Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

909

(post is archived)

[–] • 16 pts

I’m surprised this came from California.

[–] • 4 pts

Not everyone is scared of trannies

[–] • 3 pts

Yes, but in general California seems to love them far more that it should.

[–] • 6 pts (edited )

Maybe the court was packed with women who have now a problem with trannies... Cheating husbands maybe... Daughter getting rekt on the playing field... Or maybe it's just all about the money for a change. Or maybe it's a bit of all of that, who knows...

...

The State of California Third District Court of Appeals ruled that a state law requiring the use of preferred pronouns by nursing home workers violated their free speech rights.

The court struck down the pro-transgender regulation on Friday in a unanimous 3-0 decision.

The provision was a part of the LGBTQ Long-Term Care Facility Residents' Bill of Rights passed in 2017 and signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown. The bill's author, state senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), released a statement lambasting the decision.

"The Court's decision is disconnected from the reality facing transgender people," said senator Weiner.

Oh yeah, I'm sure it's the court that is disconnected from reality here. Weiner fuckingfucks...

"Deliberately misgendering a transgender person isn't just a matter of opinion, and it's not simply 'disrespectful, discourteous, or insulting.' Rather, it's straight up harassment," he continued.

"And, it erases an individual's fundamental humanity, particularly one as vulnerable as a trans senior in a nursing home," Weiner concluded. "This misguided decision cannot be allowed to stand."

Oh the humanity!

The law could have punished a health care provider with a year in prison and as much as a $1,000 fine for "prolonged" abuse involving the violation of the provisions including the misuse of preferred pronouns. Sponsors of the bill defended the bill by saying such a punishment would be rarely enforced in only the most extreme cases.

Equality California, who sponsored the legislation, also released a statement through a spokesperson decrying the unanimous ruling by the court.

"Let's be clear: refusing to use someone's correct name and pronouns isn't an issue of free speech — it's a hateful act that denies someone their dignity and truth," said Rick Chavez Zbur, an executive director of Equality California.

Zyklon mass murder and niggers in cages!

"California's nursing home patients deserve better than this — and we'll be fighting until this decision is overturned," he added.

Just shoot the trannies with moderna already you biggot!

[–] • 1 pt

I think many courts rulings have changed since Gishlane Maxwell has been imprisoned.

I think many many judges may have been being blackmailed.

[–] • 7 pts

Imagine that.... compelled speech isn't free speech. Who would have thought.

Faggots still don't realize that there is no such thing as "hate speech." There is only "speech I hate to hear."

[–] • 4 pts

It has to be compelled because it's not grounded in reality. Even the transgenders can't agree on pronouns so they agree to disagree on speech. This is a modern Tower of Babel. Making someone else speak your personal spiritual beliefs is tyranny. Transgendersim is the alleged gender of the spirit aside from all physical reality.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

There's no such thing as hate ______. Hate speech, hate crimes - it's all bullshit.

[–] • 1 pt

It’s nigger bullshit

[–] • 0 pt

Affirmative action for white defendants

[–] • 2 pts

Unfortunately courts have not ruled hate speech laws unconstitutional which they should.

[–] • 0 pt

Would be an open-and-shut case if someone would push it that far. SCOTUS ruled unanimously (yes, even (((Ginsburg)))) in Matal v Tam that "hate speech" does not exist in the legal sense.

[–] • 1 pt

The more I see people trying to get rid of our rights the more pro genocide I become

[–] • 6 pts

"Let's be clear: refusing to use someone's correct name and pronouns isn't an issue of free speech — it's a hateful act that denies someone their dignity and truth," said Rick Chavez Zbur, an executive director of Equality California."

Hateful acts that deny dignity and truth are protected by the 1st amendment as free speech and free expression.

[–] [deleted] • 7 pts

Leftists always think that the only ideas that merit protection are theirs.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

People are allowed to have their own truth. It's called spirituality. But God's truth is manifest in the world he created. Speaking in secular terms grounded in physical reality is speaking in a subset of God's terms. Forcing your own reality is futile and leads to confusion among men. This is the lesson of the tower of Babel IMHO. Transpeople can't agree on their pronouns so they have a different language for each person. I'm sure that tower also had individualized terms for impossible structures. But that is my spirital truth and I wouldn't force it on someone. Every person can make their own spiritual observations so there's no need to force someone to say what can be clearly seen.

[–] • 5 pts

demanding the rest of us play along with their delusion is unacceptable

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

best and most succinct statement on this matter. i think i am going to get a white tee shirt out and write it on the front in bold black permanent marker.

[–] • 0 pt

The ones indoctrinating kids and the evil people allowing it should be lynched.

[–] • 2 pts

Can I say faggot now?

[–] • 1 pt

"Law requiring compelled speech somehow violates the first amendment"

Ya don't say?

[–] • 1 pt

trans senior in a nursing home

Bahahaha, sure. Living right down the hall from Senior Sasquatch and the retired Tooth Lady

[–] • 0 pt

This is religious freedom too. If someone can compel you to speak their truth, and their truth is that there is only one God and his name is Jehovah, then there is no religious freedom either.

Transgendersim is spiritual in nature. It's not the body that's trans. It's the spirit. Forcing someone to speak a particular spiritual position isn't religious freedom.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

if by "spiritual" you mean "distorted and mentally deficient", then yes, "spiritual." i have a more pure connotative definition of the word.

[–] • 0 pt

It's ostensibly spiritual. A man's assertion "I am a woman" doesn't depend on any physical reality including the mechanical and chemical makeup of his brain. He will ignore all physical evidence to the contrary because he claims insight into a higher reality, one you cannot observe.

[–] • 0 pt

Kali can kiss my ass. That fucked up state needs to SERIOUSLY fall into the ocean, sooner rather than later.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

But then where would your punk-ass State get their welfare money from? Cali and Texas provide the vast bulk of the nation's tax income. They each pay about $3.50 into the system for every dollar they get back from the federal government. Most of the tough-talking Red states are net tax guzzlers, Cali and Texas are PROVIDERS.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Remember too that this is in nursing homes, which house dementia patients who are certain that the Staff has been tarnishing their silver while they sleep. Most nursing home workers have had to deal with false accusations from dementia patients. Handing ammunition to crazy old people to use against their care workers is irresponsible.

Load more (7 replies)