Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • …
  • 30
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,733 Views)
Mr Gray Apr 21 2016, 10:27 AM Post #76
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 19 2016, 03:36 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 19 2016, 09:26 AM
brum, we don't hear about perverts going into women's restrooms in areas where it is legal, precisely because there is nothing to report.....it is legal....no crime to report. I don't think it's wise to make it perfectly legal for a pervert or sex offender to go into the women's restroom where mine of your daughter's might be. Attack or not....I don't want them in there, and I'm surprise that you do. There are better solutions than this.....but not if you are ideologically blinded (the reason I left this board to begin with...common sense is gone)
This literally did not deal with what I posted. I stated that assaults by men in women's restrooms where they are not allowed to go absolutely occurs. And it occurs because it's not the law of their entry that keeps them from going in...I don't see someone who believes that it is morally okay to sexually assault someone isn't going to the morally say that it isn't morally okay to go into a bathroom that they aren't supposed to go into.

My end question was the important one, IMO....European countries have largely co-ed public bathrooms yet have much smaller rates of sexual assaults. The United States has the highest rate of sexual assault in the world.....the highest rate of sexual assault in Europe is in England, which is only fifth.

In terms of throwing shade, if you come in here and say that people are ideologically blind and that no one has common sense, I wouldn't expect to be greeted with sunshine and lollipops.
I did not mean to not address your post...I thought I did, but I must have misread. None the less, I'm not real concerned with Europe's sexual assault rate and their co-ed bathroom policy....this isn't Europe. If we want to go down that road, we can find many examples of areas where abuse of women is rampant even through they have very progressive lifestyle policies regarding gender and other things.....but in many of those areas crimes aren't reported due to corruption. I think we can, however, agree that this is a reality, so perhaps we should just deal with the issue here.

My point is that a law which allows a strange man to legally enter a women's bathroom, alone, with our daughters is a bad law....and that's where this started (Charlotte). Not to mention where this issue leads us, such as the current case where a school is being sued to allow a teen boy to enter and change clothes in the girls lock room, along side the other girls. This isn't a "slippery slope"...this is happening now. If you support the Charlotte law, and the idea that someone can use the bathroom/locker room of their choice based simply on the gender that they "identify" themselves with, then wouldn't you also have to support this teen boy's case?

Here's another example of where this lack of common sense leads us: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/federal-court-schools-may-not-provide-separate-bathrooms-based-on-biology/

Maybe you think that gender really isn't a "thing" and it's absurd for a person, child or otherwise to even be uncomfortable using the restroom or locker room with another gender...ok, I disagree and think that you should probably purchase a science or biology book, but OK. But otherwise, issues like the ones I referenced above should be address in reality...not in ideology.


Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM Post #77
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM Post #78
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM Post #79
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 21 2016, 12:14 PM Post #80
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice.
But isn't this guy legally barred from going near children anyways, regardless of bathroom law?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 21 2016, 12:23 PM Post #81
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 12:14 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice.
But isn't this guy legally barred from going near children anyways, regardless of bathroom law?
I don't think so.....Otherwise he basically couldn't go anywhere dreach. I mean, you couldn't walk into a gas station without hte fear of being near a child. If I recall, he would likely be barred from going near schools and public playgrounds, youth sports parks...and I'm sure other places of the same genre. I don't think they can bar him from going into Walmart or Buffalo Wild Wings, both of which pretty much always have kids present and bathrooms.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 21 2016, 12:47 PM Post #82
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 12:23 PM
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 12:14 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice.
But isn't this guy legally barred from going near children anyways, regardless of bathroom law?
I don't think so.....Otherwise he basically couldn't go anywhere dreach. I mean, you couldn't walk into a gas station without hte fear of being near a child. If I recall, he would likely be barred from going near schools and public playgrounds, youth sports parks...and I'm sure other places of the same genre. I don't think they can bar him from going into Walmart or Buffalo Wild Wings, both of which pretty much always have kids present and bathrooms.
Right. But I was thinking more like the idea of following someone into a bathroom. Either bathroom. Honestly don't know which situations would be covered and which not.

But I will answer your questions (even though I know it wasn't for me). Yes. I'm fine with a law that makes it legal for this guy and others to choose which bathroom is most appropriate. Why? Because this guys is one example of many. And many of the child molesters out there are men preying on little boys, not girls. The issue here isn't a law that allows this person to go into a girl's bathroom. The issue is letting someone like this back out on the street before they're actually safe to be around society.

EDIT: When I said, "in favor of a law that allows..." that's with the stipulation that there is a law. Of course my first preference, as I stated earlier, is that I don't think we need a law which tells people which bathroom to go in. I might be in favor of a law though that has some approval process for convicted felons, especially those of a sexual nature, before they go into an opposite bathroom. Depends on how the law is written, but I'd def consider it more than just a law aimed at the general public.
Edited by dreachon, Apr 21 2016, 12:51 PM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 21 2016, 01:50 PM Post #83
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
I'll respond when I get home tonight, and do so with 100% honesty.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 21 2016, 01:54 PM Post #84
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Rape is illegal, yet it still happens. Molesting someone is illegal, yet it still happens. What would this law do to stop creeps from continuing what they're doing. i never thought I'd be on the "less government" control side of a discussion with Aaron.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 21 2016, 03:52 PM Post #85
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM
dreachon
Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger?

Posted Image
http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor.
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice.
It's not a refusal to answer the question. I've even said that recent revelations have made me switch stances on the issue. Places are running scared right now and are basically waiting for someone to file a lawsuit somewhere else so that they can lay the legal groundwork. This has the potential to be a big issue in public schools......to the point of where it will impact locker rooms.

We do need to keep in mind that the freedom to swing your arm ends at my face. 'Uncomfortableness' of a transgender person in using the same bathroom as their biological sex IMO does not exceed someone's 'uncomfortableness' to use a bathroom without members of the opposite sex. In the case of a transgender boy using a girl's restroom, I don't think that making the transgender boy more comfortable outweighs that of every female who is uncomfortable having to do so.

This, IMO, is not about 'the majority of people deciding on minority rights'. The science of the situation is that identifying with the opposite gender sex alone does not change reality of the science. Scientifically, definitions of someone being male do not include transgender females. If you personally say so, that is not through science, but rather through emotion or empathy. But there is a reason there aren't urinals in female bathrooms......simple biology. If you are talking about someone taking the pre-operative hormone therapy or post operative, you certainly could make the argument. But by and large the number of people we are talking about being transgender are not in this designation.

The Philly and Portland laws about having a (basically, new public buildings having a unisex bathroom in addition to male/female or having single stall unisex bathrooms), IMO, are based on logic and ones that do the most good. But those laws could be in danger in the courts.

Now let's look at the violence aspects.

To answer gray's post above: would I want that person in the bathroom with my daughter? No. Am I afraid that with a law like Charlotte's that he is more likely to sexually assault my daughter? Also no.

1. It should be noted that the crime listed above from what can be gathered from the police report, this was not in a public bathroom. It should also be noted that the offender and victim knew each other and either the offender was invited in the home or broke in. In either case, the North Carolina law and the Charlotte law would have had no bearing to his despicable crime.

2. Let's say that the crime had occurred in a women's bathroom....and this is my honest take on it.

Let's say North Carolina's law was in place. The two most likely scenarios would have occurred when the man went into the women's restroom:
-- the rapist waited until he could enter illegally and then sexually assaulted the victim OR
-- the rapist entered the bathroom illegally but did so when being watched. Most likely outcome is that he would have gotten his ass kicked or the police called prior to performing the act.

Flip the script and say that Charlotte's law was in place. IMO, the two most likely outcomes:
-- the rapist waited until he could enter legally but be unnoticed and then sexually assaulted the victim OR
-- the rapist entered the bathroom 'legally' (quotes around legally because I don't think a court in the land would believe that the man above qualifies as transgender) but did so while being watched. Most likely outcome is that he would have his ass kicked or the police called prior to performing the act. The only difference might be that the case gets drug out in court if he claims that he had the legal right to be in there. But I will say this, as someone who is typically non-violent: regardless of the legal standing of him entering the bathroom, I know that if I see someone like him enter a women's bathroom I'm not going to stand by because of the law....I'll take my chances on what would legally happen to me puling him out of there. And I would assume that gray would do the same.

In terms of bri's claim that it would cut down on bathroom violence against transgenders.......in the case of a transgender woman entering a men's bathroom, I don't see it. I can not believe that a transgender woman entering a women's bathroom is more at risk than they would be entering a men's bathroom.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 22 2016, 09:00 AM Post #86
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 21 2016, 03:52 PM

hey brum, I like the whole post, but I just want to address 2 points right now...not ignoring the rest, but I really liked 2 parts and am in a hurry.

Quote:
 
To answer gray's post above: would I want that person in the bathroom with my daughter? No. Am I afraid that with a law like Charlotte's that he is more likely to sexually assault my daughter? Also no.


I agree with the 1st obviously, but I think the 2nd would require a little analysis from people educated in psychology. I have heard it said repeatedly from psychologists that these types of people with sick minds don't think like us....they view women and girls (or boys) differently and something with the dopamine levels in their brain changes with degrees of exposure to these desires....and it continually escalates. So at one point, just looking at a picture of a child and "pleasuring" themselves (sorry to have to put that in there.....I know it's sick, but it is real) satisfies them....and then eventually that isn't enough and they have to see the kids in person at a park or whatever.....and then maybe it's looking at child porn......and eventually none of that is enough and some of them lash out into the realm of assault, because that is the only way to satisfy their sick mind. I think a case can easily be made that increased exposure for these sickos to young girls in private quarters such as a bathroom or changing room fits somewhere in that "escalation" trajectory......that doesn't mean that they would necessarily go in the bathroom to commit assault, but that sort of depends on how sick they are, and what stage they are in.

Quote:
 
Flip the script and say that Charlotte's law was in place. IMO, the two most likely outcomes:
-- the rapist waited until he could enter legally but be unnoticed and then sexually assaulted the victim OR
-- the rapist entered the bathroom 'legally' (quotes around legally because I don't think a court in the land would believe that the man above qualifies as transgender) but did so while being watched. Most likely outcome is that he would have his ass kicked or the police called prior to performing the act. The only difference might be that the case gets drug out in court if he claims that he had the legal right to be in there. But I will say this, as someone who is typically non-violent: regardless of the legal standing of him entering the bathroom, I know that if I see someone like him enter a women's bathroom I'm not going to stand by because of the law....I'll take my chances on what would legally happen to me puling him out of there. And I would assume that gray would do the same.


Of course I would, however I feel confident that based on the way the wind is blowing, if I were to take that kind of action, I would be slapped with a hate crime penalty, which can actually be extremely severe. The way the law was written in Charlotte brum....that guy doesn't have to "prove" that he's transgender....he just has to say that he identifies as a women....that's it. So now if I forcibly removed him, I'm assaulting and descriminating, which makes me a violent hate crime offender. Is that what we want?
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 22 2016, 09:16 AM Post #87
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
That is the biggest issue I view with the legislation as written -- that it doesn't seem to be requirements to fit the criteria.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 22 2016, 10:00 AM Post #88
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Sigh.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 22 2016, 12:39 PM Post #89
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 21 2016, 12:32 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/26/2216781/transgender-bathroom-http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2014/03/report_transgender_teen_attack.html
Brian, I just looked at the study cited by thinkprogress.org
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

The following statement caught my attention:
Respondents also reported in qualitative responses having had the police called, having been confronted while using urinals, and being followed after using a facility

I think this implies a man dressing as a woman was using the men's restroom. I assume that this person should have been using the women's restroom. If s/he had, and used a toilet (no urinals in women's restroom), there wouldn't have been any problem.

The survey has 93 respondents, and the problems reported seem pretty minor, IMO. I would need to see more details to know if there's any there there.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 22 2016, 02:58 PM Post #90
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Pretty minor because they didn't happen to you while doing one of the most basic human things. And this is what I'm talking about, the law would force this kind of a situation.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • …
  • 30

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy