It seems to me the wording is saying a single incident is all that is required to file a claim. If the claim is substantiated then the severity and number of occurrences will be used to determine the penalty. Do you have a reason why you feel a single instance should not be a valid reason to file a claim?
Because it could be a single perceived instance, a single fabricated instance, or a single instance which was completely incidental and devoid of intent but seized upon by the poor victim because he, she, or it had a chip on their shoulder. It could very well be an incident seized upon and promoted in a larger context to prove the justification of the law. The scenarios are near endless.
There is ample precedent for this concern. There is no national crises on our college and university grounds, but to listen to the shrieking harpies one would believe that every college coed is bound to be raped while walking to class in broad daylight by scores of predatory men hiding in the bushes. In order to prove this nonsense the Rolling Stone will fabricate a story of rape hoping the general populace will either be too stupid or too cowed to question. Al Sharpton will prosecute in the court of public opinion a bunch of white athletes for committing a crime which never occurred while a liberal prosecutor will insist on taking them to trial only to be humiliated when the case is exposed as a complete fabrication, all while all of the above insist on maintaining the narrative. In order to prove such nonsense Mattress Girl will carry her bed around with her for months, insisting people believe her false rape accusation because she carries her bed around with her.
False accusations of improper behavior have become the norm. Those who occupy a designated victim group know full well the mere accusation of improper behavior is often enough to have the person they are accusing removed because the company does not want to face the potential of a lawsuit against them for establishing a hostile workplace. In cases such as this the accused is thrust into the position of having to prove a negative, a task which is often impossible.
This law is another tool in the hands of the victim class. It mandates acceptance or suffer the consequences of the state. It mandates only state approved language be used, only state approved beliefs be voiced, and only state approved behavior be displayed. It specifies a single claim is all that is necessary to evoke the wrath of the state for this exact reason.
Well, that and the money.
I must of missed that relevant section of the law. I see nothing in this law that states a reduced burden of proof. Would that not need to be included in the law in order to change normal findings?
There is nothing in the law either establishing a level of or insisting upon any burden of proof, other than to state a single claim is all that is required and that for any claim the defense of the transgendered is the primary concern. Add those two together and it yields the result as stated prior. The claim will be all that is required to prove the claim, and those accused will be out looking for another job.
This is not a murder trial. I don't think beyond a reasonable doubt is the bar they have to pass. How do you know such proof will not be required? It states no such thing in the law. What is the burden of proof required for a sexual harassment claim and why should this be any different?
Claims of harassment should be subject to substantiation. Under the guidelines for sexual harassment cases the plaintiff has to meet an objective standard, that standard defined as the claimed conduct would be offensive or threatening to a "reasonable person." However the term "reasonable person" is subjective. What is reasonable to one may not be to another.
Sadly not even that standard still applies. In the case
Lehman v. Toys R Us, the Supreme Court changed the wording for sexual harassment claims from "reasonable person" to "reasonable woman." In this context what would exactly qualify as a "reasonable woman," when the plaintiff could be a woman who thinks she is a man or a man who thinks she is a woman.
The court also held the employer could be held "strictly liable" for the claimed conduct of its employees whether they had any knowledge of that conduct or had previously established such conduct was prohibited. What this means of course is a company is financially liable for the claimed conduct of its employees, a fact which again supports the fire first and ask questions later response of the majority of employers.
Ultimately the prosecution of this law will not be any different form sexual harassment laws. The benefit of the doubt will go to the claimant and the burden of proof will fall on the accused. That is the exact opposite of what should be required, but it is the environment the tolerant and enlightened class has carefully crafted for everyone else to live in.
What? Where in the US has the 14th amendment ever been interpreted that you can not use the law to deal with the issues of a specific class of people?
That isn't what I said. I said the 14th Amendment was once again being used to create in essence another protected class, granting them special rights at the expense of those not defined as the protected class. The 14th Amendment demands the state can not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However in the case of this law equal protection is and will be denied to those defined as not within the protected class, as they are forced to conduct themselves in and only in state approved fashion. If an actual woman does not want to share a bathroom with a man dressed as a women, she no longer has that choice to make. The state has made if for her, and enforces its mandate under penalty of fine and potential job loss. If an actual man is not comfortable around a woman claiming to be a man by coercion of threat of the state he can say nothing.
Such draconian measures are not required. Company policy would accomplish the task more effectively. But as stated prior this law isn't an anti-discrimination law, it is a behavior modification law. It demands everyone act in a prescribed fashion dictated by the state or suffer the consequences.
You damn him with faint praise. If you set the bar for fascism this low how will you ever convince anyone the sky is falling when they do something really dastardly like tell people they are not allowed treat others badly because of their religion?
Except those who rape, pillage, and murder in the name of Islam, of course. But hey, that Pizza shop lady who said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding if ever asked, she had to be stopped.
I see nothing to support your claims that this law will be used to harass people. It seems little different from current sexual harassment laws but supportive of transgender.
Pamela thought that this:
Would be all that was required to prove her claim.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/false-allegations-of-adult-crimes
In the case of sexual harassment or hostile workplace claims, the investigation of said claims tends to begin and end with the claim itself. Of course it will be abused. That is human nature.
