Only in Massachusetts could the people pass an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that said judges have to retire at age 70 and judges decide they do not have to retire at age 70. The problem with having these people on the public payroll is they want to stay on the public payroll as long as they possibly can so by saying retire at 70 does not mean retire at 70 they can continue to live off the public teat until they croak.
The sad thing about this is that the Legislature goes along with it. It funds payments for judges who are over 70 years of age. You would think that by 70 all judges would retire. It would allow for younger people to become judges; people that will have to live in the future with the decisions they make.
Things are so bad that the attorney general has to sue some district attorneys who refuse to follow the law concerning public records. What are they hiding? How are people supposed to follow the law when the people who are supposed to enforce it are violating it?
Drip, drip, drip it seems everywhere you look those in public positions of trust feel no responsibility to the public. That is how you end up with inane laws that prohibit discrimination against weirdos and fails to protect traditional values as Massachusetts gender protection law does. Yes, there are weird people in our society who we should not be forced to employ or associate with or be offended by but in Massachusetts you can be sued if you do.
Massachusetts gender protection law passed this year reads: “Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of . . . gender identity, . . . in any place of public accommodation, . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages . . . This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.”
“A place of public accommodation, . . . within the meaning hereof shall be defined as and shall be deemed to include any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public.” (my emphasis)
The MCAD speaks about gender identity: “Some individuals who fit this definition of transgender do not identify themselves as such, and identify simply as men and women, consistent with their gender identity. Some individuals transition from living and working as one gender to another. . . . The statutory definition of gender identity does not require the individual to have gender affirming surgery or intend to undergo surgery, nor does it require evidence of past medical care or treatment. . . . Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of their own gender and its expression” (my emphasis)
It goes on to say: “The law also protects persons whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned sex at birth, but who do not adopt or express traditional gender roles, stereotypes or cultural norms. . . . For example, discrimination against a person designated as female at birth and who identifies as a woman but who does not act, dress, or groom herself in a manner consistent with feminine stereotypes, is unlawful discrimination based on sex and gender identity.”
Yet the definition of public accommodation includes “a rest room, barber shop, beauty parlor, bathhouse, seashore facilities or swimming pool, except such rest room, bathhouse or seashore facility as may be segregated on the basis of sex;”
Now answer me this: how can you segregate rest rooms, bathhouses, or seashore facilities on the basis of sex when there is no way of determining a person’s sex. Under Massachusetts law a person’s sex is that which the person says it is regardless of external appearances.
Our rule makers seem out of sorts with what many of us have come to accept which are “traditional gender roles, stereotypes or cultural norms.” If we look askance at the 300 pound five foot five bald guy in a mini skirt and spike heels we are well on our way to interfering with his civil rights especially if we say anything to him.
The MCAD tells us it is unlawful to discriminate against a woman who does not “dress . . . herself in a manner consistent with feminine stereotypes.”
How does that square with this statement: “In most parts of the U.S., it is illegal for women to go topless in public. Women may legally do so only in six states, and specific cities and beaches. If a woman goes topless in public anywhere else in America, it is considered indecent exposure. In Massachusetts, the maximum penalty for indecent exposure is up to six months in jail and a $200 fine.”
Now if a Suzie wants to dress as a man on a hot day and go topless we cannot discriminate against her even if she identifies as a woman. If Suzie goes topless and identifies as a man we also cannot discriminate against him.
The MCAD noted: “Some individuals transition from living and working as one gender to another.” So if Annie who identifies as a woman at work decides not to wear a top one day and goes to work she can be arrested when she gets there; but going and coming from work without a top she cannot be since outside of work she identifies as a man and men can go topless.
It will get worse.