Anti HRO Vandalism in Jacksonville's Five Points Area

[Adam White]

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

The article says it was.

"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"

Stop confusing us with the facts!

[Bewler]

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

The article says it was.

"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"

Stop confusing us with the facts!

Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural"  or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.

But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.

And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.

[Adam White]

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

The article says it was.

"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"

Stop confusing us with the facts!

Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural"  or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.

But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.

And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.

I agree.

[FlaBoy]

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

The article says it was.

"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"

Stop confusing us with the facts!

Well I'm not saying it definitively is a fact, I'm just going by what the article says and assuming its accurate. It's entirely possible the construction worker who crossed out the message didn't know the owner endorsed the message or that it was supposed to be an artistic "mural"  or whatever and he's looking at it like its a bathroom wall scribble.

But regardless of whether or not he knew this, it was still idiotic of him to do that to a building he was hired to work on. He could have spray painted something benign like "I enjoy cake" and still have gotten fired over it.

And if he DID know the owner supported the message, then it was exponentially more idiotic. Unless he just didn't care that much about his job.

I agree.

If it was done with the consent of the owner, then it was completely justified to fire him.

[AKIRA]

Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...

Does this kind of thinking extend to other situations?  Like, if we keep in mind the number of sexual assaults committed by policemen against females around the country, should we ban male cops from making traffic stops?  Or arrests?

(everything I say here is in expectation that an actually conversation can be had, instead of simply posting a unified political front for the current cause celebre.  My interest is not in the morality of it, but instead the legal form it takes)

I am so glad you asked.  The answer is yes, it does extend to other things.
There are people who indeed believe (government) police should be banned for just such reasons, such as anarchists/voluntaryists.  Copblock is a prime example.  Clearly, that will never happen in any of our lifetimes, without some kind of apocalypse scenario.  What most people do demand is greater regulation, both in recruiting police and keeping after them throughout their careers.  Standards are laid out, boards and hearings are created and action is taken to reduce future harm.  So yes, it is similar, but not the reductio ad absurdum you take it.  It is similar in the need for some sort of way to determine legitimacy to prevent predators, as some police are, from having a field day.

Even Adam's point has validity in the same way, but he forgets that every vehicle has a tag that legitimizes the vehicle for use on the roads, requiring it to be registered and insured.  Also, the DL he assumes the drivers to have is listed on the same screen that police free access when running tags, which is why your tag is visible to traffic and not hidden.  There is more than "hope" involved.

A much better example would be the fiasco with service animals and 2nd Amendment activists.

First, services animals.
The ADA stipulates that a person can take their service animal; pretty much anywhere, regardless of kind of animal (highly trained and expensive dogs, pythons, Shetland ponies, etc).  If a business denies access, a $50,000 fines would be issued the business, of which a portion can go to the person denied.  Sounds simply so far... Problems begin with people lying about their animal actually being a SA, and not some untrained, stinky mutt that found roaming around.  Since only two questions can be legally asked, "is that a service animal and what service does it provide", it is very difficult to determine any truth to the claim.  Furthermore, the person does not have to provide any paperwork or certification for their claim.  I've seen a few people who would go to a business, with a true service animals, cause a ruckus or problem and then be told to leave.  They would immediately file a claim with the feds in hope that the business would be fined for expelling them for having a SA.  The worst was a lady with a SA she would never wash so it would be super smelly, in hopes that a business would kick her out due to the impossibly bad odor.  When you see her again in court, the dog would be clean and she would have her hand out for her cash from the fine...

Second, the 2nd Amendment activist.   

In Florida, there is a law that allows open carry when got to or from hunting, camping and fishing.  As a result, a local gun rights nut would walk down San Jose near the various bridges with a fishing pole and a shotgun scaring local folk.  Do you need a shot gun when fishing off a bridge in Mandarin..?  No.  Is it legal to have one (or an AR, hunting rifles, etc) strapped to your back while doing such or walking to do such, even when frightening people?  Yep.  Can police demand ID from someone in such a circumstance?  No.  For that matter, would also be potentially legal to walk past Fishweir Elementary multiple times doing the same, with multiple weapons in the middle of the school day.  You can see how a law to allow people recreational opportunities has, at times, turned into a silly fiasco by people abusing the spirit of that law.  Refer to Youtube for examples.

To conclude, SA laws are very much needed, but badly written and allow too much abuse.  The 2nd Amendment is a basic right, but is not immune from abuse by people with ulterior motives. 

Laws that create and assure freedom have a responsibility to be written in a way that also takes in account the unintentional trouble they can cause.  Checks and balances, if you will.

There lays my concern about how to determine legitimacy in restroom attendance.   How to create maximum freedom and limit abuse, for which the propensity is already established, is the question that I don't know if there can be an answer in this case...

[Adam White]

Even Adam's point has validity in the same way, but he forgets that every vehicle has a tag that legitimizes the vehicle for use on the roads, requiring it to be registered and insured.  Also, the DL he assumes the drivers to have is listed on the same screen that police free access when running tags, which is why your tag is visible to traffic and not hidden.  There is more than "hope" involved.

Not cars, drivers.

Every restroom (or most, at least) has a sign designating it as a men's room or a ladies' room.

Every car may have a tag, but that tag doesn't necessarily say anything about the driver.

[johncb]

In my HUMBLE opinion , that wasn't "Art " . It was simply a message . That being said, the guy was an idiot but does he really need to lose his job over it ? Is that going to make him more open minded towards trans folks now ?  Wouldn't it have been more productive to TALK to him , maybe explain the message ? You cant change an asshole by acting like one yourself . Its intolerance , just like his action was .

[Adam White]

In my HUMBLE opinion , that wasn't "Art " . It was simply a message . That being said, the guy was an idiot but does he really need to lose his job over it ? Is that going to make him more open minded towards trans folks now ?  Wouldn't it have been more productive to TALK to him , maybe explain the message ? You cant change an asshole by acting like one yourself . Its intolerance , just like his action was .

Is this art?

[I-10east]

Does this kind of thinking extend to other situations?  Like, if we keep in mind the number of sexual assaults committed by policemen against females around the country, should we ban male cops from making traffic stops?  Or arrests?

[peestandingup]

Transgender 0.3% of the population = The plight of the century!

Honestly, lets just go all unisex with stalls so we can put this to rest. Or better yet bring back the single outhouse, or what my grandpa called "the shit hole" (as in a hole you put shit in). Easy peasy.

[Adam White]

Transgender 0.3% of the population = The plight of the century!

Well, it's a burden for them.

That's the way civil rights work. If we only worried about civil rights when it became a burden for the  majority, there would be no civil rights at all for minority groups.