Georgia Religious Freedom Bill

Krgrecw said:
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.
Click to expand...

And afterward they'll find out the man was just the little girl's father. Or a woman going to a costume party.
 
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...

What's your opinion on the travel bans?
 
Julio3000 said:
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...

It's a religious liberty bill, and the reason that states feel compelled to create these types of bills is because of court decisions that have decided against certain religious liberties. I find it a little bit ironic that these bills exist only because of leftist court decisions that have found that an individual has to provide a service for a ceremony that that individual does not wish to participate in.
 
goldfly said:
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
Click to expand...

But that shouldn't negate the fact that some folks care about the issue, but in a different way. Is it really absurd for a 21 year old woman to be concerned about a person with a penis using the same bathroom as she is? And if you think it is absurd, let me give you an example that might cause you to rethink that. 2 college girls at the University of Toronto were filmed taking a shower by two college boys in a non gender specific locker room unbeknownst to the girls.
 
weso1 said:
It's a religious liberty bill, and the reason that states feel compelled to create these types of bills is because of court decisions that have decided against certain religious liberties. I find it a little bit ironic that these bills exist only because of leftist court decisions that have found that an individual has to provide a service for a ceremony that that individual does not wish to participate in.
Click to expand...

The NC bill is not a "religious liberty" bill. It is a trojan horse that makes it impossible for anyone to file discrimination suits (for example, employment discrimination) at the state level, where the burdens on plaintiffs are lower.

Let's speak clearly—when you say "certain religious liberties," you mean the liberty to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, right?
 
weso1 said:
It's a religious liberty bill, and the reason that states feel compelled to create these types of bills is because of court decisions that have decided against certain religious liberties. I find it a little bit ironic that these bills exist only because of leftist court decisions that have found that an individual has to provide a service for a ceremony that that individual does not wish to participate in.
Click to expand...

i find it funny to hear the same people say they are followers of Jesus Christ try to tell me it's against their religion to make a cake for a wedding while Jesus would dine with whores and drunks etc
 
weso1 said:
But that shouldn't negate the fact that some folks care about the issue, but in a different way. Is it really absurd for a 21 year old woman to be concerned about a person with a penis using the same bathroom as she is? And if you think it is absurd, let me give you an example that might cause you to rethink that. 2 college girls at the University of Toronto were filmed taking a shower by two college boys in a non gender specific locker room unbeknownst to the girls.
Click to expand...

and somehow we all have taken a piss in a bathroom with the opposite sex or a transgender person or a gay person and we all lived through the horrible ordeal

prosecute the boys for the filming without permission etc etc etc
 
No, I think the point of the bill is to protect individuals and individual business from anti christian assholes.

Beyond that I don't really have anything else to add to what striker has already posted.
 
weso1 said:
No, I think the point of the bill is to protect individuals and individual business from anti christian assholes.

Beyond that I don't really have anything else to add to what striker has already posted.
Click to expand...

1) How does the NC bill do that?

2) Your words: "court decisions that have decided against certain religious liberties" What liberties?
 
BedellBrave said:
Dissent is futile.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're obviously not going to reach a consensus here which is why I pointed to striker's post. Obviously there are those who believe that subjectively defined identities should be protected under discrimination law. But there are clearly instances where anti christian assholes have taken advantage of that protection. For example one employer was sued for listening to christian music, because it created a hostile environment.

So to answer julio's question the North Carolina law prevents cities from making bad discriminatory laws with too much subjectivity and leaves it up to businesses to work out that subjectivity. This goes to striker's op in which I believe he states that it's better for individuals and in this case individual business to decide, based on a myriad of factors, what is best in working out that subjectivity.
 
These anti-LGBT bills are just another way for the connected to send people they don't like to the back of the bus.
 
weso1 said:
Yeah, we're obviously not going to reach a consensus here which is why I pointed to striker's post. Obviously there are those who believe that subjectively defined identities should be protected under discrimination law. But there are clearly instances where anti christian assholes have taken advantage of that protection. For example one employer was sued for listening to christian music, because it created a hostile environment.

So to answer julio's question the North Carolina law prevents cities from making bad discriminatory laws with too much subjectivity and leaves it up to businesses to work out that subjectivity. This goes to striker's op in which I believe he states that it's better for individuals and in this case individual business to decide, based on a myriad of factors, what is best in working out that subjectivity.
Click to expand...

So, when you say "discriminatory laws," you mean "laws that prevent discrimination," right?
 
Runnin said:
These anti-LGBT bills are just another way for the connected to send people they don't like to the back of the bus.
Click to expand...

And these types of statements are just another way for leftists to feel morally superior to those they disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top