kengr

The Supreme copurt ruled that the Civil Rights Act's section regarding discrimination on the basis of sex *does* apply to homosexuals and transgender folks . So now sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

A quote: "The vote was 6-3 with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joining the court's four liberal justices in the majority.".

This prtetty much means that the ban on transgendered people in the military has to go out the window along with the HHs rule change that removed protections for LGBT people.

Trump and a lot of his supporters must be *livid*!

There are a number of majorly screwed up things that could be "fixed" by what amount to simple changes in accounting rules/practices.

First, deferred maintenance on anything should not by considered as a cost saving measure. Instead it should be treated like what it *is*, namely a liability. It should be carried on the books as a liability amounting to the *actual* cost of needed maintenance (ie not what they'd like to spend, but what *needs* to be spent) plus 10% or the actual st plus the actual cost of the extra maintenance that will be needed because of the postponement, whichever is *greater*.

This is to make it *painfully* clear that deferring maintenance is a really *bad* idea.

Second, pensions are to be "fully funded". That is to say, they get treated like you are setting up an annuity. So if the company goes bankrupt, the pensions will still get paid. Likewise,the company does *not* get to change the rules for existing employees without their permission. So suddenly rolling back pensions to save money.

Pensions should be treated like a contract. No unilateral changes. And no borrowing from the pension funds by the company (or government! I'm looking at you Congress)

Third, waste disposal costs not merely for manufacturing products, but for disposing of them after the wear out or are obsolete are to be born by the company, *not* the consumer.

This won't end "planned obsolesence" and the "new model every year" BS, but it'll at least reduce it. And help deal with disposing or the resulting "trash".

Ok, as some folks know, someone here in Oregon sued for the right to list their gender on their ID as "other". and they won.

Back in May or June it was announced that Oregon DMV was going to change the process and forms to allow anyone to do that.

I grabbed a copy of the "Change your Gender Designation" form back in June, but it hadn't been updated. eventually I'm going to upload it to my website as historical document.



It's got two parts. The first is filled out by the person requesting the change. It has the usual "I'm not doing this to commit fraud, blah,blah" stuff.

The second part had to be filled out by a shrink, social worker or the like and they had to attest that in *their* opinion, the change was necessary.

Fairly normal for such stuff.

Here's the new page:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/Pages/driverid/chg_gender_designation.aspx

Yep, it links to the same application you fill out to renew or replace your drivers license or state ID. Only change from the old form for *that* is changing the option in the "sex" box from M & F to M, F, and X.

No more gate keeping, just fill out the same form everyone else does and pay your money.

Since I've never been fond of my middle name (don't ask), I'm thinking of changing it to Brooke, the name I use when I'm presenting en femme. That way I can get some debit cards as Brooke [last name] as well as ones in my current name.

I'd looked into doing it using a DBA (doing business as), but you have to refile that every so often. Getting one with my middle name shouldn't require anything but a bit of talking.

I'll probably wait until I do that to change the gender marker on my ID.

This is going to be lots of fun though. Everyone in Oregon is going to have to change their databases to add that X. Ditto for lots of businesses and agencies outside Oregon. Which will provide some much needed shaking up.

Why do I say they'll have to? Because while *I* wouldn't spend the money on suing them if they don't, other people *will*.

Also, I can't wait for the "head explodes" incidents as folks with a X marker present their *legal* IDs to various inflexible folks in Oregon and nearby states, to say nothing of states far away.

First few Federal applications for things are gonna be fun too.

Do note that several other countries allow an "other" marker already, up to and including their passports. so it's not like it wasn't going to become a problem anyway.

I've been reading a story that had a character abducted and raped.

Today, when the subject came up in a chapter, I had an interesting thought.

"She was asking for it." should be considered evidence of non-consent.

Contrast it with "she asked me to".

Anything short of an explicit verbal request isn't consent.

alex_antonin's post here got me thinking.

As I pointed out to him, getting people to agree on what constitutes "proper" sex education is going to be quite a trick.

But themn something struck me. One of the big arguments is that the parents should be teaching it, not the schools. And that's when my evil side took over.

Go ahead and make sed ed mandatory. And require that it be *passed*.

Parents feel that they should teach it, not the schools? Fine. Then their kid has to pass the final exam for the course (and the exam will be changed every term so you can't just copy answers, you have to actually *know* them.

I can hear the screams now.

Heck, lets do the same with the various "controversial" science courses. Their kids don't have to teach that "horrible" class that teaches evolution. Just as long as they can pass the exam. And again, the exams need to be randomized enough that rote memorization won't work, you have to demonstrate that you *understand* the material.

And in both cases, I'm quite willing, in fact I'll *insist* that the questions don't require you to *agree* with things. Just that they are the answers that lots of research and expertise have come up with.

If you want to believe in abstinence only, or in creationism, fine by me. But you'll damn well demonstrate that you *understand* the arguments and evidence for the other side.

What I'd *really* like to do is require classes in logic, "rhetoric" and how to evaluate arguments. (ie how to think and draw conclusions). Alas, they tried that back in the 50s with the intent of teaching kids to spot and reject communist propoganda. Unfortunately, they spotted and questioned *oour* propoganda too. even the stuff most don't realize *is* propoganda.

So the idea was dropped in a hurry. Can't have people questioning *our* inviolate assumptions now can we?

Besides horrifying politicians who pretty much *depend on the public not knowing how to spot BS and rhetorical tricks, the advertising industry would be up in arms as well.

Sat, 03:31: Photo: devastyle: farbeyondabnormal: devastyle: 1drunkardnoir: + The Terrifying True Story Of How Future’s... http://t.co/xxuYCVAvUn

Lesson one: when you visit another country you are subject to their laws. You do *not* have the rights you have in America, just the ones that local laws give you.

Lesson two: Never *ever* go to another country without doing a lot of checking as to what is illegal to bring into the country. Also check warnings about things that are illegal to *do* that you might not be aware of.

tip: Also check what it's illegal to take *out* of both the country you are in and the one(s) you are visiting. Just because you can buy or have it ion the country, it may not be legal to take it *out* of the country.

Most notorious example was the old USSR. It wasn't legal to bring in foreign currency. You had to convert it to (internal) rubles at customs. And you couldn't take (internal) rubles out of the country, you had to convert them to something else when you left.

I specified "internal" because they had *four* different kinds of rubles. One kind was only for use inside the USSR, and another was only for use in foreign trade (I forget what the other two were).

Another example of stuff that can get you into a world of trouble. Over the counter meds in one country can be prescription drugs or even *illegal* in another. (For example, you can buy vicodin over the counter in Canada, but it's prescription only in the US. If you get caught coming into the US, you could be in real trouble if you have too many)

And prescription drugs? First rule: always carry them in the original container that the druggist gave them to you in. *And* have a copy of your doctor's prescriptions packed in with your passport.

A post about sex worker's rights over on fayanora's tumblr sent my mind down an "interesting" path.

I think it was because I used the phrase "getting paid to have sex shouldn't be illegal."

My mind suddenly threw up this vision of what some employment contracts might look like is getting paid for sex as legal (and if we weren't big hypocrites about sex).

Some people's "executive assistant" postings would definitely include it if it was legal and wouldn't get them in trouble otherwise.

I daresay it might make the jobs easier to fill long term, because it'd have that sort of thing up front. It'd definitely eliminate a lot of candidates because they'd know in advance that they didn't want the job.

Doesn't mean that there wouldn't be people desperate for a job that'd hold their nose and take it in spite of not really wanting to do "that". But at least it'd be out in the open.

And just as having prostitution legal makes it a lot easier to go after clients who go too far, I suspect that even with "sex with the boss" as part of the "duties" listed, there'd be "he went too far" cases.

I'm *highly* irritated afte reading all the BS coming from the anti marriage equality folks.

First off all the stuff about marriage being designed or set up by God.

Sorry, that is a tenet of your religion and as such *cannot* be a factor in *any* secular legal decision.

Second, there are *two* very different things referred to as "marriage. One is a something often down by a priest or other religious official and is often consided a sacrament by Christians.

Today's decision has *no* effect on that because it wasn't even *about* that.

Let me remind some folks that "gay marriages" were being performed by some *christian churcjhes 40 years ago. I attended a couple in the 1970s.

Their *church* considered them to be nmarried by *legally* they were not.

And that brings us to the *second* thing called "marriage". It's *legal* status. And has absolutely nothing to do with the religious kind of marriage. Yes, there's considerable overlap between the folks who are religiously married and those who are legally married. But that doesn't mean that one depends on the other.

The courts have *no* authoprity over the religious kind of marriage. But they are the *only* authoprity over the civil (lkegal) sort. Religions and religious tuypes need not apply.

Now, the next set of arguments are variously phrased as "judicial activism", "defying the will of the people", or "denying the democratic process".

These all depend on completely (and usually *deliberately) misunderstanding who the courts and legal system work.

The whole *point* of the Constitution (and amendments) is to set up things that are *not* subject to politics nor to "the will of the people". That's because the founders had lots of examples going clear back to the anmcient Greeks of what happens if you *don't say that there are things not subject to popular vote.

So unless you can amend the Constitution to sauy otherwise (and that's really hard *on purpose). If the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the end of it. And it is *not* denying voters rights. Because the decision is saying that the voters do not *have* the right to vote on this subject.

BTW, one of the things that pretty much guarantees a decision *against* you is if it is obvious that the law the SC is being asked to look at is based upon aniums with little or no other justification.

Reading the justifications for the "gay marriage" bans, and the arguments when thety were overturned (and especvialy the ranting today) makes it very clear that this *is* what's going on.

And the whole point of things like the Bill of Rights is to say that the majority can't vote to withold things from a minority just because they don't like them.
So a lot of folks ned to grow up and realize that you *don't* get to pass laws making your religious beliefs into legal restrictions.

And now the next phase in the war...

There have been a number of "religious freedom" arguments. And laws that claim to be for that.

Sorry, but your right to exercise your religion *ends* at the point you attempt to make someone else comply with your beliefs.

don't want to issue marriage licenses to gays? Don't get a job that involves marriage licenses.

Don't want to hand out birth control (or "morning after" pills)? Don't get a job as a pharmacist.

And BTW, there's actually evidence of organized efforts yo *get* people who are against those sorts of things into those sorts opf jobs specifically so they *could* deny various services to people.

And this "you can decide not to do your job if doing so violates your religious beliefs" is a *major* can of worms. Because *none* of these bills restrict it "gays".

Want a Christian Scientist caseworker deciding not to process your medical claims? It's *legal* under those laws!

Something got me thinking about high school sports and the mess they are in so many places. Football is the worst, I understand, but other sports can be pretty bad as well.

One of the biggies is the "sports players can get away with anything" attitude.

I started out thinking about eligibility requirements, such as minimum GPA. And it occured to me that if you could find people with the gumption to actually *do* it, you could shut down the parents (who are the ones putting on muchof the pressure) with one simple statement:

"You *do* realize that you are asking use to lie on official documents. That's a felony. And you are therefore soliting a felony. You want to reconsider what you just said? Ort shall I just call the police now?"

But similar things apply to all the *other* stuff that the parents want swept under the rug.

There's yet another trial of parents whose child died because they wouldn't get a doctor but relied on prayer.

One thing that the talking heads keep bringing up is a new law that (due to this church's record of losing kids) removes religious beliefs as a defense for many sort of homicide cases.

Alas, both the talking heads and the state rep whose idea the law was keep making the same *fundamental* error.

They keep saying that it'll make these believers start taking their kids to the doctors.

Sorry. It won't. It'll just save a lot of time prosecuting them when the kids die.

You see, the state rep and the newscritters have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way laws *actually* work.

People rarely avoid doing something because of the law. In many cases, they don't think they'll get caught (that's usually the case with theft and some sorts of assaults)

In other cases, like these, it doesn't matter *what* the law says because these folk *believe* what they are doing is *right*. As such, they'll do what they believe is right, regardless of the law.

The laws *already* make failing to provide needed medical treatment illegal. And these folks have been ignoring that. Removing a defense of "religious belief" when they get tried for violating those laws isn't going to make a bit of difference.

After all, they've *never* won using it!


We *need* to get people, *especially* law makers, to understand that not everyone thinks they way they do. Or shares their beliefs. So laws that go against those beliefs are just a waste of time and resources.

It's "magical thinking" to act as if changing the laws will change those sorts of behaviors. This is one example. Many drug laws are another. And there are many, many more.