258
Worst States To Live & Work In. All 10 Are Republican States
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
258 points (92.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3595 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Coerced speech? Invading? Boy that does sound scary.
You have any other completely imaginary strawmen we should be hypothetically scared of?
Coerced speech like how some places are now looking at making "misgendering" and "using the wrong pronouns" illegal.
Not sure what word other than "invading" you would user for biological men going in to places designed specifically only for biological women?
Do you even know what a strawman is?
Yeah. Those things you're saying aren't real.
No? What's this then?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-house-passes-bill-using-wrong-pronouns-felony-fineable-10000
Did you even read your boogey man bill or just take Fox News as gods word? The bill only says someone is guilty of a felony if they cause damage, bodily harm, or threaten a person because of sexual identity. It just adds a protection to people who are being victimize for a specific aspect of their identity.
As long as you weren’t planning on any hate crimes you can misgender people as much as you want in Michigan. It makes you an asshole, but not a felon.
If you would like to read the bill you’re parroting bullshit about, I can link you to the actual text of it on Michigan’s website so you don’t have to be scared of going to jail for misgendering someone anymore.
Again unless you’re planning a hate crime against them. Then you’re n asshole and a felon. Because hate crimes are bad. That’s not a political thing right? Like damaging someone’s property or body is illegal all the time. It’s just more illegal when you do it intentionally because of an aspect of their identity. I mean you don’t think it’s okay to assault disabled folks because of their disability?
From the (fox news, of course) link:
The article quotes only one person, but I suppose "some experts" is just an oversight, and not because fox knows its credulous audience won't bother reading too closely or critically. Or looking up the "expert" around whom the story pivots. No huge surprise, he's the founder of a Christian think tank that focuses on legislating Christianity as law. They're anti-lgbt, anti-abortion, and antivaxx.
Got someone who isn't an alarmist bent on violating everyone's religious liberty?
Again though - the legislation is there. You're simply saying that because the source is a company that you don't like that the information they're reporting on is wrong, which is false.
I don't know what sources reporting on the same actual legislation you'll accept? I didn't go to fox news to find it, i just googled it and that was the top name i recognized of the dozens of sites reporting it. Again - it's in the legislation. It's not a rumour, it's not "fake news".
This was specifically added in to the bill when adding them as a "protected class". The legislation introduced hate crime penalties for causing a person to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened,” regarding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.”
Here's an msn one: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/michigan-residents-could-be-charged-with-a-felony-and-fined-up-to-10000-over-wrong-pronouns/ss-AA1dibuC#image=1
Is MSN acceptable for you? Got a list of approved websites that report on legislations?
That's one sentence long and has no sources at all. You're not even bothering to open these before you post them.
Click through the images.....it's a slideshow with information on each one lol. Who's not even bothering to open these before posting?
Here are links to the actual legislation: https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/HB4474/2023
On there, what is under Subjects?
Civil rights: sex discrimination and harassment
Civil rights: sexual orientation discrimination
Oh, how about that. So, that slideshow only quotes the same "expert" as the fox news did.
You're relying on one bigoted alarmist's deliberate misinterpretation of the law.
The law specifically puts “gender identity” as a protected class for this legislation. Why do you think that is?
Because they... want them to be protected by the law?
Now put that together with the context of these hate speech law changes and you see what that means?
It means they're protected by the law. Not this sky-is-falling nonsense from one guy whose job it is to scream sky-is-falling nonsense.
Right, so the changes they made to the law mean that someone can be charged for misgendering…….which is the point that you guys are saying isn’t true.
According to one guy who is deliberately misinterpreting the law because he's a bigoted alarmist who doesn't want trans people having any legal protections at all. You keep ignoring this.
I’m sure you don’t even see the irony in saying that’s just one persons opinion of it, like a random staunch democrat voters opinion isn’t biased in one direction.
What you mean to say is that you disagree and think the law won’t be enforced that way. The law makes it possible to enforce misgendering as hate speech.