"Three reasons to vote No on Question 3" - The Boston Globe

41 views
Skip to first unread message

Eva Webster

unread,
Nov 6, 2018, 8:16:48 AM11/6/18
to Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com, AllstonBrighton2006
Here is a 10 min. video of a WGBH/Greater Boston debate between a "Yes on 3" proponent and a "No on 3” proponent, if someone has interest and time to see it before voting today.

I anticipate that “Yes on 3” will prevail because the Question is phrased in a way that makes most people think they would be supporting unacceptable discrimination if they vote No.  Also, the "Yes on 3" campaign has endorsements of many progressive groups, and it collected nearly $4.5 million in donations (vs. a little over $600,000 that was collected by “No on 3”).

Personally, I have been waffling over this issue.  Some LGBT people I know have made it clear they support “Yes on 3”, and it is difficult for me to ignore that. But then I read this well-written piece in the Boston Globe, and the arguments in it also make sense.  
  
Three reasons to vote No on Question 3 - The Boston Globe

The author, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, cites these three reasons for why he will be voting “No”:

1. When antidiscrimination laws are expanded, freedom of association — a core human liberty — is infringed.

2. Massachusetts has already shown that it can accommodate transgender access — no law required.

3. The gender-identity law ignores sensitive issues of privacy and vulnerability.

In previous postings on this subject I, and John Spritzler, focused primarily on reason #3.  But Jacoby’s piece has opened my eyes to another important aspect of this issue — the one he outlines in his reason #1.

As he sees it, the 2016 Massachusetts law, Chapter 134, infringes on Freedom of Association, a long-standing principle that is recognized in American law.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Since the 2016 law makes it illegal for a business or organization with membership limited to one sex (such as a womens gym, or a men’s club) to exclude individuals who are biologically of the opposite sex, it looks like this effectively violates those organizations Freedom of Association.

(Are Mensa Clubs discriminating when they are denying membership to people with low or average IQ?)

Needless to say, I would never condone discrimination against transgender people in employment, healthcare, education, credit, and other areas that are essential to any individual’s ability to function in society — and such discrimination is already prohibited and punishable by another Massachusetts law that is not being challenged by anyone.

But if a transgender person were to be refused membership in something like “Grandmas’ Aerobics Group”, or MenCigar Smoking Club”, or “Postpartum Depression Support Group”, or “Women’s Baking Club” — should that be viewed as legally prohibited discrimination, subject to heavy fines and even jail (as the 2016 law stipulates)?

Bigoted behavior is something that society already looks down upon  and people often express their strong disapproval of bigotry when they encounter it (which is often sufficient to put the bigoted person in their place).  But at the same time, it seems to me that in a free society, bigotry cannot be classified as illegal — just as being stupid, or insensitive, or rude, or unwelcoming, or prejudiced, cannot be classified as illegal.

If a person is harassed or threatened, that is already illegal, and it doesn’t require that the harassed/threatened person be a member of a protected class.

There are many instances where people find themselves put down, teased, disrespected and ostracized for all kinds of things — for being short or fat, for having a heavy accent, for their ethnicity, for being handicapped or having some physical abnormalities, for having tattoos, for being mentally slow, for being an unwed mother, for being clumsy, for being vegan — and on, and on.  But we cannot have laws that classify that as discrimination.

The issue with Question 3, I think, is that many people feel sorry for transgender people — they view them as emotionally fragile, and worry that any kind of rejection may lead to a nervous breakdown, or worse.  But is this a reason to bestow a special legally protected status on them?  Some will say yes, others will remain unconvinced.

There is potentially no end to groups claiming victimhood or oppression, and demanding a special protected status.  We are living in very strange times.




Bosteye

unread,
Nov 6, 2018, 12:19:26 PM11/6/18
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com, Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Eva!


I rarely agree with the Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby. I find that his arguments are often inconsistent with what he claims are his principles.

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jean Powers

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 2:54:12 PM11/7/18
to AllstonBrighton2006

So would the ultimate undesirable be a short, fat, non-white, clumsy vegan unwed mother with a tattoo above her prosthetic?



Jean Powers

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 3:07:06 PM11/7/18
to AllstonBrighton2006
Exactly how strong should the disapproval be in order to put the bigot in their place?
Thank you for using gender-neutral pronouns!

Eva Webster

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 5:57:43 PM11/7/18
to AllstonBrighton2006, Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com
On 11/7/18, 2:54 PM, "Jean Powers" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of jean....@gmail.com> wrote:

"So would the ultimate undesirable be a short, fat, non-white, clumsy vegan unwed mother with a tattoo above her prosthetic?"


Is it a flippant or a serious question? It sounds like what my son would ask/say 30+ years ago (I miss those days). But I’ll take it seriously.

For some people (not everyone) encountering individuals who largely deviate from the norm makes them feel uncomfortable, in some cases even hostile (though they are usually able to control it).  Based on my readings in psychology, I suspect the negative reaction is instinctual – it originates in the old part of the brain that we share with lizards (I’m not kidding). It is related to the fight-or-flight response that people/animals can’t control, because it's largely physiological in nature (not made in the prefrontal cortex where more cerebral functions take place).

But since people (lizards too) differ, there are folks who are wired differently and they couldn’t care less when they encounter people that deviate from the norm — some even end up loving and cherishing what makes others different (and that too can be instinctual — as when people/animals subconsciously may desire to enlarge the gene pool, for example).

The larger point I want to make is that you cannot do anything about different people feeling differently about different people (or notions) than you do.  Human societies can succeed in developing a culture where individuals must hide their true feelings from view because they become socially or politically unacceptable — but that does not mean that those feelings and thoughts disappear. 

As hard as it is for some to comprehend, people have a right to have their likes/dislikes, preferences, fears, and prejudices.  Acting on some of them may be made illegal — but having those thoughts/feelings cannot be made illegal (though perhaps down the road, humans will develop ways in which it will be possible to control people’s innermost thoughts and feelings — but would you want to live in such a world?)

Anyone who has a problem with others having their own likes and dislikes (even if it includes personal prejudices) is veering toward a society that believes and tries to enforce mind control — and I personally am not looking forward to living in such a society.  (And of course, it’s easy to see that both the extreme left and and the extreme right can be guilty of trying to institute mind control.) 

To assume that you can browbeat all people into feeling loving, tolerant, accepting, magnanimous  generous, etc. toward anyone else is wishful thinking that ignores human nature — and it is in fact contrary to human liberty. You cannot force anyone to love or be accepting, just as you cannot force anyone to be hateful and violent if they don’t want to be.

Additionally, pontificating about how others are not sufficiently loving, tolerant, accepting, etc. looks very weak to me; it's virtue-signaling — and many people whose hearts and mind the do-gooders want to win find it off-putting and tiresome (speaking from experience).

Jean, since it seems you believe that being loving, tolerant, and accepting to others should not be a choice, then how come I am not feeling those sentiments directed from you to me?  ;-)  Feel free to convert me into a good human being with your tolerance for my very annoying thoughts! ;-) ;-)

Jean Powers

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 6:13:42 PM11/7/18
to AllstonBrighton2006
Don't email me again.

David Strati

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 6:18:31 PM11/7/18
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
I am wondering again why this group set up. Wasn't it something to do with housing?

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:13 PM Jean Powers <jean....@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't email me again.

cm beat

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 7:11:12 PM11/7/18
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com, Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com
Have to laugh about accusing anyone else of pontificating after reading years of emails telling people what they really think.  And yes, people can think what they think - they can't use that to discriminate against others that they think things about though.  This was the point of Question #3.  The Constitution etc.

p.s. the vote was yesterday and the Question passed.  Any further discussion is pointless and childish.


From: allstonbr...@googlegroups.com <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:57 PM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Cc: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Re: "Three reasons to vote No on Question 3" - The Boston Globe
 

Eva Webster

unread,
Nov 7, 2018, 7:39:31 PM11/7/18
to AllstonBrighton2006
“Cm beat” - constitution says nothing about the subject of Question 3, and the 2016 Massachusetts law may be unconstitutional.  I doubt anyone will make an effort to get a Supreme Court ruling on that — but if anyone does, the outcome would likely be the same as with the Supreme Court wedding cake baker ruling.

Progressives think that throwing a conservative out of a privately-owned restauranat is fine, and should be legal, but doing the same to a transgender person should be illegal. What’s the difference?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages