(July 27, 2020 at 12:04 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Or maybe, just maybe, the wording in the laws was ambiguous enough to create a loophole that needed to be closed with another law.
Now let me explore this suggestion of yours further regarding the alleged loopholes in the original anti-discrimination legislation as it pertains to employment. I suspect the objection that resulted in new, specific legislation to protect transgenders, relates to the principle of reasonable accommodation. The simple fact is certain employers in certain sectors, particularly the service sector, are justified in not hiring certain individuals who happen to be transgender, as it is going beyond reasonable accommodation. The point that we have to carefully and emphatically note here is that this alleged “discrimination” if it is indeed discrimination, is not motivated by malice or bigotry to transgenders, but the interest of the business or employer of not having to suffer damages in accommodating an employee beyond what is reasonable. The issue boils down to what is reasonable and what is not as it pertains to having to employ a transgender individual. This is highly dependent on the specific job requirements and the nature of the employment. It is well known that employers suffer damages if in certain services they employ a transgender employee that negatively effects and drives away clientele.
Those who have raised the loudest voice in this regard are what transgender activists derisively term TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). This large trend within the broader feminist movement is extremely concerned with the protection of women and girls from predatory behavior, and in maintaining women’s privacy and comfort as it relates to the workplace. I shall, God willing, further explore this matter after conducting more research on it.
