Unless there’s been some absolutely monumental break-through in gene editing technology, then you are and always will be, what you were born as.
Turfs gonna turf
This is a pyrrhic victory for TERF/FART types. The judge made it clear the simple solution for any business is to have a stronger Social Media clause in contracts. This ruling basically lays out a clear way to shun these nasty types without them being able to hide behind legal retaliation to cry discrimination.
She won this battle but shown to tackle her hate group in the future.
I’m a bit confused by this – by this same logic, couldn’t you claim that being pro-eugenics is a protected belief?
Not addressed by discrimination legislation (like racism), technically a belief you can hold, one that will indeed likely get you discriminated against. It fits all the same categories – hell, you can even be rude about it, just like this woman was (which implies that conduct isn’t relevant to what is said, which I would question…)
Can anyone explain in legal terms how this cant be used as precedent to “protect” literally any belief that isn’t prevented by law? Like QAnon or any other wildly mad shit. Surely this sets precedent that *you cannot fire people for opinions* beyond those laid out in law?
4 comments
> people cannot change their biological sex
I mean, this is true.
Unless there’s been some absolutely monumental break-through in gene editing technology, then you are and always will be, what you were born as.
Turfs gonna turf
This is a pyrrhic victory for TERF/FART types. The judge made it clear the simple solution for any business is to have a stronger Social Media clause in contracts. This ruling basically lays out a clear way to shun these nasty types without them being able to hide behind legal retaliation to cry discrimination.
She won this battle but shown to tackle her hate group in the future.
I’m a bit confused by this – by this same logic, couldn’t you claim that being pro-eugenics is a protected belief?
Not addressed by discrimination legislation (like racism), technically a belief you can hold, one that will indeed likely get you discriminated against. It fits all the same categories – hell, you can even be rude about it, just like this woman was (which implies that conduct isn’t relevant to what is said, which I would question…)
Can anyone explain in legal terms how this cant be used as precedent to “protect” literally any belief that isn’t prevented by law? Like QAnon or any other wildly mad shit. Surely this sets precedent that *you cannot fire people for opinions* beyond those laid out in law?