTexan]

No snarkiness taken . Brian's subsequent post gave me some added POV clarity. So - I do see what you're saying, in the interest of de-mucking this crap (IE: if any of ABC, then could be LMN, and any of XYZ), here's the language:


I don't want to (and probably can't) go a full legalese route, but here's the (2) issues/interpretation missing:

-The LGBTQXYZ+ has been adding letters by the day. The way I read that legislation is: "You can't discriminate based on a person's sexuality, or asexuality, on the basis of gender".

-Why didn't they just say asexuality? Well because there's over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY types of asexuality, don't you know! Wow. Unbelievable.
-Additionally: Yes, asexual is a "mainstream" orientation you'll see on dating apps.​

-The other hurdle that I don't see being overcome is Equal Protections. To quote JMDrake:

...So, they're fighting discrimination by...being discriminatory to you? That's going to be a tough sell.​

Footnote sampling of asexualities, apparently:
Abroromantic, Acoromantic, Aidoromantic, Proquuromantic, Quoiromantic

I consider myself a creepersexual. I have only romantic interest in people who have no interest in me.

 

[106459]

I can't imagine how this would come up in reality. It seems like the only thing this does is prevent people from evaluating the accuracy or correctness of a person's claimed sexuality or asexuality.

This will come up all the time in reality. To re-post the, full, most broad interpretation of this statute:

Discrimination based on sexual orientation:
- includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
○ Gender nonbinary people also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes.
§ Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation.
□ Even if these perceptions are incorrect:
The identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

Even if your perceptions are incorrect. The identity you have now imputed on that third-party forms the basis of discrimination.

-You incorrectly labelled their asexuality? Of which there are 150? You have IMPUTED their identity! Sexual discrimination.​

Like Brian mentioned -- this is about thought-crime. It has extreme consequences.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, that is the phrase that made me sit up and take notice.

I still maintain that, with very little legal parsing or tortured logic, as the law is written, it could be taken to mean what I have said all along: a sexual advance from a hommosexual or trans-queeer that was declined, again, this is the key point, based simply on the fact that the advancee was, in fact, a weirdosexual and the subject of the advance was not, could be on the face of it, proof of criminal discrimination.

I'm still trying to unpack that idea, and see if it has merit or is even possible.



I have been, and that's what's got me wound up.

It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.

Okay. I'm going to try to explain this one more time but I'll be brief with my brief.

I) The "lack thereof" portion of the text protects the person with the lack thereof! It means the opposite of what you're thinking it means. Again, here is the whole sentence.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.

So this means that in the context of the 1964 civil rights act, discrimination under that act is barred if it is:

A) based on a person's actual or perceived romantic, emotion, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons based on gender or
B) lack of sexual attraction on the basis of gender.

So that means:

A) Someone can't discriminate against you because you like the same sex.
B) Someone can't discriminate against you because you like the opposite sex.
C) Someone can't discriminate against you because you DON'T like the same sex.
D) Someone can't discriminate against you because you DON'T like the opposite sex.

There is NO WAY someone can twist this to mean that if some gay person makes a sexual advance towards you and you turn him down that he can sue you. If so, then heterosexual males could walk into a lesbian bar, proposition all the women they found attractive, and have a reason to file a lawsuit afterwards.

II) But also, the 1984 Civil Rights Act doesn't even bar all discrimination on the basis of race. That's why I went through that longer analysis. If the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't bar all discrimination on the basis of race, then amending it to include sexual orientation also doesn't bar all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Even in employment, sometimes discrimination is allowed on the basis of race, sex or age if those are substantially related to the job. That's why Hooters doesn't have to hire male servers. Another example? I sometimes worked as an extra for the TV show "Nashville". Occasionally a casting call might require people of a specific race or gender or age range.

 

[jmdrake]

No, it's stating that you can't discriminate against them because of their romantic or other relationships, or the lack thereof.

Basically it's saying, from my understanding, that you have to accept their sexual identity to be the thing that they say it is whether or not they actually do that thing. So if they say that they're gay but they aren't in a relationship with another man, you couldn't discount their gayness.


I can't imagine how this would come up in reality. It seems like the only thing this does is prevent people from evaluating the accuracy or correctness of a person's claimed sexuality or asexuality.

What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness. I mean...I have no idea why somebody would not accept somebody's gayness. Well...yeah I can. I have had to explain to more than one friend/family member that he or she was not gay. Why? Because he or she told me over and over again about this person or that person of the opposite sex that he or she was attracted to. I had to explain to that person that, by definition, if you like people of both sexes you aren't gay, you're bi. Everyone that I explained that too ultimately thanked me for helping them see that. Apparently, especially in the lesbian community, there is a stigma about being bi (I don't get that) so some bi people are in denial about that.

Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.

 

[oyarde]

No wonder Danke is on the run . He has a long history of not tipping the trans Siam waitresses as much .

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.

Perfect! You will be protected under the "lack thereof" clause.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's be real now, is there any straight dude here that wouldn't bang this gorgeous beauty?
...

This website can help you with your dating questions...

Examine your own bias. If you're wondering if your date is trans, you might be harboring some negative stereotypes in your mind that are not based in reality or you don't want to be mixed up with a trans person. Moreover, your reaction to your date if they are trans, based on your misunderstanding and bias, can be devastating to someone who already faces societal rejection and abuse. If they are trans, they are no less of a person and they should be treated the same way.

If you find yourself dealing with fear over finding out your date is trans, read How to Deal With Transphobia and How to Respect a Transgender Person. It may help you understand what they're going through and how they feel.
...
https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-Your-Date-is-Transgender

 

[Anti Federalist]

There is NO WAY someone can twist this to mean that if some gay person makes a sexual advance towards you and you turn him down that he can sue you. If so, then heterosexual males could walk into a lesbian bar, proposition all the women they found attractive, and have a reason to file a lawsuit afterwards.

I'm going to thank you for your time, and sincerely express my appreciation for spelling it out, as someone with a legal background.

My final comment on this, other than, wait and see, since it's pretty much assured of passage, is this:

If I had dollar for every time somebody told me there is "NO WAY" some obscure law could not be twisted to mean something utterly different, I'd be kicking it with Popeye Bezos on the yacht.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, that is the phrase that made me sit up and take notice.

I still maintain that, with very little legal parsing or tortured logic, as the law is written, it could be taken to mean what I have said all along: a sexual advance from a hommosexual or trans-queeer that was declined, again, this is the key point, based simply on the fact that the advancee was, in fact, a weirdosexual and the subject of the advance was not, could be on the face of it, proof of criminal discrimination.

I'm still trying to unpack that idea, and see if it has merit or is even possible.



I have been, and that's what's got me wound up.

It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.

If this law is not used by itself to force perversion on anyone it will be a step towards it.
Eventually they will create a Socialized Sex system where the government ensures that everyone gets "their fair share" of sex nd everyone will be required to participate.

 

[Danke]

 

[Danke]

I will pay for the @TheTexan to date a trans,

 

[TheTexan]

I will pay for the @TheTexan to date a trans,

I wouldn't normally date a trans but I suppose I could make an exception for your mother.

 

[Danke]

I wouldn't normally date a trans but I suppose I could make an exception for your mother.

my mother died last year