Posted on Oct 10, 2017
7
7
0
This is a fantastic distraction from the many serious issues that California faces; crime, quality of life, fires, bankruptcy, etc.
A newly signed law signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown last week states that health care workers who choose not to address transgender patients by their preferred pronouns could face fines or jail time.
A newly signed law signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown last week states that health care workers who choose not to address transgender patients by their preferred pronouns could face fines or jail time.
California Law: Calling Transgenders the Wrong Gender Pronoun Can Send You to Jail - Breitbart
Posted from breitbart.com
Transgender
LGBTQ+
Law
Political Correctness
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 13
9
9
0
The left will tell you that the law doesn't send someone to jail for improper use of a pronoun, it states fines. Tell that to the people who refuse to pay the fine. This law is all sorts of wrong.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I wonder how discrimination for HIV patients goes over in an assisted living center??? Certainly there is a rational for medical separation.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Go past the right wing hype, and read the actual text of the law, which also lays out the conditions that led to it. It's a LGBT patients bill of rights that lays out several things that long term care facilities are prohibited from doing to discriminate or harass LGBT patients. Read through this document and then let's see if you really believe this bill is a bad thing. The sad thing is that if the staff at these facilities would just treat these patients with the same level of respect as anyone else, none of this would be necessary. But this vulnerable population does face discrimination and needs a legal basis to fight against it. And as the bill states upfront, there are already other laws that prescribe procedures that licensed facilities must do Irt their patients that are also misdemeanors. If licensing requirements weren't considered against the law, then no facility would have to follow them.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
If there are already other laws that prescribe procedures for dealing with these people, why does there need to be another law that compels speech, which is against the First Amendment?
Should a facility be assholes to their residents? No, who wants to be a customer of a business that teats them like that. Should these facilities employ people that act that way to their residents? No, since their customers would not like it and therefore be more likely to bring their business elsewhere, it is bad for business to employ people that act like that. Should the government charge someone with a crime for calling someone else something they do lot like? No, the First Amendment allows freedom of speech even if it is offensive. Could the government take away their license for treating the patients that way? Probably, as working in a certain field is not a right, but it should not be a crime whether it is a misdemeanor or some higher offense.
Should a facility be assholes to their residents? No, who wants to be a customer of a business that teats them like that. Should these facilities employ people that act that way to their residents? No, since their customers would not like it and therefore be more likely to bring their business elsewhere, it is bad for business to employ people that act like that. Should the government charge someone with a crime for calling someone else something they do lot like? No, the First Amendment allows freedom of speech even if it is offensive. Could the government take away their license for treating the patients that way? Probably, as working in a certain field is not a right, but it should not be a crime whether it is a misdemeanor or some higher offense.
(2)
(0)
CPT John Sheridan
SSgt (Join to see) - It takes a deep read, including finding and reading the embedded referenced statutes. It is difficult to wade through. This law only imposes civil and criminal penalties on the institution. It creates no criminal penalties against individuals.
The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment isn't really an issue. There are limits and exceptions to Free Speech affirmed in SCOTUS opinions such as libel, slander, inciting a riot, threats, harassment. So while one may stand on the soap box in a public space and argue against transgender rights, one may not taunt and harass a transgendered individual. You can substitute just about anything for "transgender" in the previous statement.
Elderly people in long term care facilities are one of the most vulnerable populations. They can't defend themselves, advocate for themselves, or take action against an institution that fails to protect them. "Take your business elsewhere" is not that easy. It can be remarkably traumatic for a resident to be yanked out of familiar surroundings, taken away from their friends. It can be highly distressing and financially disruptive to their families. That's why we have numerous state and federal laws to protect them.
The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment isn't really an issue. There are limits and exceptions to Free Speech affirmed in SCOTUS opinions such as libel, slander, inciting a riot, threats, harassment. So while one may stand on the soap box in a public space and argue against transgender rights, one may not taunt and harass a transgendered individual. You can substitute just about anything for "transgender" in the previous statement.
Elderly people in long term care facilities are one of the most vulnerable populations. They can't defend themselves, advocate for themselves, or take action against an institution that fails to protect them. "Take your business elsewhere" is not that easy. It can be remarkably traumatic for a resident to be yanked out of familiar surroundings, taken away from their friends. It can be highly distressing and financially disruptive to their families. That's why we have numerous state and federal laws to protect them.
(1)
(0)
CPT John Sheridan
PO1 John Miller - The ability to find common ground with those you frequently disagree with and the ability to disagree without disrespect are two signs of decency and maturity that are all too often absent. Respect to you!
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT John Sheridan - "There are limits and exceptions to Free Speech affirmed in SCOTUS opinions such as libel, slander, inciting a riot, threats, harassment" I will agree with you that there are limits to the 1st Amendment but harassment and threats do not fall into that category. Inciting imminent violence is a limit but someone can call another all the offensive names in the world and that still is protected under the 1st amendment.
As far as no criminal penalties against individuals, criminal responsibility falls on individuals, whether it is the CEO of the company or one of its other employees. The company may have to pay damages but even when it is in a criminal case monetary damages aren't anything more than what you would see as the outcome of a civil suit. Besides the bill explicitly states, "a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor." That sounds an awful lot like it is station that it is individuals that will be found criminally responsible for calling someone a name they don't like.
I also understand your last point about having to take your business elsewhere. The elderly are vulnerable but that is why the family should research the facility they wish to put someone in before doing it, so they can avoid this type of behavior. They can also report the person to the company they work for in hopes of getting them fired if this happens after they move in.
As someone else stated, the law should not be needed for people to treat one another with basic respect. The problem is that there are some people that are a-holes and that is their right. They probably should not be employed in the healthcare industry but that is for the companies that hire people to decide and then fire. I still stand by my comment that this should not be a law as it compels individuals speech which is against the 1st amendment.
As far as no criminal penalties against individuals, criminal responsibility falls on individuals, whether it is the CEO of the company or one of its other employees. The company may have to pay damages but even when it is in a criminal case monetary damages aren't anything more than what you would see as the outcome of a civil suit. Besides the bill explicitly states, "a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor." That sounds an awful lot like it is station that it is individuals that will be found criminally responsible for calling someone a name they don't like.
I also understand your last point about having to take your business elsewhere. The elderly are vulnerable but that is why the family should research the facility they wish to put someone in before doing it, so they can avoid this type of behavior. They can also report the person to the company they work for in hopes of getting them fired if this happens after they move in.
As someone else stated, the law should not be needed for people to treat one another with basic respect. The problem is that there are some people that are a-holes and that is their right. They probably should not be employed in the healthcare industry but that is for the companies that hire people to decide and then fire. I still stand by my comment that this should not be a law as it compels individuals speech which is against the 1st amendment.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
That's OK. This, obviously, is to counter-balance their reduction in the penalties for intentionally infecting someone else with HIV. (Insert favorite sarcasm emoji.)
This law is stupid...because it deliberately penalizes MEDICAL practitioners over the matter of transgenders.
(And yes, I used the word as a noun. If you have a problem with this, we'll discuss it. But I'm not changing my use of the word as a noun any more than I'm changing my use of the word as an adjective.)
Mother Nature cares little (OK, she cares not at all) what we CHOOSE to call ourselves. Calling ourselves something counter to our natural biology does not change the REALITY of our biology.
And medicine and medical treatment is all about biology. And sometimes your NATURAL gender DOES matter when it comes to medicine and medical treatment.
Now, with the subject of ADDRESSING a person by what they choose to be addressed by...I have no problem with this so long as it's respectful and not meant to be something foul. I would expect a person to let me know how they wish to be addressed, and that's how I'll address them.
It's no different to me than than Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, or a nickname instead of a given name.
This law is stupid...because it deliberately penalizes MEDICAL practitioners over the matter of transgenders.
(And yes, I used the word as a noun. If you have a problem with this, we'll discuss it. But I'm not changing my use of the word as a noun any more than I'm changing my use of the word as an adjective.)
Mother Nature cares little (OK, she cares not at all) what we CHOOSE to call ourselves. Calling ourselves something counter to our natural biology does not change the REALITY of our biology.
And medicine and medical treatment is all about biology. And sometimes your NATURAL gender DOES matter when it comes to medicine and medical treatment.
Now, with the subject of ADDRESSING a person by what they choose to be addressed by...I have no problem with this so long as it's respectful and not meant to be something foul. I would expect a person to let me know how they wish to be addressed, and that's how I'll address them.
It's no different to me than than Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, or a nickname instead of a given name.
(4)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Ray J here... Just don't call me Johnson
CW3 Lindsey Muller - Raymond J. Johnson Jr. had it covered decades ago.
;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc
;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc
(0)
(0)
PO2 David Keener
This bill specifically states that professional clinical judgment takes precedence.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
PO2 David Keener - Well, to be fair the referenced article deals with proper addressing of an individual, specifically not addressing them by their chosen gender preference. Seems to me that the caveat of "professional clinical judgment takes precedence" doesn't apply to this.
However, this bill is still stupid in some aspects aspects. For example:
1439.51. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status:
(3) Where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning, or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity, unless at the transgender resident’s request.
Since the medical practitioner can't refuse this based on any "professionally reasonable clinical judgment", then the concerns/beliefs of OTHERS in the same room are of no consequence? For example, a woman already assigned to a room may not wish to have a biological male assigned in the same room.
(4) Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity.
Again...there are those who are most definitely NOT comfortable with biological males/females (let's also include pre-gender reassignment surgery) sharing the same restroom facilities with themselves. Are we to deny them their concerns here, as well?
However, this bill is still stupid in some aspects aspects. For example:
1439.51. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status:
(3) Where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning, or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity, unless at the transgender resident’s request.
Since the medical practitioner can't refuse this based on any "professionally reasonable clinical judgment", then the concerns/beliefs of OTHERS in the same room are of no consequence? For example, a woman already assigned to a room may not wish to have a biological male assigned in the same room.
(4) Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity.
Again...there are those who are most definitely NOT comfortable with biological males/females (let's also include pre-gender reassignment surgery) sharing the same restroom facilities with themselves. Are we to deny them their concerns here, as well?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google