|
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,712 Views)
|
|
sirbrianwilson
|
May 19 2016, 10:23 PM
Post #391
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:55 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 08:48 PM
how did we ever survive all of these years without a ban?
br
How did we survive all these years without Charlotte's law? You see how that works Brian. If you don't like the law, get rid of the law...don't ban trans folks from using the restrooms they've been using forever.
br
|

|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 19 2016, 10:59 PM
Post #392
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
I would not say it is simply true that people go into the bathroom where they feel most comfortable. If you don't 'look the part' -- regardless of whether it is outside North Carolina or not -- there are going to be issues if you do not walk into the 'proper bathroom', there would be issues. 99% of people out there will continue going to the bathroom the same way they always have. Sure. There will be some immature jackasses claiming they can use the women's restroom. Fact is, it's a risk. If yer being an idiot in the women's restroom, you run the risk of getting arrested for sexual harassment. This isn't a license to do whatever you want.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
Post #393
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:34 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 05:46 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 18 2016, 06:47 PM
- dreachon
- May 18 2016, 03:43 PM
- brumdog44
- May 18 2016, 03:22 PM
Anyway, private businesses are not subject to the NC bathroom bill nor Obama's executive order.
This. I wasn't avoiding the question. The question isn't applicable to private businesses. If the children's waterpark is located at a public swimming pool or something, then we can talk.
Dude.....this issue absolutely impacts private businesses. You are both wrong. According to the Charlotte law, any business who offers bathrooms to the public would have to allow a person to go to the bathroom they identify with. Not just public buildings. That being said, are you saying that people should only be able to go to the bathroom that they feel is appropriate if they are in a public place? If so, define public place.
But we're talking about my opinion here. I'm not arguing in favor of the Charlotte law. Without a bathroom law in place, private business can do whatever they want with their bathrooms.
I should also note, that I could see a situation similar to the baking a cake for a gay wedding. If a private business chooses to have a public restroom and let anyone use it, then they can't restrict transgender use either. Something along those lines.
ok, but can (in your opinion/world) they restrict people from going into the bathroom that they feel is "appropriate".
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel? If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 19 2016, 11:03 PM
Post #394
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 10:23 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:55 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 08:48 PM
how did we ever survive all of these years without a ban?
br
How did we survive all these years without Charlotte's law? You see how that works Brian.
If you don't like the law, get rid of the law...don't ban trans folks from using the restrooms they've been using forever. br Right? You would think the part of "small government" would understand this.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 19 2016, 11:41 PM
Post #395
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:54 PM
- brumdog44
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
I would not say it is simply true that people go into the bathroom where they feel most comfortable. If you don't 'look the part' -- regardless of whether it is outside North Carolina or not -- there are going to be issues if you do not walk into the 'proper bathroom', there would be issues.
You understand that dreach is saying that people should be able to go into whichever bathroom they feel is "appropriate" right? My reply was to him, not you. I was saying that it isn't the case that he suggested.
He was saying that it was already happening that people were using the bathroom they were most comfortable in and that there was no issue. I was saying that isn't necessarily the case.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 19 2016, 11:44 PM
Post #396
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:03 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 10:23 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:55 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 08:48 PM
how did we ever survive all of these years without a ban?
br
How did we survive all these years without Charlotte's law? You see how that works Brian.
If you don't like the law, get rid of the law...don't ban trans folks from using the restrooms they've been using forever. br
Right? You would think the part of "small government" would understand this. Sorry, but 'forever' simply isn't true.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 19 2016, 11:50 PM
Post #397
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 10:59 PM
- brumdog44
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
I would not say it is simply true that people go into the bathroom where they feel most comfortable. If you don't 'look the part' -- regardless of whether it is outside North Carolina or not -- there are going to be issues if you do not walk into the 'proper bathroom', there would be issues.
99% of people out there will continue going to the bathroom the same way they always have. Sure. There will be some immature jackasses claiming they can use the women's restroom. Fact is, it's a risk. If yer being an idiot in the women's restroom, you run the risk of getting arrested for sexual harassment. This isn't a license to do whatever you want. The main argument I am hearing from bri is that transgenders should should be allowed to use the opposite sex bathroom because of violence they would receive in their bathroom of their own physical sex. But those committing the violence are doing so with the risk of getting arrested for battery or sexual assault. There is no license to attack someone in a bathroom because they are transgender.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
Post #398
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:34 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 05:46 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 18 2016, 06:47 PM
- dreachon
- May 18 2016, 03:43 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Dude.....this issue absolutely impacts private businesses. You are both wrong. According to the Charlotte law, any business who offers bathrooms to the public would have to allow a person to go to the bathroom they identify with. Not just public buildings. That being said, are you saying that people should only be able to go to the bathroom that they feel is appropriate if they are in a public place? If so, define public place.
But we're talking about my opinion here. I'm not arguing in favor of the Charlotte law. Without a bathroom law in place, private business can do whatever they want with their bathrooms.
I should also note, that I could see a situation similar to the baking a cake for a gay wedding. If a private business chooses to have a public restroom and let anyone use it, then they can't restrict transgender use either. Something along those lines.
ok, but can (in your opinion/world) they restrict people from going into the bathroom that they feel is "appropriate".
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes. Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real.
And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend.
|
 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
|
May 20 2016, 02:28 AM
Post #399
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 10:23 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:55 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- May 19 2016, 08:48 PM
how did we ever survive all of these years without a ban?
br
How did we survive all these years without Charlotte's law? You see how that works Brian.
If you don't like the law, get rid of the law...don't ban trans folks from using the restrooms they've been using forever. br The state can't just "get rid of" a city law. That's not how it works. They did, however, warn Charlotte of the consequences and try to work with them before the law was passed, but the ideologues wanted no part of it. They made their bed on this one.
How many trans folks have been arrested for using the wrong bathroom and/or beaten up for using the "legal" bathroom since this law has been passed?
|
 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
|
May 20 2016, 05:53 AM
Post #400
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- May 19 2016, 11:50 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 10:59 PM
- brumdog44
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
I would not say it is simply true that people go into the bathroom where they feel most comfortable. If you don't 'look the part' -- regardless of whether it is outside North Carolina or not -- there are going to be issues if you do not walk into the 'proper bathroom', there would be issues.
99% of people out there will continue going to the bathroom the same way they always have. Sure. There will be some immature jackasses claiming they can use the women's restroom. Fact is, it's a risk. If yer being an idiot in the women's restroom, you run the risk of getting arrested for sexual harassment. This isn't a license to do whatever you want.
The main argument I am hearing from bri is that transgenders should should be allowed to use the opposite sex bathroom because of violence they would receive in their bathroom of their own physical sex. But those committing the violence are doing so with the risk of getting arrested for battery or sexual assault. There is no license to attack someone in a bathroom because they are transgender. Correct. Though I don't think potential violence has ever been my main argument. I just think it's silly to make a law telling people which bathroom to go in.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 20 2016, 06:37 AM
Post #401
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:34 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 05:46 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 18 2016, 06:47 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
But we're talking about my opinion here. I'm not arguing in favor of the Charlotte law. Without a bathroom law in place, private business can do whatever they want with their bathrooms.
I should also note, that I could see a situation similar to the baking a cake for a gay wedding. If a private business chooses to have a public restroom and let anyone use it, then they can't restrict transgender use either. Something along those lines.
ok, but can (in your opinion/world) they restrict people from going into the bathroom that they feel is "appropriate".
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real. And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend. Sigh. Note that was is actually appropriate is different from what any individual may feel is appropriate. Saying a pedophile now has free rein to go into a place that caters to children (probably illegal in itself), go into the women's restroom and harass or assault little girls, is simply not accurate. But you didn't say he was harassing or assaulting little girls, right? You just said under my scenario we would now have to let him in?
But let me ask you this.
Is a pedophile that assaults boys allowed in the men's restroom? If a pedophile goes into the men's restroom while your son is in there, and he goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, and leaves...how did you know he was a pedophile?
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 20 2016, 10:35 AM
Post #402
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 06:37 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:34 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 05:46 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
I should also note, that I could see a situation similar to the baking a cake for a gay wedding. If a private business chooses to have a public restroom and let anyone use it, then they can't restrict transgender use either. Something along those lines.
ok, but can (in your opinion/world) they restrict people from going into the bathroom that they feel is "appropriate".
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real. And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend.
Sigh. Note that was is actually appropriate is different from what any individual may feel is appropriate. Saying a pedophile now has free rein to go into a place that caters to children (probably illegal in itself), go into the women's restroom and harass or assault little girls, is simply not accurate. But you didn't say he was harassing or assaulting little girls, right? You just said under my scenario we would now have to let him in? But let me ask you this. Is a pedophile that assaults boys allowed in the men's restroom? If a pedophile goes into the men's restroom while your son is in there, and he goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, and leaves...how did you know he was a pedophile? When I asked you to define "appropriate" you said it could be thousands of things....or something like that, didn't you? That's why I asked....I think it's important, because the way you have presented it so far implied that it is just up to the individual to determine what they think is appropriate....and I think you have actually said as much.
No, I wouldn't know if a pedophile went into the bathroom with my son....but that's just one of nearly limitless scenarios which create a significant problem with your "appropriate" theory.....the way you have presented it so far. Let's use my same kid-oriented business concept again. Say I own a water park and I obviously have bathrooms and changing rooms available for my customers. If a 13 year old boy feels that it is appropriate for him to change in the girls changing room or use the girls bathroom, under your ideal law, I would be forced to allow this. Am I right?
|
 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
|
May 20 2016, 11:09 AM
Post #403
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 10:35 AM
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 06:37 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:34 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
ok, but can (in your opinion/world) they restrict people from going into the bathroom that they feel is "appropriate".
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real. And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend.
Sigh. Note that was is actually appropriate is different from what any individual may feel is appropriate. Saying a pedophile now has free rein to go into a place that caters to children (probably illegal in itself), go into the women's restroom and harass or assault little girls, is simply not accurate. But you didn't say he was harassing or assaulting little girls, right? You just said under my scenario we would now have to let him in? But let me ask you this. Is a pedophile that assaults boys allowed in the men's restroom? If a pedophile goes into the men's restroom while your son is in there, and he goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, and leaves...how did you know he was a pedophile?
When I asked you to define "appropriate" you said it could be thousands of things....or something like that, didn't you? That's why I asked....I think it's important, because the way you have presented it so far implied that it is just up to the individual to determine what they think is appropriate....and I think you have actually said as much. No, I wouldn't know if a pedophile went into the bathroom with my son....but that's just one of nearly limitless scenarios which create a significant problem with your "appropriate" theory.....the way you have presented it so far. Let's use my same kid-oriented business concept again. Say I own a water park and I obviously have bathrooms and changing rooms available for my customers. If a 13 year old boy feels that it is appropriate for him to change in the girls changing room or use the girls bathroom, under your ideal law, I would be forced to allow this. Am I right? Yes, I said "appropriate" could be thousands of things or something along those lines. But "inappropriate" can also be thousands of things. Let's simplify this.
If you are in the bathroom with someone who may or may not be transgender, and they are doing anything other than using the bathroom for its intended purpose, that would raise a red flag, would it not? Other people then have the option to leave the bathroom, alert someone, call the police, etc. And the suspicious person, be it a goofball, pedophile, or whatever, runs a serious risk of getting arrested.
So I am advocating for no law forcing people to go into a particular bathroom. Are you saying that you are in favor of the opposite? You want a law that says you have to use the bathroom of your birth certificate assigned gender?
Now back to your water park question. Minors in general have to do what their parents tell them. Your 13 yr old boy isn't at the water park all by himself. If he wants to use the women's restroom because he identifies as a girl, then I imagine him and his parent will walk over to the bathroom to use it and if anyone objects they would either explain the situation or perhaps wait until the person who objects leaves.
If you're thinking that the 13 year old boy walks into the women's restroom strutting his stuff, grinning ear to ear, and ogling girls, well...that wouldn't be appropriate now would it? Because that's not how people act who just need to pee or change out of their swimsuit.
Finally, I'd just like to note that, statistically speaking, your fear of a pedophile assaulting a child in this manor is pretty much unfounded. 90% of child assaults by pedophiles occur by family or close friends and acquaintances. Pedophiles usually plan their attacks by studying a family's schedule, routine, and knowing when the child is vulnerable. They spend significant time becoming close with the family so that they can be trusted with the child. The chances of a pedophile randomly showing up to a water park type setting, going into the opposite restroom, and then assaulting some random kid is incredibly low regardless of any bathroom policy.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 20 2016, 11:29 AM
Post #404
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 11:09 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 10:35 AM
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 06:37 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real. And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend.
Sigh. Note that was is actually appropriate is different from what any individual may feel is appropriate. Saying a pedophile now has free rein to go into a place that caters to children (probably illegal in itself), go into the women's restroom and harass or assault little girls, is simply not accurate. But you didn't say he was harassing or assaulting little girls, right? You just said under my scenario we would now have to let him in? But let me ask you this. Is a pedophile that assaults boys allowed in the men's restroom? If a pedophile goes into the men's restroom while your son is in there, and he goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, and leaves...how did you know he was a pedophile?
When I asked you to define "appropriate" you said it could be thousands of things....or something like that, didn't you? That's why I asked....I think it's important, because the way you have presented it so far implied that it is just up to the individual to determine what they think is appropriate....and I think you have actually said as much. No, I wouldn't know if a pedophile went into the bathroom with my son....but that's just one of nearly limitless scenarios which create a significant problem with your "appropriate" theory.....the way you have presented it so far. Let's use my same kid-oriented business concept again. Say I own a water park and I obviously have bathrooms and changing rooms available for my customers. If a 13 year old boy feels that it is appropriate for him to change in the girls changing room or use the girls bathroom, under your ideal law, I would be forced to allow this. Am I right?
Yes, I said "appropriate" could be thousands of things or something along those lines. But "inappropriate" can also be thousands of things. Let's simplify this. If you are in the bathroom with someone who may or may not be transgender, and they are doing anything other than using the bathroom for its intended purpose, that would raise a red flag, would it not? Other people then have the option to leave the bathroom, alert someone, call the police, etc. And the suspicious person, be it a goofball, pedophile, or whatever, runs a serious risk of getting arrested. So I am advocating for no law forcing people to go into a particular bathroom. Are you saying that you are in favor of the opposite? You want a law that says you have to use the bathroom of your birth certificate assigned gender? Now back to your water park question. Minors in general have to do what their parents tell them. Your 13 yr old boy isn't at the water park all by himself. If he wants to use the women's restroom because he identifies as a girl, then I imagine him and his parent will walk over to the bathroom to use it and if anyone objects they would either explain the situation or perhaps wait until the person who objects leaves. If you're thinking that the 13 year old boy walks into the women's restroom strutting his stuff, grinning ear to ear, and ogling girls, well...that wouldn't be appropriate now would it? Because that's not how people act who just need to pee or change out of their swimsuit. Finally, I'd just like to note that, statistically speaking, your fear of a pedophile assaulting a child in this manor is pretty much unfounded. 90% of child assaults by pedophiles occur by family or close friends and acquaintances. Pedophiles usually plan their attacks by studying a family's schedule, routine, and knowing when the child is vulnerable. They spend significant time becoming close with the family so that they can be trusted with the child. The chances of a pedophile randomly showing up to a water park type setting, going into the opposite restroom, and then assaulting some random kid is incredibly low regardless of any bathroom policy. do you really think it's feasible to have a law where every situation has to be determined on a case by case basis as to whether or not it is "appropriate"...even though what I might think is appropriate is different from what you might think is appropriate? Seriously dreach....you should honestly reconsider that.
|
 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
|
May 20 2016, 11:44 AM
Post #405
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 11:09 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 10:35 AM
- dreachon
- May 20 2016, 06:37 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 20 2016, 02:23 AM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 11:02 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 08:37 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 07:17 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 04:35 PM
- dreachon
- May 19 2016, 02:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 19 2016, 10:06 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Right now they can. I'm saying I would consider a law similar to the cake baker's law. But there isn't one right now so a private business can restrict transgenders until they become a federally protected group, which I would be in favor of.
I'm talking about your statement that people should be able to go into the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This has nothing to do with federally protected classes.
Ok. So it seemed like our discussion got broken off into 2. I'll try to clarify. I don't believe there should be a law (for public or private locations) that forces someone to go into a particular bathroom. For public facilities, that means people will go into whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. Basically, it's exactly how it is now everywhere except North Carolina. For private businesses, it means they can certainly designate the uses of their bathrooms, if they choose to have them at all. However, I would consider a law that states if a private business chooses to offer non-unisex public restrooms, then they also cannot dictate who goes into which restroom.
Ok, so if I own a child oriented business that offers bathrooms, I would have to allow a man to go into the girls bathroom if that's where he feels appropriate? Is that how you feel?
If that law were ever passed, then yes. Without such a law existing and seeing exactly what it says, I can only speculate that I would support it, but essentially yes.
Wow.......wow. I wish you could step outside yourself and look at how crazy that statement is. A pedophile certainly feels that it is appropriate for him to be in the bathroom with little girls, so in your world we have to allow that. Un freaking real. And yes, I realize that it is and would be illegal for the pedophile to harass or assault the little girls, but that doesn't change the insanity of your ideal policy. If we took a national poll to see how many people agree with you, what do you think the % would be.....maybe 1%-2% or am I shooting too high? Your thought process is truly hard to comprehend.
Sigh. Note that was is actually appropriate is different from what any individual may feel is appropriate. Saying a pedophile now has free rein to go into a place that caters to children (probably illegal in itself), go into the women's restroom and harass or assault little girls, is simply not accurate. But you didn't say he was harassing or assaulting little girls, right? You just said under my scenario we would now have to let him in? But let me ask you this. Is a pedophile that assaults boys allowed in the men's restroom? If a pedophile goes into the men's restroom while your son is in there, and he goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, and leaves...how did you know he was a pedophile?
When I asked you to define "appropriate" you said it could be thousands of things....or something like that, didn't you? That's why I asked....I think it's important, because the way you have presented it so far implied that it is just up to the individual to determine what they think is appropriate....and I think you have actually said as much. No, I wouldn't know if a pedophile went into the bathroom with my son....but that's just one of nearly limitless scenarios which create a significant problem with your "appropriate" theory.....the way you have presented it so far. Let's use my same kid-oriented business concept again. Say I own a water park and I obviously have bathrooms and changing rooms available for my customers. If a 13 year old boy feels that it is appropriate for him to change in the girls changing room or use the girls bathroom, under your ideal law, I would be forced to allow this. Am I right?
Yes, I said "appropriate" could be thousands of things or something along those lines. But "inappropriate" can also be thousands of things. Let's simplify this. If you are in the bathroom with someone who may or may not be transgender, and they are doing anything other than using the bathroom for its intended purpose, that would raise a red flag, would it not? Other people then have the option to leave the bathroom, alert someone, call the police, etc. And the suspicious person, be it a goofball, pedophile, or whatever, runs a serious risk of getting arrested. So I am advocating for no law forcing people to go into a particular bathroom. Are you saying that you are in favor of the opposite? You want a law that says you have to use the bathroom of your birth certificate assigned gender? Now back to your water park question. Minors in general have to do what their parents tell them. Your 13 yr old boy isn't at the water park all by himself. If he wants to use the women's restroom because he identifies as a girl, then I imagine him and his parent will walk over to the bathroom to use it and if anyone objects they would either explain the situation or perhaps wait until the person who objects leaves. If you're thinking that the 13 year old boy walks into the women's restroom strutting his stuff, grinning ear to ear, and ogling girls, well...that wouldn't be appropriate now would it? Because that's not how people act who just need to pee or change out of their swimsuit. Finally, I'd just like to note that, statistically speaking, your fear of a pedophile assaulting a child in this manor is pretty much unfounded. 90% of child assaults by pedophiles occur by family or close friends and acquaintances. Pedophiles usually plan their attacks by studying a family's schedule, routine, and knowing when the child is vulnerable. They spend significant time becoming close with the family so that they can be trusted with the child. The chances of a pedophile randomly showing up to a water park type setting, going into the opposite restroom, and then assaulting some random kid is incredibly low regardless of any bathroom policy. to answer some of your other questions/points
13 year olds can go to waterparks by themselves.....or perhaps it's 14, but none the less, even if their parents are there, they are not escorting them to the restroom...you're being ridiculous here.
- Quote:
-
If you are in the bathroom with someone who may or may not be transgender, and they are doing anything other than using the bathroom for its intended purpose, that would raise a red flag, would it not? Other people then have the option to leave the bathroom, alert someone, call the police, etc. And the suspicious person, be it a goofball, pedophile, or whatever, runs a serious risk of getting arrested. Arrested for what....under your "law", if they feel it is appropriate for them to be in there then what have they done wrong? And I'm not really worried about a trans person under your law of appropriateness.....if a strange dude is in the girls bathroom, or a 14 year old boy wanders into the girls changing room at the pool, according to your law, they are doing nothing wrong if they feel it is appropriate. Who's definition of "appropriate" do we use?
- Quote:
-
So I am advocating for no law forcing people to go into a particular bathroom. Are you saying that you are in favor of the opposite? You want a law that says you have to use the bathroom of your birth certificate assigned gender?
In my perfect, libertarian world, the owner of the bathroom facility sets the policy and I either live with it, or I don't go there. Our society isn't ready for that much freedom though, so if we're going to force businesses to accomodate (like we would in a publicly owned facility, such as a public park, courthouse....etc), then it should be fairly simple.
If you are a guy, believe you are a guy, and look like a guy, then you go to the guy's restroom If you are a girl, believe you are a girl, and look like a girl, then you go to the girl's restroom
If you fall into another category, then we need some form of official designation other than "how I identify" or "whatever I feel is appropriate". I'm not saying that has to be a sex change operation and consequential birth certificate change, however it can't be as nebulous as "it's how I identify". You need to be living the life as the other gender if you want to use their bathroom.
Now, I have been researching Lars' contention as to whether or not it is even smart of us to make such accommodations for what he has stated is a mental illness and I am not ready to comment on that yet. So the above assumes that it is "perfectly natural" for someone to think they are a gender other than their born biological assignment. I hope I stated this paragraph clearly.
|
 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.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|