- Quickdraw McLaw
- 45 Comments
- 316 Views
- The escaped murderer has been recaptured. [8NewsNow]
- Ballot question 1 would put equal rights into the Nevada constitution. [Nevada Current]
- Fight over Jeff German’s sources stalls. [KTNV]
- Lawyer who says student-loan forgiveness will leave him worse off sues to block the program. [ABA Journal]
FIRST! TTHHWWAACCKK! #FreeBonnieBulla
Poser. Like Steve in the 2003 – Italian Job.
Ed Norton is a national treasure; how dare you!
1042 here. He is! No doubt! But, Steve (Norton's character) was like this guy…No Imagination. Trying to be the original Thwack guy AND the Hashtag guy.
Two arbitration decisions from the supreme court today. Can't say I agree with the Airbnb one. Two people sue Airbnb because they got shot on Airbnb property (they didn't book it) and they get sent to arbitration because at some point they had signed up for an Airbnb account, even though they apparently never used the account and it had absolutely nothing with their claims. So essentially if you ever sign up for a website you are bound to arbitration for all eternity no matter how remote your claim is.
Both of these cases basically sit as a warning that people are actually governed by the internet contracts that absolutely none of them have ever read before pressing "I agree". Neither of these cases really need to be clogging up our DC anyway.
Reminds me of the Human Centipede South Park episode.
I only skimmed but both cases said the ARBITRATOR must rule whether the parties are bound by arbitration. All the Court can do is send to arbitration.
The Court considered the Federal Arbitration Act to be governing. However, not all arbitration agreements are governed by the act, and the thresehold question of consent still remains.
I have heard of a growing trend among plaintiff's attorneys with large books of routine cases who will send matters to arbitration en masse if they are facing arb clauses. Most arb provisions contain a clause indicating that the company will pay the arbitration costs (which arb agreements typically need to avoid unconscionability).
Thereafter, the affected company squeals about the fact the fees they have to pay in arbitration are far in excess of whatever their court costs would have been had the plaintiff been able to proceed in that forum. And somewhere in the background, the world's smallest violin begins playing for them.
The two arb case from today, and one from a short time ago, eviscerate Nevada's statute on the adequacy of notice and consent for arbitration agreements.
If you click "submit" you have agreed to things about which you would not have ordinarily. Did you read the consent to allow Google, Facebook etc to use your private information? About GMail?, arbitration? or waiving your constitutional right to a jury trial?
No, and neither do consumers.
The state of the law in Nevada now grossly favors BigCorp over individual consumer.
Thank you 11:10, and I agree, it does 1:04. Arb = Cuttlefish
Ballot Question 1 – Nevada Current
I suppose I will have to actually read the initiative (sigh). If passed it would certainly add another layer of state government and costs. Sadly, I don't believe that I can trust Nevada Current's analysis, it has been leaning very left in the past few months.
Text: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/7076/Text#
Digest and arguments for and against: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/27874
As I read it, by its terms it only applies to government; it does not apply to private employers, etc. Even so, if it passes there will be tons of litigation over what constitutes discrimination. Job security I guess.
Past few months? When Hugh and Dana formed it, they formed it for the express purpose of being left-leaning. Current stated that its goal was to provide the view from the left.
My problem with the ERA (Nevada's version that we are voting on) is that it becomes effectively a measure that compels speech as it relates to gender identify. Under this measure, employers effectively have to call biological males, females or vice versa based on that person's whims or risk violating their constitutional rights. There is a huge difference in my opinion between limiting speech, (for example, not using racial slurs in the work place) and compelling speech in this way.
How would this amendment affect private employers if its language is limited to applying to the state and its subdivisions (not to mention just general state action doctrine).
11:20 – the "based on that person's whims" comment is misguided. Sure there will be some people on the fringes, but the vast majority of people just want to be called by their chosen name/identity. It's really not that hard.
I guess you could make the same argument about someone's religion – they could go choose whatever wacky religious beliefs for the week and then change them every week, so we shouldn't protect that class of people.
1223 is kind of making the OP's (1120) point for them. 1223 is telling 1120 that they are misguided and I guess their behavior needs to be curtailed. The religious example is not cogent. No one's religion forces someone else to address them in a particular manner. Refraining from statements is very different from compelling statements.
@12:23 – funny, I recall an uptick in people claiming to be Christian Scientists in order to avoid mandatory COVID vaccines. As "wacky" as the beliefs were, genuine or not, I know of multiple people who had their religious exemptions denied. I understand the comparison is not exactly apples to apples, but it's disingenuous to act like religion has been the untouchable subject.
Is it compelling statements, or is it just saying, if you're going to address this person, it's discriminatory to call them (for example) their deadname?
Also, like, wow, such an enormous burden to call someone the name they want to be called. Can't imagine how hard that must be on some people!
And yes, of course there are going to be bad actors in any situation (H/T 1:35), but let's not allow the extreme fringes to control how we address the other 99.9% of the situations.
146: You are really trying to have it both ways here. You argue you are NOT compelling statements but in the same statement you say "it's discriminatory to call them…" And then you use an example of "deadname", a term I do not know but can guess at its meaning. So, the state would step in and sue if a CCSD principal made the error of addressing someone as Mr. or John when they had decided they wanted to be addressed as Ms. or Z or Jane? This is not the equivalence of racist remarks directed at people in the workplace.
Personally, I have no problem calling someone the name they choose. But, I wont be cancelled or shamed for missing the boat on someone that demands to be referred to as "they", when he/she/they is/are not even present. When you are there, its you. When you are not present, you are referred to whatever I decide to refer to you as.
It is not incumbent on me to validate and facilitate your mental illness.
Dude or Dudette
I guess I was raised old school, to be polite to our elders and to strangers, yes ma'am, no sir were taught as being respectful. That same respect will come from my mouth and heart regardless of how you wish to be adressed, and I will respectfully call you by whatever term you wish, both in your presence amd absence.
The people who really get me are strangers who throw out terms of endearment to strangers.
Exactly! @303
Don't "Bro" me, if you don't know me!
1:46 here, replying to 2:04.
Appreciate the response. My understanding is that a "deadname" is a person's birth name that has been replaced by their new name (and identifying gender).
To answer your question, no, I don't think the state should step in and sue anybody for making a mistake in naming someone or using a wrong pronoun. I think most discrimination cases require it be either egregious or a repeated pattern (admittedly I'm not well-versed in discrimination law).
If a state actor repeatedly and consistently called someone James when that person has repeatedly stated their name is Rebecca, (assuming this is intentional and not a one-off accident) then yeah, that's wrong. Is it as "wrong" as other discriminatory actions? No. Is it still wrong and should we protect against discrimination? Yes
I hope I have 3:03 as my next opposing counsel – we need more people like that!
I understand the arguments in favor of not "deadname"-ing a transgender individual. That said, what would be the outcome where – for example – a public employee transitions and elects to go by purely "they/them" pronouns. If thereafter the employee's supervisor repeatedly (but unintentionally) refers to the employee as "he/him/she/her", does the employee have a cause of action? Most of us have spent decades referring to a single person as he/him/she/her. Just my opinion, but this turn on a dime to require people to "unlearn" something we were taught as early as primary school seems like a difficult task to say the least.
I wont do it. Not my job.
7:58 and 8:19, if you mispronounce someone's name and they politely correct it, do you continue to mispronounce their name or do you at least try to be respectful to others?
What if it were the other way around?
You have been called whatever gender pronouns for how many decades but a superior calls you an "it" and no matter how respectfully you ask to be called by YOUR preferred terms, they refuse.
819 here.
I hear you.
But to try an dictate what you are referred to as, when you are NOT there, is another issue. I think its a mental illness and will not make the effort to refer to you in any other way than I want to, if you aren't present. I am objecting to they/them nonsense.
That said, if (a biological male) you change your name and live as a woman, I have no problem referring to you as a she and using your new name.
8:19 I always thought the point of being respectful to others wasn't about what prejudices, personal preferences or idologies I carry with me, its what I value in another person.
I can and choose to be respectful. But, I wont be dictated what I can say (intentionally or unintentionally) when you are not even here.
Meaning, I wont be cancelled or shamed if I forget that some mentally ill person wants me to use they/them, when "they" are not even here.
"mentally ill person"? Really dude?
No any poster above but I would agree any singular person that wants to be called in the plural has some sort of mental challenge
1047 here. It's not my job to socially validate another person's mental illness.
Last time I checked, gender disphoria and its friends were considered mental illnesses.
James Fontano is the new Probate Commissioner. Hope he's ready to dig in and turn around being 4 months out for probate hearings.
Good luck to him. Doomed to fail. One Probate Commissioner for 2.2 million people self funded.
Don't know much about James Fontano. Thank goodness the new PC is not Berchtold.
I don't know either of them, but looking at their backgrounds it seemed like Berchtold was strong on organizational management and perhaps weak on probate law. Fontano has some probate experience, and experience running his own shop, but I don't know much beyond that. I wish Commissioner Fontano well. I hope that the county gives him the resource and support that he will need.
Right now, this position really needs a Shohei Ohtani who is strong in organizational management and in probate/trust/estate law. That person may not exist, or, if they do, may be on the roster of the Los Angeles Angels.
I know Fontano. He has virtually no probate experience.
So, let me get this straight. Las Vegas City Attorney knew of the existence of surveillance video covering the CouncilwomanBumFight. The city stonewalled valid media requests. Scott asked the Bums involved if they wanted a copy, and when they allegedly said they didn't, allowed evidence of a crime that occurred on City grounds to be deleted? Thus exposing the city to claims of a cover up, and eliminating evidence in a potential suit? The least he should have done is retained it until the SOL had run.
He oughtta be shitcanned.
I bet someone at the City has a copy of that video. it would be too delicious to completely destroy.