Here we go again.
I must give a plug for Drew Curtis and Fark.com. his wonderfully eclectic and humorous anecdotes regarding the news of the day are a daily source of pleasure for me. I often don’t get my news any other way. Kudos, Drew…
It is from Fark that I found my latest subject matter to espouse my firm belief that if this country is to progress from our current doldrums, we must first recognize the responsibility of the individual to respect the rights of others and contemplate them as they express their personal views. Whether or not you agree with a person’s beliefs, lifestyle choices, or opinions is simply immaterial. We all have the right to agree to disagree unless someone is being harmed. Then we have a responsibility to restore order, and the actor should pay the appropriate consequences.
That said, we find a story from San Francisco where a transgender woman was harassed by an agent at the local Department of Motor Vehicles when the new she went to apply for a new driver’s license. The agent took the woman’s address and wrote her a letter admonishing her for her decision to change genders, making the point that it was a “very evil decision”. Link it:
Please tell me why this individual put their governmental organization in the path of a litigious freight train for this issue. Why was it so necessary for the agent to make their displeasure with this woman’s decision to radically alter her life? Why was it their business? Who was harmed, besides the person who received such an assault? Yes, she was assaulted. Like it or not.
The best way to express displeasure for a lifestyle choice is to not engage in its practice. It is none of the individual’s business what a complete stranger does to their own body unless the action places others in jeopardy of life, limb, or liberty. There is no cause for the community to rise in anger over a sex change. The was no right for anyone to subject this woman to anonymous scrutiny- almost voyeuristic to a degree- when she is simply doing what needs to be done to stay in compliance with the law.
In her suit, she claims her privacy and civil rights were violated. I totally agree. If the agent in question saw fit to disparage Ms. Yust’s choices, they should have saved the editorial for their own circle of friends. There is no law against being intolerant, but there exists a requirement for intolerance to be saved for one’s own circle and not spread it like a miasma.
This brings to my mind a Supreme Court case, People v. Rokicki, where the defendant referred to a Pizza Hut employee as a “Mary” amongst other homosexual epithets when he expressed displeasure at the employee handling his food. After his tirade, he actually went to a local police station to make a complaint against people who aren’t “normal” to handle his food. He was charged with hate speech, and the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. You can believe what you will, but you cannot spread bile for general consumption.
Grow up, America. Everybody is different. That’s what makes us great. Intolerance is the match that lights the fuse.
Chip Grefski
Chip Grefski
No comments:
Post a Comment