@taylan What?

Just stating an opinion is a form of discrimination?

Even if you're just... a random person talking to a random person??

@taylan My bad, I didn't realise it was an image AND a PDF link.

Will read the image text now.

@taylan Oh dear lord.

There's a massive logical flaw in there somewhere, but I'm too tired to dig it out.

It might be just assuming the existence of gender identity in the first place, as the court appears to do. And the court is making a flawed comparison (and possibly the defence as well), the proper comparison would be to "people saved by god".

Christians would be properly compared to people who believe in gender identity, as the defence suggests. The court conflates "people who believe in gender identity" with "transgender people" as if they were the same group.

I'm sure there's something else wrong with it too, but see being too tired.

Also, there's loads of people there who don't believe atheists exist. By this logic, atheists should be able to claim discrimination on the grounds of their existence is being denied whenever someone says something along the lines of "no atheists in fox holes".
Would the Canadian court be equally happy to ban such claims? Somehow I think not.

@dagda @taylan It would seem so.
And also potentially denying their own existence, and therefore committing discrimination on themselves.
Potentially.

@dagda @taylan They should turn themselves in to the police and film the event. Demand the police arrest them for discrimination against themselves.