This.

cayenne8 longs for the good ol' days when gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder, not a relatively common condition that could affect mental health.

Acknowledging, accepting, and affirmatively treating gender dysphoria as a medical condition (not a disorder) is not a surrender to wokeness. It's an attempt to prevent suicides.

Thanks for your post. I think I understand your dilemma. However, I was puzzled by a couple of your points.

Not sure what specific events you mean, but I think you're confusing banishment with declining to play favorites -- something the US Constitution demands of the government.

There is a time and place for everything, including displays of religiosity. It is not always appropriate to display it in public. Even Christians should understand that, if they follow the instructions Jesus gave them to pray in a room by themselves, not out in public like a show-off.

No, I don't think so. Gender is a sociocultural construction. Usually it aligns with one's biological sex, but not always. It's certainly more than a feeling.

Not for IBM, at least until a few decades ago. You could get fired for cause, but layoffs were unheard of. Things did change in the 90s though.

If the rule was created in order to stop the petitioner from doing business, then it's blocking. I don't think that's the case here. It's just that the petitioner has a business model that was not anticipated when the rule was created.

I predict the rule can and will be changed. But for now ... well, it's a rule.

It's both.

There are plenty of examples of governments (or their agencies) "compelling" speech from companies, even satisfying specific formats. For example, the SEC requires publically-traded companies to report earnings quarterly and annually using various prescribed accounting practices.

I see this new climate-related reporting law as being the same kind of thing. And for that reason, I predict Exxon's free-speech challenge will fail.

You are waaay down the hole, yet you keep digging. I hope you find your way out someday. Until then, recognize that someone cannot converse with you if you insist on changing the meaning of words.

Entitled much? You'll find out how he died when the family wants you to.

You could not be more wrong.

The political-action policies of unions are determined by their membership. Anyone can run for a union position and participate in the creation of such policies.

The political-action policies of corporations are determined by unelected C-suite bureaucrats and major influential shareholders. You have to have already eaten from the royal jelly to be in that crowd.

Which is more democratic?

Lest the company return to its old ways.

I think you're confused. Your ex-colleagues at the post office likely wouldn't even have OT multipliers if it hadn't been for their union. And they can choose to work or not work OT, don't blame the union for that.

And if they're sleeping on the job (OT or not) well that's up to management to handle. They (not the union) have the common-law right to discipline workers for their job performance.

Well ... WINE does work. Just not perfectly for every app you could name. (Does Windows work perfectly?)

I'm very impressed that WINE works as well as it does. Give the development team some credit for getting as far as they have on such an exceedingly difficult engineering problem.

WINE works well enough for several companies that make derivative products to adopt it as a base, including commercial ones.

Good to know. And there are alternatives also.

That does it. You are impossible as an interlocutor. And officially scary.

Everyone means everyone -- with no people excluded. The very idea that you can change that word to your liking illustrates the problem that your side presents to ... well, democracy.