The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Well then do you agree that the right-wing's attempt to force people to use bathrooms where they don't look like they fit in by applying legislative power or pressuring school administration is, in fact, authoritarian?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And when most of your customers will take their business elsewhere if you allow black people or gays to patronize your establishment, then the invisible hand in Capitalism will in fact reinforce the problem, not fix it.

There wasn't any particular problem. Until right-wing groups such as Republican State Legislatures attempted to force little girls to use the little boys room. Do you agree that the right-wing's attempt to force people to use bathrooms where they don't look like they fit in by applying legislative power or pressuring school administration is, in fact, authoritarian? Because Texas is filled with right-wing authoritarians who made life difficult for people -denying them access to a reasonable restroom, housing, employment etc, and some people sought to give those whose lives were being made difficult redress in law.

I don't see why that matters. My point was that 'capitalist forces' cannot be relied upon on the grounds that being more inclusive means more custom since the notion that being more inclusive means more custom is not necessarily true.There have been local establishments boycotted for being 'gay friendly', but I haven't got the numbers sufficient to do a business analysis of all current situations. It certainly has happened, I would strongly expect there were some places where having a 'blacks are equal' philosophy for a public business such as a restaurant would have resulted in the majority of your custom going elsewhere prior to the sixties in the USA. The same for gays in the 70s and 80s. Currently its more difficult to be sure, because, you know the regulations in place prohibit a lot of those shenanigans.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are you sure that people generally don't try to come an agreement in these cases? I mean legal action is a matter of public record. Private discussions less so. The guidelines were a useful tool to point to during those discussions. When agreement cannot be reached, then civil action takes place, in some instances (probably the minority of them). There are often months of exchanging letters, meetings and discussions before the legal action finds its way into a hearing or court. Court's and other such bodies are often reluctant to hear a case where such attempts have not been made.The guidelines were useful. They provided a sense of security that the Federal government has their back. Revoking the guidelines indicates a certain attitude, and the comments justifying the revocation reinforce this impression: The Federal government doesn't have your back, even in principle, this should be an issue for the States.It is not totalitarian to be upset about this development. It is not about having the Feds tell people what to think. It's about what the Federal government thinks, and the message that sends in both situations and the fear of what the future holds.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's not how prayer works. It isn't a countermagic spell. God knew what was in your heart in this matter even if you didn't pray. Tell that to the religious/right who used 'special tactics' against Obama.Incidentally, you claimed you hadn't dropped the transgender bathroom law discussion regarding totalitarian tactics there. But then you never answered my question as to whether the laws you disagree with in this matter are totalitarian tactics of the right.

Can you give a real life example of someone exhibiting this mindset? It'd help understand what you are trying to communicate.

When little girls are forced to use the boys room, as per the laws you disagree with, the little girls are not being oppressed in any fashion?When someone says 'you should let little girls in school use the little girls room' is that totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to complain when someone decides to abandon that sensible statement?

I didn't. Here are my questions again:When little girls are forced to use the boys room, as per the laws you disagree with, the little girls are not being oppressed in any fashion?When someone says 'you should let little girls in school use the little girls room' is that totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to complain when someone decides to abandon that sensible statement?

Do you object to people clarifying what Title IX means? Do you object when that clarification is abandoned? Do you find it objectionable when people find it objectionable when that clarity is lost? The guidelines do not give guidance on which bathroom choices people should make.

quote:

---

Schools across the country strive
to create and sustain inclusive, supportive, safe, and nondiscriminatory
communities for all students.
In recent years, we have received an increasing number
of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender
students. Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations
prohibit sex discrimination in educational programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

​

This prohibition encompasses discrimination based
on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based
on a student’s transgender status. This letter summarizes a
school’s Title IX obligations regarding transgender students and explains how the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) evaluate a
school’s compliance with these obligations.

​

ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter
is significant guidance.

​

This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law,
but provides information and examples to inform
recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities
are complying with their legal obligations.

​

...

​

As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees
that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits
to, or otherwise treat differently on
the basis of sex any person in its educational programs
or activities unless expressly authorized to do
so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.

​

The Departments treat a student’s gender identity
as the student’s sex for purposes of Title
IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way
it treats other students of the same gender identity. The
Departments’ interpretation is consistent with
courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.

---

The guidance doesn't say anything about what bathroom you should use. It says that a trans-girl should be treated as a cis-girl under Title IX. This includes bathroom use:

quote:

---

A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex,
but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity
or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required
to do so.

---

Stakeholders were asking for clarification from the relevant Federal Departments. Those departments issued a set of guidelines to clarify some specific points raised regarding he general nature of Title IX. Title IX is the only authoritative thing in effect which you say 'is great'. The guidelines merely state that the protections in Title IX should extend to transgender students. Individuals are still free and can still interact regardless of the guidelines which merely are intended to clarify Title IX:

quote:

---

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

---

By saying it should be construed to mean 'gender identity' rather than biologically determined sex (which isn't strictly a coherent thing anyway).Why is being upset at those guidelines being abandoned totalitarian? They don't demand what bathrooms people should use anymore than Title IX does. Title IX doesn't say cis-girls must use bathrooms for cis-girls. It simply prohibits discrimination of girls. The guidelines just assert, in consistency with other decisions made by courts, that transgirls are to be regarded as girls when interpreting what Title IX is prohibiting.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So the State can provide the funds, and they don't get the Federal funds. That's the way it was intended to work. Or do you want to force the liberals in California to fund a school they think is being unjustly discriminatory in Texas? Wouldn't that also be totalitarian?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not speaking for Faith, but there is a certain type that argues this...unless State level laws are displeasing, such as the Oregonian law that means people have to serve wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. At which point it should be down to the individual. But bathrooms? No that should be down to the State, or maybe if they are inclined to be disagreeable the the school Administration should have total authoritarian control, but failing that a single individual objector should control other people's bathroom usage. Whatever 'level' of control gets what they want, eh?

The 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment just says everyone is entitled to equal protection under law.I assume you are mixing this up with the non-discrimination in public accommodation statutes? These only 'force' public accommodations to not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age and so on. They don't force conformity to a view on any individual. That's why you are allowed to not hold that view. So since you remain free to disagree with the statutes, I fail to see anything remotely totalitarian at play here.Is it totalitarian to make little girls to use little boys room and deny them access to the little girls room, for years and years and years?

Sure, so you do agree that rights can have primacy over other rights - but then, your religious freedom isn't being inhibited. It's your freedom to practice business how you want that is being inhibited.You are free to say same-sex marriage is wicked. You are free to not have a same-sex marriage. But you aren't free to run a public business how you like, even if your religion says so. They aren't. They can be punished for violating business regulations. They can operate a business in such a way as to not violate business regulations AND not serve cakes for same-sex weddings. That's what the Kleins did, they changed their business model so it presumably now complies with the law.It would be unfair of them to have the advantages of a public accommodation while not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Yes, I know. But you said you weren't dropping the bathroom problem and you've avoided answering the question about whether those laws are also totalitarian. Is it only totalitarian when the left does it? Or will show me you are consistent and fair and will condemn the right when it acts in a way that should be construed as totalitarian as you are using the word?

The laws that prohibit discrimination came from the State legislatures. The Klein's ran afoul of State law, passed by the Oregon State Legislature.SCOTUS only ruled that same-sex marriage is as much a right as heterosexual marriage and that States cannot usurp this right and all the rights and priveleges of one must apply to another (such as tax benefits, healthcare etc etc). It says nothing about what private citizens must do. The Oregonian anti-discrimination law was passed years before SCOTUS made its ruling.You continue to mix these up - they are quite different things. SCOTUS did not 'pretend' to be Congress. They did not enact any laws. It was the State legislatures that enacted the laws that private business owners are subject to, and have been penalized under.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.