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
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • …
  • 30
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,731 Views)
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 07:48 AM Post #106
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM
brumdog44
Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM
dreachon
Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case.

That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender.
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this.

1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways.

2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything.

3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal."

4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell is...was.
1) Agreed
2) Yes, it changes one potentially MAJOR thing.....you don't actually have to be trans under the law to use the other restroom....you just have to say you identify as the opposite sex. This opens up a big can of stupidity, which we are already seeing in other areas with high schools and changing/locker rooms. It also creates thousands of uncomfortable fathers with daughters because its legal for a man (not necessarily trans) to be in the bathroom with our daughters.....that's is a change
3) The response was to address #2.....and although neither of us know the hearts of the NC legislature, if it was merely and "clearly" for the purpose of discriminating, then why didn't they do it earlier? The NC legislature/governor warned Charlotte NUMEROUS times that the bathroom provision was going to be a problem because it laid out no criteria for being "trans" other than how you identify, and the cited repeatedly the same problems that I have (#2)......so I really think you're taking an ideological leap here to assume their clear and sole purpose of the bill is to discriminate.
4) 11 Dems voted for the bill and 8 were "absent".
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 25 2016, 09:24 AM Post #107
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 07:48 AM
dreachon
Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM
brumdog44
Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM
dreachon
Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case.

That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender.
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this.

1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways.

2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything.

3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal."

4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell is...was.
1) Agreed
2) Yes, it changes one potentially MAJOR thing.....you don't actually have to be trans under the law to use the other restroom....you just have to say you identify as the opposite sex. This opens up a big can of stupidity, which we are already seeing in other areas with high schools and changing/locker rooms. It also creates thousands of uncomfortable fathers with daughters because its legal for a man (not necessarily trans) to be in the bathroom with our daughters.....that's is a change
3) The response was to address #2.....and although neither of us know the hearts of the NC legislature, if it was merely and "clearly" for the purpose of discriminating, then why didn't they do it earlier? The NC legislature/governor warned Charlotte NUMEROUS times that the bathroom provision was going to be a problem because it laid out no criteria for being "trans" other than how you identify, and the cited repeatedly the same problems that I have (#2)......so I really think you're taking an ideological leap here to assume their clear and sole purpose of the bill is to discriminate.
4) 11 Dems voted for the bill and 8 were "absent".
1) Great!
2) The only people who would take advantage of the Charlotte law for nefarious purposes are the same people who would have done illegal shit before the Charlotte law. So I really don't think anything changed.
3) They didn't do it earlier because it wasn't explicitly stated and wasn't a public topic of conversation. Once the Charlotte law passed, people freaked out even though nothing had changed and took their extremist views to draw up the bathroom bill. Once people were "outraged" over the Charlotte law, the NC houses decided there needed to be a response. But keep in mind, this isn't JUST about the bathroom issue even though that's how it's constantly portrayed. The Charlotte bill had added LGBT to the list of protected groups from discrimination along with race, religion, etc. The bill took that away and also made it illegal for any county or city to pass any legislation that would protect the LGBT community.
4) I don't care how the dems voted. They are not the "small governmemt" party. Republicans are supposed to be that party and they simply aren't. That's why so many on this board and around the country identify as Libertarian, even though it makes no sense to vote that way.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 25 2016, 10:05 AM Post #108
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 24 2016, 08:23 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 24 2016, 11:43 AM
Totally not a d/r thing. More of an LGBT supporter vs non-supporter thing. I trust the courts to make the right decision and abolish this unconstitutional bill.
Not sure what amendment the right to bare bottoms is. :P

I think it should be mentioned that this is one of the areas that I don't think our forefathers ever considered. Even not considering LGBT issues, I think the number of buildings with indoor plumbing in 1776 was limited.
When shown that the former Olympic Decathlon champ had decided to change sexes because s/he better identified with the opposite sex, they would be waiting for the punch-line.

And could someone please explain why the white woman who identified as black was ridiculed by the pro-LGBT posters on this message board? I never got a good answer about why it's ok to identify with the opposite sex, but not with a different race.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 10:24 AM Post #109
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 09:24 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 07:48 AM
dreachon
Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM
brumdog44
Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM
dreachon
Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case.

That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender.
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this.

1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways.

2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything.

3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal."

4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell is...was.
1) Agreed
2) Yes, it changes one potentially MAJOR thing.....you don't actually have to be trans under the law to use the other restroom....you just have to say you identify as the opposite sex. This opens up a big can of stupidity, which we are already seeing in other areas with high schools and changing/locker rooms. It also creates thousands of uncomfortable fathers with daughters because its legal for a man (not necessarily trans) to be in the bathroom with our daughters.....that's is a change
3) The response was to address #2.....and although neither of us know the hearts of the NC legislature, if it was merely and "clearly" for the purpose of discriminating, then why didn't they do it earlier? The NC legislature/governor warned Charlotte NUMEROUS times that the bathroom provision was going to be a problem because it laid out no criteria for being "trans" other than how you identify, and the cited repeatedly the same problems that I have (#2)......so I really think you're taking an ideological leap here to assume their clear and sole purpose of the bill is to discriminate.
4) 11 Dems voted for the bill and 8 were "absent".
1) Great!
2) The only people who would take advantage of the Charlotte law for nefarious purposes are the same people who would have done illegal shit before the Charlotte law. So I really don't think anything changed.
3) They didn't do it earlier because it wasn't explicitly stated and wasn't a public topic of conversation. Once the Charlotte law passed, people freaked out even though nothing had changed and took their extremist views to draw up the bathroom bill. Once people were "outraged" over the Charlotte law, the NC houses decided there needed to be a response. But keep in mind, this isn't JUST about the bathroom issue even though that's how it's constantly portrayed. The Charlotte bill had added LGBT to the list of protected groups from discrimination along with race, religion, etc. The bill took that away and also made it illegal for any county or city to pass any legislation that would protect the LGBT community.
4) I don't care how the dems voted. They are not the "small governmemt" party. Republicans are supposed to be that party and they simply aren't. That's why so many on this board and around the country identify as Libertarian, even though it makes no sense to vote that way.
i truly can't understand a mentality where anyone thinks it's OK for a law to allow a man to go into the women's bathroom with little girls by simply stating that he is trans. There is no way that you are thinking clearly if you are OK with that....just no way. You don't have to throw common sense away to protect trans people's rights.
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 25 2016, 11:17 AM Post #110
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 10:24 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 09:24 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 07:48 AM
dreachon
Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM
brumdog44
Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM
dreachon
Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case.

That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender.
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this.

1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways.

2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything.

3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal."

4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell is...was.
1) Agreed
2) Yes, it changes one potentially MAJOR thing.....you don't actually have to be trans under the law to use the other restroom....you just have to say you identify as the opposite sex. This opens up a big can of stupidity, which we are already seeing in other areas with high schools and changing/locker rooms. It also creates thousands of uncomfortable fathers with daughters because its legal for a man (not necessarily trans) to be in the bathroom with our daughters.....that's is a change
3) The response was to address #2.....and although neither of us know the hearts of the NC legislature, if it was merely and "clearly" for the purpose of discriminating, then why didn't they do it earlier? The NC legislature/governor warned Charlotte NUMEROUS times that the bathroom provision was going to be a problem because it laid out no criteria for being "trans" other than how you identify, and the cited repeatedly the same problems that I have (#2)......so I really think you're taking an ideological leap here to assume their clear and sole purpose of the bill is to discriminate.
4) 11 Dems voted for the bill and 8 were "absent".
1) Great!
2) The only people who would take advantage of the Charlotte law for nefarious purposes are the same people who would have done illegal shit before the Charlotte law. So I really don't think anything changed.
3) They didn't do it earlier because it wasn't explicitly stated and wasn't a public topic of conversation. Once the Charlotte law passed, people freaked out even though nothing had changed and took their extremist views to draw up the bathroom bill. Once people were "outraged" over the Charlotte law, the NC houses decided there needed to be a response. But keep in mind, this isn't JUST about the bathroom issue even though that's how it's constantly portrayed. The Charlotte bill had added LGBT to the list of protected groups from discrimination along with race, religion, etc. The bill took that away and also made it illegal for any county or city to pass any legislation that would protect the LGBT community.
4) I don't care how the dems voted. They are not the "small governmemt" party. Republicans are supposed to be that party and they simply aren't. That's why so many on this board and around the country identify as Libertarian, even though it makes no sense to vote that way.
i truly can't understand a mentality where anyone thinks it's OK for a law to allow a man to go into the women's bathroom with little girls by simply stating that he is trans. There is no way that you are thinking clearly if you are OK with that....just no way. You don't have to throw common sense away to protect trans people's rights.
What I'm advocating: People who identify as the opposite gender and are living their lives as that gender can choose which bathroom to go in. No law required.

What you think the law is advocating: Some asshole says he's trans and peeps on women in the girls bathroom.

No one is OK with the second part. No one wants sickos stalking girls in the bathroom. No one wants a law that says it's ok for sickos to stalk girls in the bathroom. Common sense, as you said.

In reality, lots of laws work this way. Here's your same statement, read a little differently.

Quote:
 
i truly can't understand a mentality where anyone thinks it's OK for a law to allow a man with mental illness to go into a store and buy a gun by simply stating that he is mentally sound. There is no way that you are thinking clearly if you are OK with that....just no way. You don't have to throw common sense away to protect people's gun rights.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM Post #111
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:17 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 10:24 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 09:24 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 07:48 AM
dreachon
Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM
brumdog44
Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM
dreachon
Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case.

That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender.
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this.

1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways.

2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything.

3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal."

4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell is...was.
1) Agreed
2) Yes, it changes one potentially MAJOR thing.....you don't actually have to be trans under the law to use the other restroom....you just have to say you identify as the opposite sex. This opens up a big can of stupidity, which we are already seeing in other areas with high schools and changing/locker rooms. It also creates thousands of uncomfortable fathers with daughters because its legal for a man (not necessarily trans) to be in the bathroom with our daughters.....that's is a change
3) The response was to address #2.....and although neither of us know the hearts of the NC legislature, if it was merely and "clearly" for the purpose of discriminating, then why didn't they do it earlier? The NC legislature/governor warned Charlotte NUMEROUS times that the bathroom provision was going to be a problem because it laid out no criteria for being "trans" other than how you identify, and the cited repeatedly the same problems that I have (#2)......so I really think you're taking an ideological leap here to assume their clear and sole purpose of the bill is to discriminate.
4) 11 Dems voted for the bill and 8 were "absent".
1) Great!
2) The only people who would take advantage of the Charlotte law for nefarious purposes are the same people who would have done illegal shit before the Charlotte law. So I really don't think anything changed.
3) They didn't do it earlier because it wasn't explicitly stated and wasn't a public topic of conversation. Once the Charlotte law passed, people freaked out even though nothing had changed and took their extremist views to draw up the bathroom bill. Once people were "outraged" over the Charlotte law, the NC houses decided there needed to be a response. But keep in mind, this isn't JUST about the bathroom issue even though that's how it's constantly portrayed. The Charlotte bill had added LGBT to the list of protected groups from discrimination along with race, religion, etc. The bill took that away and also made it illegal for any county or city to pass any legislation that would protect the LGBT community.
4) I don't care how the dems voted. They are not the "small governmemt" party. Republicans are supposed to be that party and they simply aren't. That's why so many on this board and around the country identify as Libertarian, even though it makes no sense to vote that way.
i truly can't understand a mentality where anyone thinks it's OK for a law to allow a man to go into the women's bathroom with little girls by simply stating that he is trans. There is no way that you are thinking clearly if you are OK with that....just no way. You don't have to throw common sense away to protect trans people's rights.
What I'm advocating: People who identify as the opposite gender and are living their lives as that gender can choose which bathroom to go in. No law required.

What you think the law is advocating: Some asshole says he's trans and peeps on women in the girls bathroom.

No one is OK with the second part. No one wants sickos stalking girls in the bathroom. No one wants a law that says it's ok for sickos to stalk girls in the bathroom. Common sense, as you said.

In reality, lots of laws work this way. Here's your same statement, read a little differently.

Quote:
 
i truly can't understand a mentality where anyone thinks it's OK for a law to allow a man with mental illness to go into a store and buy a gun by simply stating that he is mentally sound. There is no way that you are thinking clearly if you are OK with that....just no way. You don't have to throw common sense away to protect people's gun rights.
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
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 25 2016, 11:31 AM Post #112
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 11:39 AM Post #113
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:31 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
dreach.....even if they aren't harassing my daughter....I don't want a man in the bathroom with my daughter.....notice I said "man" not "trans"......MAN. You have to understand that if you're going to understand the argument. Not sure if you have daughters or not, but if not then it might be hard for you to understand.
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 25 2016, 11:57 AM Post #114
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:39 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:31 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
dreach.....even if they aren't harassing my daughter....I don't want a man in the bathroom with my daughter.....notice I said "man" not "trans"......MAN. You have to understand that if you're going to understand the argument. Not sure if you have daughters or not, but if not then it might be hard for you to understand.
I do have a daughter so I do know where you are coming from. But as I just stated, a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law. I don't want that man in the women's restroom any more than you do. But a man who identifies as a woman? I don't care. Cuz that "man" is not going to be in there harassing my daughter. He's going to be in there going to the bathroom.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Apr 25 2016, 12:07 PM Post #115
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
Here are my thoughts and they are VERY basic.

No longer label restrooms as Men or Women.

Label them Penis or Vagina. Simple.

In NC are high school student/athletes allowed to participate on the gender of the
team they "identify" with or are they on the team of their gender?

We are creating laws (and spending a lot of money) to accommodate a small minority.

Just a quick "Google" search states that .02 to .03 percent of the population are transgender.

If you are a man that identifies as a woman, use the stall in the men's room.
If you are a woman that identifies as a man, problem solved, you only have stalls in the women's room!

Sounds pretty callous on my behalf, so my apology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 01:01 PM Post #116
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:57 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:39 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:31 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
dreach.....even if they aren't harassing my daughter....I don't want a man in the bathroom with my daughter.....notice I said "man" not "trans"......MAN. You have to understand that if you're going to understand the argument. Not sure if you have daughters or not, but if not then it might be hard for you to understand.
I do have a daughter so I do know where you are coming from. But as I just stated, a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law. I don't want that man in the women's restroom any more than you do. But a man who identifies as a woman? I don't care. Cuz that "man" is not going to be in there harassing my daughter. He's going to be in there going to the bathroom.
Quote:
 
a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law
Under the Charlotte law, how so? *Note....you added the word "peeping", but I'm not sure if you did that to change the argument or not
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
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 25 2016, 02:53 PM Post #117
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Men's restrooms...where sexual assault never happens.

Br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 25 2016, 03:25 PM Post #118
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 01:01 PM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:57 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:39 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:31 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
dreach.....even if they aren't harassing my daughter....I don't want a man in the bathroom with my daughter.....notice I said "man" not "trans"......MAN. You have to understand that if you're going to understand the argument. Not sure if you have daughters or not, but if not then it might be hard for you to understand.
I do have a daughter so I do know where you are coming from. But as I just stated, a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law. I don't want that man in the women's restroom any more than you do. But a man who identifies as a woman? I don't care. Cuz that "man" is not going to be in there harassing my daughter. He's going to be in there going to the bathroom.
Quote:
 
a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law
Under the Charlotte law, how so? *Note....you added the word "peeping", but I'm not sure if you did that to change the argument or not
Ok. well let's pretend a man claims he's transgender, but he's not really. He goes into a women's restroom, goes into the stall, goes to the bathroom, exits the stall, washes his hands, and leaves. Did he break the law? No. I guess not. But are our women in danger? No. Women's restrooms don't have urinals so it't not like this guy is going to be walking around big swinging dick in hand. And what's there to spy on? Unless he's specifically trying to peep on women, all he's going to get is a big ol eyeful of women washing their hands and doing their makeup. You're primary concern is about the protection of our women and daughters. So the only time they are in danger is when some guy is doing this specifically to break the law. In which case, he can do that whether there's a Charlotte law or not.
Edited by dreachon, Apr 25 2016, 03:26 PM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 25 2016, 03:28 PM Post #119
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 03:25 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 01:01 PM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:57 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:39 AM
dreachon
Apr 25 2016, 11:31 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 11:19 AM
so are you saying you support the right of the mentally ill to purchase guns, or that you do not support the Charlotte Law?
No and correct. I did not support the Charlotte law and I do not support the NC bathroom bill law. Neither. But if we have to have ONE of the laws, the Charlotte law is better to have on the books than the NC law.

My main point is merely that you're judging the Charlotte law based people breaking it. The Charlotte law doesn't make it legal for men to stalk, rape, sexually assault, harass, spy, or peep on women in the women's bathroom. If they lie about being transgender and then use that to harass women, then they are still breaking the law.
dreach.....even if they aren't harassing my daughter....I don't want a man in the bathroom with my daughter.....notice I said "man" not "trans"......MAN. You have to understand that if you're going to understand the argument. Not sure if you have daughters or not, but if not then it might be hard for you to understand.
I do have a daughter so I do know where you are coming from. But as I just stated, a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law. I don't want that man in the women's restroom any more than you do. But a man who identifies as a woman? I don't care. Cuz that "man" is not going to be in there harassing my daughter. He's going to be in there going to the bathroom.
Quote:
 
a man claiming he's trans for the sole purpose of peeping on women is still breaking the law
Under the Charlotte law, how so? *Note....you added the word "peeping", but I'm not sure if you did that to change the argument or not
Ok. well let's pretend a man claims he's transgender, but he's not really. He goes into a women's restroom, goes into the stall, goes to the bathroom, exits the stall, washes his hands, and leaves. Did he break the law? No. I guess not. But are our women in danger? No. Women's restrooms don't have urinals so it't not like this guy is going to be walking around big swinging dick in hand. And what's there to spy on? Unless he's specifically trying to peep on women, all he's going to get is a big ol eyeful of women washing their hands and doing their makeup. You're primary concern is about the protection of our women and daughters. So the only time they are in danger is when some guy is doing this specifically to break the law. In which case, he can do that whether there's a Charlotte law or not.
dreach....this law is equal to allowing people to hang out inside bank vaults after hours.....they're not breaking the law unless they actually rob the bank, however they are certainly putting themselves in a better position to pull of the crime.
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 25 2016, 03:37 PM Post #120
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 25 2016, 03:28 PM
dreach....this law is equal to allowing people to hang out inside bank vaults after hours.....they're not breaking the law unless they actually rob the bank, however they are certainly putting themselves in a better position to pull of the crime.
I think it's pretty easy for a person to scope out a bathroom and wait till no one's in there or only one person is in there to pull off the crime anyways. I mean, is that how we're judging the law? Transgender people shouldn't be able to choose which bathroom they go in because someone might pretend to be transgender?

Let's go back to guns for a second even though I know it's not the best analogy. A felon can buy a gun at a place that doesn't do background checks. He just has to pretend he's not a felon. But you're not in favor of a background check law. You don't judge the right to buy guns based on the fact that a felon could buy a gun if he wanted. Why are we judging the bathroom law on the fact that a man could claim he's transgender if he wanted?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • …
  • 30

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