Men in women's bathrooms

[Pop23]

Not seeing the conflict as it applies to restrooms.

You don't see the conflict? Pretty simple, a law was passed that is pretty blatantly bias and discriminatory towards trans folks. I don't think there is denying that. I realize some or many feel it justified but also many do not, especially those in the trans community. That's the conflict

It, the Charlotte ordinance was based on arbitrary reasoning

That being that, a trans male is somehow more closely related to a female then they are to a male.

That argument won't cut legal muster.

Take legality out of it for a minute and use common sense. An old hairy dude in a beard wearing a dress should absolutely not be in a girls restroom, i'm not arguing about that. A true trans male or female or child should be able to go into the bathroom that they identify with and not have to be humiliated by walking into a mens room to fix their bra or have to walk into a women's room to shave their beards. I just don't see the need for any law in this area and didn't think there was a big problem requiring the need to pass the law restricting trans from using the right bathroom for them.

I understand completely what you are saying, but the Government can't base law on emotion. They must base law on legal standards. For discrimination cases it is, that similarily situated citizens cannot be excluded for arbitrary reasons.

So one man can be excluded from a restroom, and the other can't?

So the argument is that one male is more simalar then the other even though neither share any of the same reproductive organs of the woman? Neither will have a period, neither will get pregnant, neither will endure childbirth?

It would be an amazingly convoluted argument that allowed this, and not any other arbitrary laws to exist.

Pops, your argument seems more suited to argue AGAINST a law that would allow transgenders to use "the wrong" bathroom , more than it would seem suited to argue FOR this law in NC..... Just my $.02.

My argument is that if any male is allowed to use a woman's restroom, all males must.

It would take an incredibly convaluted argument to think otherwise.

 

[Slade3200]

No, cutting your dick off is a solution in search of a problem.

It won't make a man a woman

They still won't have a period, won't get pregnant, endure childbirth not go though menopause.

All they are are surgically altered males.

I'd post a picture of a dead horse, but idiotWytch would beat it.

Seawtch is still hiding from the question how when a 45 year old man's body walks into a bathroom of middle age and teenage girls she knows it's not a man, it's a woman

Did you think that made sense when you typed it?

I know when a transgendered individual uses the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to, nothing happens beyond them peeing and leaving...until RWNJs like yourself decide that we need more ridiculous laws. (that don't make it any safer for women and children)

You COMPLETELY avoided his question.

The question is simple.

How do you know, just by looks whether a person who enters the bathroom is a transgender, or is just someone entering the bathroom under false pretense? Myself, I think it's a silly question, but as is usual with you you refuse to answer.

And the answer was simpler than you are...which is quite a feat.

An individual enters the restroom, pees and leaves. Anything other than evacuation or hand washing is already illegal, for anyone.

How do you know, by looks, that the individual is a 45 year old man and not a lesbian?

I don't care , you fucking idiot. If Bob owns a restaurant and says "anyone can use the bathroom" its his fucking bathroom, if you don't like it, don't eat there. Same thing the other way around, if Bob says "no if you look like a boy, use the boy's bathroom" and you don't like it find somewhere else to fucking eat.

You see how that is fair and equal to EVERYONE, most especially to Bob WHO OWNS THE FUCKING BATHROOM?

Thats pretty much how its been until this NC Bill was passed, now there is a huge controversy. It's ok to admit that they made a mistake, it isn't going to ruin your Conservative Reputation... Our business owners need to adhere to equal rights and fair business practices and as long as they do that then all should be fine. If it gets too lax then whats the difference between not letting Trans use bathrooms or not letting muslims or blacks use the bathroom... We aren't going to go back to whites only and blacks get the bucket... Regulations are solutions that are implemented because of the irresponsibility of our business owners. I am a business owner and I don't like any regulations, but I understand why many are implemented and I don't get pissed at the government I get pissed at those that cause the problems that the government and our public decide need to be fixed.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You don't see the conflict? Pretty simple, a law was passed that is pretty blatantly bias and discriminatory towards trans folks. I don't think there is denying that. I realize some or many feel it justified but also many do not, especially those in the trans community. That's the conflict

It, the Charlotte ordinance was based on arbitrary reasoning

That being that, a trans male is somehow more closely related to a female then they are to a male.

That argument won't cut legal muster.

Take legality out of it for a minute and use common sense. An old hairy dude in a beard wearing a dress should absolutely not be in a girls restroom, i'm not arguing about that. A true trans male or female or child should be able to go into the bathroom that they identify with and not have to be humiliated by walking into a mens room to fix their bra or have to walk into a women's room to shave their beards. I just don't see the need for any law in this area and didn't think there was a big problem requiring the need to pass the law restricting trans from using the right bathroom for them.

I understand completely what you are saying, but the Government can't base law on emotion. They must base law on legal standards. For discrimination cases it is, that similarily situated citizens cannot be excluded for arbitrary reasons.

So one man can be excluded from a restroom, and the other can't?

So the argument is that one male is more simalar then the other even though neither share any of the same reproductive organs of the woman? Neither will have a period, neither will get pregnant, neither will endure childbirth?

It would be an amazingly convoluted argument that allowed this, and not any other arbitrary laws to exist.

Pops, your argument seems more suited to argue AGAINST a law that would allow transgenders to use "the wrong" bathroom , more than it would seem suited to argue FOR this law in NC..... Just my $.02.

My argument is that if any male is allowed to use a woman's restroom, all males must.

It would take an incredibly convaluted argument to think otherwise.

Oh, I agree. A law that allowed "transgender" males to use a woman's restroom, but not "regular" males would in fact be discriminatory, but that doesn't really defend the NC law.. That was my point.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Seawtch is still hiding from the question how when a 45 year old man's body walks into a bathroom of middle age and teenage girls she knows it's not a man, it's a woman

Did you think that made sense when you typed it?

I know when a transgendered individual uses the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to, nothing happens beyond them peeing and leaving...until RWNJs like yourself decide that we need more ridiculous laws. (that don't make it any safer for women and children)

You COMPLETELY avoided his question.

The question is simple.

How do you know, just by looks whether a person who enters the bathroom is a transgender, or is just someone entering the bathroom under false pretense? Myself, I think it's a silly question, but as is usual with you you refuse to answer.

And the answer was simpler than you are...which is quite a feat.

An individual enters the restroom, pees and leaves. Anything other than evacuation or hand washing is already illegal, for anyone.

How do you know, by looks, that the individual is a 45 year old man and not a lesbian?

I don't care , you fucking idiot. If Bob owns a restaurant and says "anyone can use the bathroom" its his fucking bathroom, if you don't like it, don't eat there. Same thing the other way around, if Bob says "no if you look like a boy, use the boy's bathroom" and you don't like it find somewhere else to fucking eat.

You see how that is fair and equal to EVERYONE, most especially to Bob WHO OWNS THE FUCKING BATHROOM?

Thats pretty much how its been until this NC Bill was passed, now there is a huge controversy. It's ok to admit that they made a mistake, it isn't going to ruin your Conservative Reputation... Our business owners need to adhere to equal rights and fair business practices and as long as they do that then all should be fine. If it gets too lax then whats the difference between not letting Trans use bathrooms or not letting muslims or blacks use the bathroom... We aren't going to go back to whites only and blacks get the bucket... Regulations are solutions that are implemented because of the irresponsibility of our business owners. I am a business owner and I don't like any regulations, but I understand why many are implemented and I don't get pissed at the government I get pissed at those that cause the problems that the government and our public decide need to be fixed.

The entire premise behind PA laws is stupid and unconstitutional. That's a fact.


"hey you, yeah you, you can't be discriminated against for A,B, or C, but you can be discriminated against for X,Y, and Z " that's just dumb, and also does not afford equal protection of the law.

And just to be clear, I think the NC law is stupid, and a waste of time.

 

[Slade3200]

It, the Charlotte ordinance was based on arbitrary reasoning

That being that, a trans male is somehow more closely related to a female then they are to a male.

That argument won't cut legal muster.

Take legality out of it for a minute and use common sense. An old hairy dude in a beard wearing a dress should absolutely not be in a girls restroom, i'm not arguing about that. A true trans male or female or child should be able to go into the bathroom that they identify with and not have to be humiliated by walking into a mens room to fix their bra or have to walk into a women's room to shave their beards. I just don't see the need for any law in this area and didn't think there was a big problem requiring the need to pass the law restricting trans from using the right bathroom for them.

I understand completely what you are saying, but the Government can't base law on emotion. They must base law on legal standards. For discrimination cases it is, that similarily situated citizens cannot be excluded for arbitrary reasons.

So one man can be excluded from a restroom, and the other can't?

So the argument is that one male is more simalar then the other even though neither share any of the same reproductive organs of the woman? Neither will have a period, neither will get pregnant, neither will endure childbirth?

It would be an amazingly convoluted argument that allowed this, and not any other arbitrary laws to exist.

Pops, your argument seems more suited to argue AGAINST a law that would allow transgenders to use "the wrong" bathroom , more than it would seem suited to argue FOR this law in NC..... Just my $.02.

My argument is that if any male is allowed to use a woman's restroom, all males must.

It would take an incredibly convaluted argument to think otherwise.

Oh, I agree. A law that allowed "transgender" males to use a woman's restroom, but not "regular" males would in fact be discriminatory, but that doesn't really defend the NC law.. That was my point.

My point is we don't need a law regulating bathrooms! I'd hope that we as people and business owners can be responsible enough to do it ourselves... We don't need a house bill limiting or enabling anything

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

 

[Pop23]

It, the Charlotte ordinance was based on arbitrary reasoning

That being that, a trans male is somehow more closely related to a female then they are to a male.

That argument won't cut legal muster.

Take legality out of it for a minute and use common sense. An old hairy dude in a beard wearing a dress should absolutely not be in a girls restroom, i'm not arguing about that. A true trans male or female or child should be able to go into the bathroom that they identify with and not have to be humiliated by walking into a mens room to fix their bra or have to walk into a women's room to shave their beards. I just don't see the need for any law in this area and didn't think there was a big problem requiring the need to pass the law restricting trans from using the right bathroom for them.

I understand completely what you are saying, but the Government can't base law on emotion. They must base law on legal standards. For discrimination cases it is, that similarily situated citizens cannot be excluded for arbitrary reasons.

So one man can be excluded from a restroom, and the other can't?

So the argument is that one male is more simalar then the other even though neither share any of the same reproductive organs of the woman? Neither will have a period, neither will get pregnant, neither will endure childbirth?

It would be an amazingly convoluted argument that allowed this, and not any other arbitrary laws to exist.

Pops, your argument seems more suited to argue AGAINST a law that would allow transgenders to use "the wrong" bathroom , more than it would seem suited to argue FOR this law in NC..... Just my $.02.

My argument is that if any male is allowed to use a woman's restroom, all males must.

It would take an incredibly convaluted argument to think otherwise.

Oh, I agree. A law that allowed "transgender" males to use a woman's restroom, but not "regular" males would in fact be discriminatory, but that doesn't really defend the NC law.. That was my point.

It doesn't?

You realize that most businesses are required to have restrooms (some can have them in common, another conversation), and in most municipalities it is mandated that the owner has to have, at a minimum 1 for males, and 1 for females.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Take legality out of it for a minute and use common sense. An old hairy dude in a beard wearing a dress should absolutely not be in a girls restroom, i'm not arguing about that. A true trans male or female or child should be able to go into the bathroom that they identify with and not have to be humiliated by walking into a mens room to fix their bra or have to walk into a women's room to shave their beards. I just don't see the need for any law in this area and didn't think there was a big problem requiring the need to pass the law restricting trans from using the right bathroom for them.

I understand completely what you are saying, but the Government can't base law on emotion. They must base law on legal standards. For discrimination cases it is, that similarily situated citizens cannot be excluded for arbitrary reasons.

So one man can be excluded from a restroom, and the other can't?

So the argument is that one male is more simalar then the other even though neither share any of the same reproductive organs of the woman? Neither will have a period, neither will get pregnant, neither will endure childbirth?

It would be an amazingly convoluted argument that allowed this, and not any other arbitrary laws to exist.

Pops, your argument seems more suited to argue AGAINST a law that would allow transgenders to use "the wrong" bathroom , more than it would seem suited to argue FOR this law in NC..... Just my $.02.

My argument is that if any male is allowed to use a woman's restroom, all males must.

It would take an incredibly convaluted argument to think otherwise.

Oh, I agree. A law that allowed "transgender" males to use a woman's restroom, but not "regular" males would in fact be discriminatory, but that doesn't really defend the NC law.. That was my point.

It doesn't?

You realize that most businesses are required to have restrooms (some can have them in common, another conversation), and in most municipalities it is mandated that the owner has to have, at a minimum 1 for males, and 1 for females.

And in EVERY case I think those laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Pop23]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

You'd be wrong. A constitutionally protected right is quite different than a civil right.

 

[Pop23]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

No, it would be arbitrary. That's my point.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

 

[Slade3200]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

I think you are living in the wrong century man... We evolved passed that a long time ago. I understand your want to live free and prosper, wild wild west style, but that has proved to be dangerous, reckless and discriminatory which our society, has voted and passed laws against... regulating the practices of our businesses to provide a safer and more inclusive environment. Thats our country, like it or not.

 

[Siete]

I wish a mod would take this pointless thread to a bathroom and flush the sob ..

 

[Slade3200]

Don't the conservatives see that the House Bill that passed to regulate bathroom usage is just growing government? Isn't that against all of their beliefs?

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

Lets say a Chinese company buys a bunch of real estate in your neighborhood, factories, business centers, apartments etc etc. and they decide they want to create a Chinese only environment and word gets out so a bunch of Chinese flock into your city and pretty much take it over. Now you can't eat, seek entertainment, find a place to live, or operate your business because you are not Chinese. How does that America look to you?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There are appropriate needs for government. The proper application of civil rights laws is one of those.

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

Lets say a Chinese company buys a bunch of real estate in your neighborhood, factories, business centers, apartments etc etc. and they decide they want to create a Chinese only environment and word gets out so a bunch of Chinese flock into your city and pretty much take it over. Now you can't eat, seek entertainment, find a place to live, or operate your business because you are not Chinese. How does that America look to you?

I mean those things already happen in various parts of the country. As long as they aren't directly harming other people. why should we care?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

Lets say a Chinese company buys a bunch of real estate in your neighborhood, factories, business centers, apartments etc etc. and they decide they want to create a Chinese only environment and word gets out so a bunch of Chinese flock into your city and pretty much take it over. Now you can't eat, seek entertainment, find a place to live, or operate your business because you are not Chinese. How does that America look to you?

I mean those things already happen in various parts of the country. As long as they aren't directly harming other people. why should we care?

They are happening to a degree where foreigners are buying up businesses but we still live in an inclusive society. You would care if you were forced from you home or community... Just think through it. Without fair practice and equal rights regulations our country would go to shit.

 

[Pop23]

I agree, except in this case the law is limiting civil rights, not helping... AND there really was no need for it

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

Lets say a Chinese company buys a bunch of real estate in your neighborhood, factories, business centers, apartments etc etc. and they decide they want to create a Chinese only environment and word gets out so a bunch of Chinese flock into your city and pretty much take it over. Now you can't eat, seek entertainment, find a place to live, or operate your business because you are not Chinese. How does that America look to you?

I mean those things already happen in various parts of the country. As long as they aren't directly harming other people. why should we care?

Because we, in common, make it possible for a business to exist. It's known as commerce for a reason.

I never backed the Baker, the Florist or the Photographer for that reason.

The restroom situation is completely different

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I disagree, the COTUS does not bind individuals or businesses to respect civil rights and any such law that does so is unconstitutional.

What if we passed a law that stated " a business owner must respect a customer's right to bear arms?" as an example.

So do you think it is legal or acceptable for a business to have a "whites" only restroom?

I think it should be legal, yes.


Does that mean I'd support a business that did so? No , it doesn't and I wouldn't , but if someone thinks they can make a go of an a black only eatery, who am I to stop them??

Lets say a Chinese company buys a bunch of real estate in your neighborhood, factories, business centers, apartments etc etc. and they decide they want to create a Chinese only environment and word gets out so a bunch of Chinese flock into your city and pretty much take it over. Now you can't eat, seek entertainment, find a place to live, or operate your business because you are not Chinese. How does that America look to you?

I mean those things already happen in various parts of the country. As long as they aren't directly harming other people. why should we care?

They are happening to a degree where foreigners are buying up businesses but we still live in an inclusive society. You would care if you were forced from you home or community... Just think through it. Without fair practice and equal rights regulations our country would go to shit.

No, it wouldn't . In the first place, how many businesses do you REALLY think would start discriminating? Oh , for sure you'd see gays having to go to a different bakery and things of that sort. But you sure wouldn't see whole towns where a black man couldn't get a meal or anything of that sort. Come on now.