|
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,727 Views)
|
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
Post #166
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain. I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism.
Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument.
Next.
|

|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
Post #167
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Apr 27 2016, 06:32 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 03:56 PM
It violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates against people based on their gender. It also violates an individual's right to privacy by forcing people to out themselves. It violates title IX because public institutions which receive public funds will be discriminating based on gender it also will potentially force people to undergo medical treatment they may not want or even be advised against just to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.
I think the court will strike down the law on all of the above accounts. It is blatantly unconstitutional. And, quite frankly, an embarrassment for our nation. The world is laughing at us.
Every single bit of what you said assumes that someone agrees with your notion that gender is not a physical attribute. The lack of acceptance that it is not universally defined the way you define it is something you have accused others of doing -- not being able to see the point of both sides of the issue. The fact that you say it is 'blatantly unconstitutional' to me says you either underestimate what the term blatant is or the term unconstitutional. It may be ruled unconstitutional but it most definitely is not a slam dunk case. The reality is that it is really only "blatantly unconstitutional" if it is established that a person who believes they are a women in fact is a women and should be treated as a women regardless of their physical biology. That certainly isn't an established fact even if it feels like it in places like Washington state.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Apr 27 2016, 06:58 PM
Post #168
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism. Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument. Next. Hahahaha. You just made my point and don't even realize it.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:00 PM
Post #169
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- brumdog44
- Apr 27 2016, 06:32 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 03:56 PM
It violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates against people based on their gender. It also violates an individual's right to privacy by forcing people to out themselves. It violates title IX because public institutions which receive public funds will be discriminating based on gender it also will potentially force people to undergo medical treatment they may not want or even be advised against just to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.
I think the court will strike down the law on all of the above accounts. It is blatantly unconstitutional. And, quite frankly, an embarrassment for our nation. The world is laughing at us.
Every single bit of what you said assumes that someone agrees with your notion that gender is not a physical attribute. The lack of acceptance that it is not universally defined the way you define it is something you have accused others of doing -- not being able to see the point of both sides of the issue. The fact that you say it is 'blatantly unconstitutional' to me says you either underestimate what the term blatant is or the term unconstitutional. It may be ruled unconstitutional but it most definitely is not a slam dunk case.
The reality is that it is really only "blatantly unconstitutional" if it is established that a person who believes they are a women in fact is a women and should be treated as a women regardless of their physical biology. That certainly isn't an established fact even if it feels like it in places like Washington state. Question. How do you determine if someone is a man or woman? Physical biology? Genetics?
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:01 PM
Post #170
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism. Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument. Next. So do you consider it to be indecent exposure when a dog shits on the sidewalk?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:08 PM
Post #171
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 07:01 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism. Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument. Next.
So do you consider it to be indecent exposure when a dog shits on the sidewalk? Is this "gotcha!" Time? No, I don't. They aren't a human. Again, I know modernism is tough for you, but try to follow. I stated I don't care how someone identifies. I care about if people harm each other or are put in positions where harm will come to them. This bill doesn't stop creeps from harming people (it happens already), rather it puts an already vulnerable population in even more danger.
How many trans people have you talked to about this? Really no sense in talking to me, a straight white male. Go getcha some of that culture.
Br
|

|
| |
|
boilergrad01
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:14 PM
Post #172
|
Working on the last 5
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #135
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- rkl15
- Apr 26 2016, 09:06 PM
- brumdog44
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- rkl15
- Apr 26 2016, 08:34 PM
- brumdog44
- Apr 26 2016, 04:01 PM
- rkl15
- Apr 26 2016, 07:15 AM
Yep, sorry. miss-type.
estimated that there are 700,000 in the US.
Estimated population in the US of 322,762,018.
Let's say that 25% (random number) are opposed, or would feel uncomfortable with this law.
That would mean we are making a law for 700,000 people and making 80,690,505 uncomfortable.
This law is a waste of time, money and other resources.
I am against the Charlotte law, but making it a numbers issue is the wrong way to go about it. It shouldn't be about popularity, it should be about whether the law is right and just or not. BTW, I've already cited the Reuters polls which showed the even split between people in favor of allowing transgenders to use the bathroom they are comfortable with and those opposed. Again, it's not about the numbers. "The rights of the minority should never be voted on by the majority". -- Thomas Jefferson
We are a democracy. Majority rules? "The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson "I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson "All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson "This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson "The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson In this type of decision you will never have everyone agree what is "right" or "wrong". Therefore, majority needs to rule.
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'democracy'. Webster's definition: A form of government in which people choose their leaders by voting. Democracy is a system of representation, not a system where all issues are voted on by the general population. It is a system intended to elect members who make educated decisions. And if they are simply voting by what is popular and not what is right, they truly are not serving justice. In which case, the checks and balance system will rule on it. If you think it is anything different, then I would like to know what the general public vote on each constitutional amendment was.
I know what a Democracy is: Main Entry:de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation:di-primarystressmäk-rschwa-semacron Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural -cies Etymology:from early French democratie "democracy," from Latin democratia (same meaning), from Greek demokratia "democracy," from demacronmos "people, the masses" and -kratia "rule, government," from kratos "strength, power, authority" --related to EPIDEMIC 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation 2 : a political unit (as a nation) that has a democratic government 3 : belief in or practice of the idea that all people are socially equal Laws are created by people elected to office by majority vote. I know we basically agree on this. But I see it as government trying to be too Politically Correct. My question (and I don't know) are there alot of transgender people out there asking for this law? No a male sex offender pushed the law
|
|
Nothing beats an Astronaut
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:19 PM
Post #173
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Dictionary.com most definitely is NOT a legal dictionary. You are also assuming that bathrooms are designated by (your definition of) gender and not sex.
Simple question: how many urinals do you know of in women's bathrooms?
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:22 PM
Post #174
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
Zero. Not really hearing a call from trans folks to install them in women's rooms either.
|

|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:25 PM
Post #175
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
Thelawdictionary.org/gender
|

|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:32 PM
Post #176
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 07:25 PM
Thelawdictionary.org/gender
http://thelawdictionary.org/female/
"The sex which conceives and give birth to young".
Please link where legally bathrooms are to be designated by gender.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Apr 27 2016, 07:42 PM
Post #177
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 07:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 07:01 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism. Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument. Next.
So do you consider it to be indecent exposure when a dog shits on the sidewalk?
Is this "gotcha!" Time? No, I don't. They aren't a human. Again, I know modernism is tough for you, but try to follow. I stated I don't care how someone identifies. I care about if people harm each other or are put in positions where harm will come to them. This bill doesn't stop creeps from harming people (it happens already), rather it puts an already vulnerable population in even more danger. How many trans people have you talked to about this? Really no sense in talking to me, a straight white male. Go getcha some of that culture. Br So if I identify as a dog, am I also then "not human" or am I still human?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 08:10 PM
Post #178
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 07:42 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 07:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 07:01 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators." br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
I wouldn't have a problem with your identity, rather your action. A trans person using the restroom isn't harming anyone. A person shitting on the ground is indecent exposure, public defecation/urination, and vandalism. Your analogies suck. They are a sign of a weak argument. Next.
So do you consider it to be indecent exposure when a dog shits on the sidewalk?
Is this "gotcha!" Time? No, I don't. They aren't a human. Again, I know modernism is tough for you, but try to follow. I stated I don't care how someone identifies. I care about if people harm each other or are put in positions where harm will come to them. This bill doesn't stop creeps from harming people (it happens already), rather it puts an already vulnerable population in even more danger. How many trans people have you talked to about this? Really no sense in talking to me, a straight white male. Go getcha some of that culture. Br
So if I identify as a dog, am I also then "not human" or am I still human? I'm ok if someone brings a female dog into the men's room if that's the point you're trying to get at. Continue denying that trans people are real and that transphobic violence occurs. You should attend an LGBT peer support meeting sometime. It's good for straight white people to do. Specifically men.
|

|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Apr 27 2016, 08:11 PM
Post #179
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 07:22 PM
Zero. Not really hearing a call from trans folks to install them in women's rooms either. You are making the claim that bathrooms should be gender identity related and not about physical characteristics. If this is the case, then WHY would you not want urinals in the women's bathroom?
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Apr 27 2016, 08:12 PM
Post #180
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Apr 27 2016, 07:32 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Apr 27 2016, 07:25 PM
Thelawdictionary.org/gender
http://thelawdictionary.org/female/"The sex which conceives and give birth to young". Please link where legally bathrooms are to be designated by gender. If there were genital checkers at the entrance to every restroom, I would definitely say they were sex-specific. But since there aren't, and the fact that such a thing would be impossible, I am inclined to believe they are gender specific.
|

|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|