Originally Posted by
johnny karate
Because that's how harassment is being defined in the statute. Also, you left out a key bit of context. It's an intentional or repeated refusal.
We're running in circles. The way it's written, a single intentional refusal is defined as harassment? That's crazy. It has to be repeated to make any sense.
Quote:
No, I'm asking you why you need that middle ground.
Why do you keep using that word, "need"? I'm pointing out that you left out possibilities, creating a false dichotomy.
Quote:
Why can't you just call Bob "Roberta" and get on with your life?
Also, no one is telling you that you have to pretend something is true that you don't think is.
Of course they are. They're telling me to call Bob "Roberta" and get on with my life.
Quote:
Awesome. You have fun with your tedious and pointless semantic game. I won't be taking part.
I tell you that you're using non-standard definitions, and I'm the one playing semantic games?
Or did you feel that you couldn't defend your use of those words?