CWHL welcoming a trangender player

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by zamler

So if the legislation is so toothless why does it exist.

It's not toothless in other contexts of human rights abuses (or perceived abuses). It's just not likely to have any teeth where someone tells you to call them "she", you insist on calling them "he", and they complain that you've violated their human rights. Even if that nonsense somehow made it before the tribunal owing to the tribunals being occasionally insane, and even if it somehow resulted in an order being made for you to call the person "she", you ignoring it is not likely to have much practical consequence even if you didn't want to bother appealing it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by zamler

So if the legislation is so toothless why does it exist. As for the bakery yes I think it is within the rights of business owners not to make a product that goes against their religious or moral beliefs.

IIRC that couple was fined $125,000 for their refusal that's a complete abuse of the justice system.

Are you a legal expert?

No I'm not, but I've at least read enough about the bill to understand what it does, and that it isn't anything new.

People saying "We don't know how it'll be interpreted" obviously don't even understand that this is just an addition to a list, it doesn't change anything about the enforcement or interpretation of the law it amends, other than extending that protection to another group.

And the legislation isn't toothless.
If you think it is, I invite you to try denying service to some some black people at your business or passing out pamphlets calling for a 2nd holocaust and see how toothless it is.
That's what this law is about, not policing how people think, or how they act in day to day interactions with random people.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by zamler

So if the legislation is so toothless why does it exist. As for the bakery yes I think it is within the rights of business owners not to make a product that goes against their religious or moral beliefs.

IIRC that couple was fined $125,000 for their refusal that's a complete abuse of the justice system.

Are you a legal expert?

What religion prohibits the baking of cakes for gay people? In my admittedly limited experience with religion, most religions seem to concern themselves with less mundane problems of human existence then for whom the cakes may be baked.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not toothless in other contexts of human rights abuses (or perceived abuses). It's just not likely to have any teeth where someone tells you to call them "she", you insist on calling them "he", and they complain that you've violated their human rights.

This remains to be seen, it is possible by your own admission when you say "not likely". If it does happen I will not be even slightly surprised.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I will be. And if it does, I suspect it'll result in another Lindsay Shepherd situation in the media.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What religion prohibits the baking of cakes for gay people? In my admittedly limited experience with religion, most religions seem to concern themselves with less mundane problems of human existence then for whom the cakes may be baked.

I am not religious myself, but many Christians view homosexuality for example a sin, so to ask them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would obviously be against what they believe.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by zamler

This remains to be seen, it is possible by your own admission when you say "not likely". If it does happen I will not be even slightly surprised.

Not really, no it doesn't.
There are years and years of precedent for how this law has been applied.
Pretty sure the type of interaction we are talking about here, is completely irrelevant given the years of experience with the existing laws.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by zamler

I am not religious myself, but many Christians view homosexuality for example a sin, so to ask them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would obviously be against what they believe.

How? Does Christianity prohibit selling cake or doing business with gays (or sinners more generally)? Don’t Christians believe that we are all sinners? Wouldn’t that make for a not-very-successful cake shop then?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Matata

Nope, not even close. Regardless of testosterone levels, someone who went through puberty as a man is going to have a mans hands, shoulders and hips which all have a huge mechanical advantage in terms of generating speed and power, plus they would have the muscle base they developed while having a mans testosterone level. Mens brains are also wired in a way that's more conducive to physical activity (reaction times and spacial reasoning being the big ones here).

Well in the case of the South African sprinter Caster Semenya, I would argue that she has a very masculine body and probably developed that way due to elevated male hormones.

They actually tried to get her to take hormone suppressing drugs but I believe the ruling was overturned as it was deemed to be against human rights.

She has the advantage of a more masculine body and test, while the transgender just has the body.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by zamler

I am not religious myself, but many Christians view homosexuality for example a sin, so to ask them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would obviously be against what they believe.

Yet they'd likely sell to just about any other "sinner". Sell a cake to an adulterer? A murderer? Probably. I would respect them if they were consistent, but I suspect hypocrisy is more likely.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There are years and years of precedent for how this law has been applied.

This is false. There's no precedent whatsoever. The thing only received royal assent this past June.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by zamler

I am not religious myself, but many Christians view homosexuality for example a sin, so to ask them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would obviously be against what they believe.

They also think pre-marital sex is a sin. No complaints making cakes for that.
They also think a whole swack of other things are a sin, but chose to make an issue out of that one. Let's be honest, that really doesn't have much to do with their religion and what they think is or isn't a sin, and that's why it was an issue.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Exactly, someone accused of rape or murder and proven innocent are tainted for life. This is why the whole, "just believe them" movement is god awful. What ever happened to due process?

THis thread needs to be closed but if you actually read about this case, they werent sued because thy wouldn’t bake a cake, they basically made the cake, went to put the names on the cake, noticed they were female, and then began a smear campaign where they posted the couples information and slandered them publicly and tried to harass them/get other people to harass them

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

They also think pre-marital sex is a sin. No complaints making cakes for that.
They also think a whole swack of other things are a sin, but chose to make an issue out of that one. Let's be honest, that really doesn't have much to do with their religion and what they think is or isn't a sin, and that's why it was an issue.

This.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is false. There's no precedent whatsoever. The thing only received royal assent this past June.

Except it's an amendment to an existing law that only adds transgender people to a list of groups on the existing legislation.

The precedent is that the law hasn't been applied in the way people are arguing it will be with other groups on the list, so why would it be in this case.
That is the precedent.

[corporatejay]

Guys, we still have the charter. Calm the hell down. Free Speech is still very much alive.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by the2bears

What if, in the bakery case, you substitute the couple for a heterosexual one, but inter-racial or of a minority. Is it then okay to ask them to go to another business? Anyone can say it's against their religion, so why not? "It's against my religion to serve 'their' kind."

I think, though, that having a license for a business entails some responsibilities as well as rights. I consider not discriminating to be one of those responsibilities.

Are there parts of Christianity that discriminate against race?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The precedent is that the law hasn't been applied in the way people are arguing it will be with other groups on the list, so why would it be in this case.

Because its application in the case of transgender people is different from the way it applies in the case of other disadvantaged groups, as explained thoroughly in the post that I linked to on the last page, which you apparently neglected to read in your haste to reaffirm your pre-existing and only partially informed opinion.

That's also the part of the problem here. I really think most people (yourself included, based on your response above) really have no idea with C16 is/does.

I'm a litigation lawyer with who's read the legislation we're talking about. Given that, I'm confident I have a much better idea of what I'm talking about than many (including you) on this topic.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And technically, by operation of sections 265 and 266 of the Criminal Code, I could be sentenced to 5 years of custody for patting someon on the back who did not consent to such patting. Is that a reasonable criticism of the Criminal Code in your view?

It is in mine. Is it not in yours? If so, why not? Are we simply to trust that the law will not be interpreted as it is written?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Are there parts of Christianity that discriminate against race?

Such things have been preached from the pulpit in the past. Slavery in the US is an example. It was justified by many through religious means.

There's a lot that's in the bible that's not followed, and a lot that doesn't show up, or is subject to much interpretation, that is followed as doctrine today.

It's not so much about "Christianity", rather how people choose to interpret the word and how convenient it is to follow.