Georgia Religious Freedom Bill

Krgrecw said:
In no ways am I correlating homosexuality or being transgender with pedophile or being rapists what I'm saying is pervs will act like they are transgendered to go in the women's restroom.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't have read your earlier post as directed at homosexuals in general. Why would anyone bring in homosexuals or lesbians into the discussion. They go into the restrooms that are designed for their DNA and plumbing, right?
 
BedellBrave said:
I certainly wouldn't have read your earlier post as directed at homosexuals in general. Why would anyone bring in homosexuals or lesbians into the discussion. They go into the restrooms that are designed for their DNA and plumbing, right?
Click to expand...

No under these laws if a man, really feels like he's a woman he'd be entitled to use the women's restroom because if you say he can't you'd be discriminating against him. Plumbing or DNA doesn't have anything to do with this instance, it's basically mental.
 
I added homosexuals to the discussion and I probably shouldn't have. I just get a little tired of the depiction of non-heterosexuals as being constantly on sexual overdrive and I am glad to hear that was not kr's intention.

I'm not going to sit here and say there may be predators who dress as the opposite sex and use a restroom inappropriately to prey on the vulnerable. But I have yet to hear of a predator doing this now (and if there have been some, they have been few and far between), so I am having a difficult time trying to figure out how the proposed law change would somehow facilitate predators acting out in this manner. If there were to somehow be a rash of these occurrences, obviously something would need to be done. I'm not from Missouri, but I guess I will have to be shown this is going to be a problem.
 
I'm not the brightest guy and I have problems articulating my thoughts but this last paragraph is where I am coming from:

On Feb. 22, Charlotte, N.C., passed an ordinance expanding North Carolina’s antidiscrimination laws so that LGBT people would also be granted protection in places of “public accommodation” — which, among other things, would allow transgender people to use the bathrooms of the gender they identify as. This ordinance was to go in effect on April 1.

But in response, at a special session on March 23, North Carolina’s General Assembly proposed and passed the House Bill 2 (HB2) — or the “bathroom bill” — and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law that same night.

The new law did more than repeal the Charlotte ordinance. It made the state’s law on antidiscrimination — which covers race, religion, national origin, color, age, biological sex and handicaps — the final word. Meaning cities and local governments can’t expand “employment” or “public accommodations” protections to others, such as on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Minimum wage also falls under the state’s antidiscrimination law, so this law means local governments aren’t able to set their own minimum wages beyond the state standard.

Proponents of the new law say that Charlotte’s measure expanding North Carolina’s antidiscrimination law was governmental overreach by the city. They also argue that this is a matter of safety for women and children in public restrooms and showers. But LGBT activists say that safety hasn’t been an issue in the 18 states or the more than 100 cities where protections for gay and transgender people already exist.
 
The issue with the North Carolina law is that it was sold as a "bathroom bill," which is a strawman in and of itself, but it is actually a state sanction for discrimination against gays and lesbians. It's going to hit the state hard in the wallet, and rightfully so.
 
Julio3000 said:
The issue with the North Carolina law is that it was sold as a "bathroom bill," which is a strawman in and of itself, but it is actually a state sanction for discrimination against gays and lesbians. It's going to hit the state hard in the wallet, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

In what sort of ways does it sanction it? Specifically?
 
50PoundHead said:
I added homosexuals to the discussion and I probably shouldn't have. I just get a little tired of the depiction of non-heterosexuals as being constantly on sexual overdrive and I am glad to hear that was not kr's intention.

I'm not going to sit here and say there may be predators who dress as the opposite sex and use a restroom inappropriately to prey on the vulnerable. But I have yet to hear of a predator doing this now (and if there have been some, they have been few and far between), so I am having a difficult time trying to figure out how the proposed law change would somehow facilitate predators acting out in this manner. If there were to somehow be a rash of these occurrences, obviously something would need to be done. I'm not from Missouri, but I guess I will have to be shown this is going to be a problem.
Click to expand...

You're a good man 50. Don't let my disagreements with your views make you think I think otherwise.

Part - I underscore part - of the over-sexualizing is self-inflicted. So many same-sex attractive sexually self-identify. Not, "I am a man." Or, "I'm a plumber." Or, "I am a Christian." The first designation isn't so much DNA, or vocation, or religious, it's "sex."
 
944920_1242671965746303_1784312759417975846_n.jpg
 
BedellBrave said:
You're a good man 50. Don't let my disagreements with your views make you think I think otherwise.

Part - I underscore part - of the over-sexualizing is self-inflicted. So many same-sex attractive sexually self-identify. Not, "I am a man." Or, "I'm a plumber." Or, "I am a Christian." The first designation isn't so much DNA, or vocation, or religious, it's "sex."
Click to expand...

My point is sexual identity and sexual activity are two different things. So much of the discussion of the LGBT community centers on "what they do" rather than "who they are." I imagine some have sh*tloads of sex and some are as celibate as monks.

My half-baked solution to the predator problem is this: In the event someone dressed as the opposite sex is guilty of a sex crime in the restroom assigned to the intended biologic sex, they should have an extra 10 years added to their sentence without the chance of parole.
 
50PoundHead said:
My point is sexual identity and sexual activity are two different things. So much of the discussion of the LGBT community centers on "what they do" rather than "who they are." I imagine some have sh*tloads of sex and some are as celibate as monks.

My half-baked solution to the predator problem is this: In the event someone dressed as the opposite sex is guilty of a sex crime in the restroom assigned to the intended biologic sex, they should have an extra 10 years added to their sentence without the chance of parole.
Click to expand...

It amounts to a "Death" penalty realistically or rape every night for ten years straight in the pen. Sick people will do it though, it is their nature and Darwin will take care of them.

Jared Fogle got lucky and I don't know how long that is going to last.
 
sturg33 said:
I'm still waiting on Goldy to address Weso's earlier point... Goldy asked "who the **** cares" and weso correctly responded with the folks who are throwing a fit about not being able to select the bathroom of their choice
Click to expand...

In my earlier days, around 30 years ago and had the choice of what bathroom to use. My selfie stick would happy.
 
AerchAngel said:
In my earlier days, around 30 years ago and had the choice of what bathroom to use. My selfie stick would happy.
Click to expand...

I pity the first guy who decides to use the women's restroom in my city. It won't be a pretty sight.

I don't mean the 'let's go into a bar bathroom and get it on' I mean the adult male who follows a small girl into a public restroom.
 
We are buying a sign when she gets back from Israel that says "All parties and candidates suck 2016"
 
weso1 said:
I don't care either, but obviously there are some people who have reasonable concerns. Think for a second about how contradictory your argument is. You essentially say that nobody should care where they use the bathroom. Well, why exactly does that not apply to transgender folk. If nobody should care where they use the bathroom then why aren't they being the uptight ones?

The second part of your argument is not really an argument at all, it's just you being an internet bully. Just an absurd and dumb comment.
Click to expand...

cause as most any minority group they care to only have their side be treated as equal to the majority view

it's why i would say who gives a **** to a lot of things like for an example gay marriage.

i don't give a **** that 2 men or 2 women want to marry but could understand why a minor group would care to have their view be accepted by all.

thus why some care when usually the majority don't care cause it is the opposite of their own view
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top