• auzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 个月前

    Whenever laws get broken, it’s constantly “I was just doing my job”.

    The Postal office can find someone else to do that delivery.

    You don’t know how long they’ve been working there. And that directly puts their family at potential harm.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 个月前

      It’s her job to deliver the mail. The only law broken here is her refusal to deliver it. You don’t get to cherry pick the mail system.

      If she won’t deliver the mail, she needs to be fired. Period.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 个月前

          Hot take bud, where do you draw the line with that?

          Can a transphobic postal carrier refuse to deliver anything they disagree with also? Shouldn’t they be able to decide what mail you get based on their beliefs as well?

          Or are you a hypocrite that thinks that rules should only be broken because you disagree with them.

          Oh, and please don’t go to Nazis when you feel someone disagrees with you. It’s immature, it’s irrelevant to the discussion, and it’s foolish as hell.

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 个月前

            Pro trans material isn’t putting people in harm’s way

            Huge difference bud

            • Soup@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              2 个月前

              You’re wrong here bud. No matter how you feel about it. You’re wrong. It’s her job to deliver mail. Even if she disagrees with it.

              And for the record- they will tell you that trans rights puts people in harms way as well- even if we both disagree- belief is belief at the end of the day- and someone is choosing to take the law into their own hands based on that belief.

              She should be fired.

              I’m done arguing this with people that don’t understand how federal laws work on the most basic of levels.

              • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 个月前

                Maybe not fired for a first offense. That’s a bit extreme imo.

                In a different scenario, what would you think if it was UPS or another private company worker instead of federal?

                • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 个月前

                  If it’s your job to do a thing, and you don’t do the thing you agreed on upon being hired- you lose said job.

                  That’s how life works.

      • auzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 个月前

        She could argue it’s self defence technically. As we all know what shitfuckery advertising like that leads to…

        She’s probably been delivering the mail for decades. Just not some bigoted advertising.

        It’s not my job to pull down Nazi sticker crap or clean it up, but I do.

        Yes management should reject that delivery, but she also has a right not to put her family in harm’s way.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 个月前

          So should a bigoted transphobe mail carrier be allowed to deny mail from a source depicting trans rights as a positive thing?

          Does this work both ways?

          Or is it only that the law should be broken because you disagree with it. You don’t get to cherry pick federal laws bud. That’s not how it works.

          • Krzd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 个月前

            What? The flyers promote the discrimination and criminalisation of a minority group, versus your example which would be promoting minority rights.
            Those aren’t comparable.

            • Soup@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 个月前

              They’re 100% comparable when you understand how federal law works. Learn it- then come back here and we can discuss whether or not a mail carrier has the right to decide what mail you get.

              Until then, I don’t think you can carry your side in this discussion.

              • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                2 个月前

                Well I’m not too well versed on Canadian federal laws as I’m a bit further south. So I looked into discrimination laws in New Brunswick, Canada and found this Human Rights Act

                Some parts that could be relevant;

                The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is the provincial law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on 16 protected grounds of discrimination.

                The Act prohibits discrimination in the following five areas under the provincial jurisdiction: Employment (includes job ads and interviews, working conditions, and dismissals); Housing (e.g. rent and sale of property); Accommodations, services, and facilities (e.g. hotels, schools, restaurants, government services, libraries, stores, etc.); Publicity; and, Professional, business or trade associations (e.g. Nurses Association of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Teachers’ Association, New Brunswick College of Physicians, etc.).

                Publicity includes any publications, displays, notices, signs, symbols, emblems that show discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons

                Not a lawyer or expert, but that seems to apply at least superficially. Maybe a bit of a stretch. But it helps that the fliers were full of factually wrong and hateful anti-trans myths. And freedom of speech has limits, even federally.

                ETA: However, mail carriers are probably exclusively covered by federal law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act only seems to specify discrimination and not harassment. I do think it’s too much of a stretch to say this would be covered by any federal laws

                Final edit: ok I read more. This is the closest thing I could find from the federal Human Rights Act

                12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

                If I am misinterpreting it, please let me know. I think it could be used as an argument tho

                • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 个月前

                  Now look up wether or not mail carriers get to decide what mail you get-

                  • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    2 个月前

                    I understand that. I’m reading way too many laws already lol

                    If the letter is determined to be unlawful, there’s a provision that allows Canadian Post to not deliver the letter. It’s a whole process that the mail carriers did not follow. Maybe if they had tried, and used the argument that it was unlawful discrimination or harassment to deliver the fliers, they would have had a leg to stand on. It seems that they didn’t, they took matters into their own hands, and they were punished accordingly.

                    To be more clear, I’m not arguing against the punishment. Just the fliers and if they could be considered unlawful