California Transgender law

Isn't that the distinction between common courtesy and mere courtesy?  Courtesies are the rules of polite behavior according to a variety of social divisions but common courtesies are those rules that apply at any court, across social division. (i.e. the manners of the courts of the Kings of England are quite different from those of courts the Kings of Siam but common courtesies are those behaviors that show and demand respect in any court, whatever the culture or social division)  When I say common courtesy I mean behaviors due to and from any human, whatever the social context.

An implicit conclusion within my comment is that "common courtesy" no longer exists (or at least is limited to homogeneous societies intolerant of other cultures), due to multiculturalism. Even basic things, like passing someone on the street, have wildly different expectations, in regards to courtesy. Hell, even copying other people's work is considered polite in China (it's respecting the master), whereas it's plagiarism in the West.

You might find the odd cultural behaviour that transcends all cultural barriers, but they're outnumbered by the ones that don't. Therefore, there isn't a good case for arguing that common courtesy exists, at least in the sense you're arguing.

good on ya, mate.  

Every criminal penalty is a state imposed threat.  Every criminal penalty carries some potential of taking your money from your criminal's metaphorical wallet, right?  Therefore every potential victim has their metaphorical hand in your criminal's wallet.  I understand you don't think your criminal is a criminal but how is this metaphor meant to illustrate that point?  I think you are suggesting that common courtesies are "mere requests" and violation ought never merit criminal penalty but we know that's not true: it is common courtesy to not strangle strangers for cash but if you do you'll risk criminal penalty in any court, correct?  Many common courtesies are enforced by law.  

I agree that simple reference or address is quite a different context than imposition.  ... A healthcare provider in a LTC receives the majority of their compensation from the state and is licensed by the state and therefore represents the state to a liable degree.  No law says you can't be cruel to the dying.  This law says that if you are cruel to the dying while working as a State of California healthcare provider, whether or not you lose your job you may be subject to a fine.

I hear the argument that making a special protection for LGBT folks is redundant given the good protections available under earlier law.  As I've said twice, the law is probably less necessary in California than anywhere and if someone opposed the law as political grandstanding or time-wasting they might find me in agreement.  The question we're working on here is whether the law is tyranny.  My answer remains no.

I wonder what is your opinion re: the state of transgender rights in Australia?

I honestly don't know what they are.

Wingnuts/rednecks demand the right to abuse, humiliate, threaten anybody but go pure snow flake when the opposition demands the same right. It's understandable given the prodigious quantity of stupid they present for name calling and humiliation.