Men in women's bathrooms

[boedicca]

ahh got it, I asked "At what point can they use the bathroom that matches their lifestyle?" Substitute lifestyle with gender identity or transition status... Did you really not understand my point? Are we playing word games now?

No I get it completely and I replied earlier. At NO point, nobody have to adjust themselves to someone's lifestyle.

But you kept bragging and repeating that we do.

Nope.

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

 

[Slade3200]

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

You are correct that if someone completes "transition" with surgery, I would agree that person could use the restroom of his/her gender identity.

The second part is what I was waiting for, you start putting words in my mouth.

Where have I said, and you noted, that I am against surgeries. Link Please.

I was talking to Chris L. She has made that statement many times.

But your point does prove that you have criteria that defines and lays out acceptable terms that will recognize a trangenders transition. It is genitalia... That is fine, that is the debate... Where are those lines drawn? I don't think a guy should be able to put on a wig and dress and say he feels like a woman and then go into a ladies room. I think the solution has to be somewhere in between your "genital" idea and their "feeling" idea. I think it is going to be something along the lines of a person living the lifestyle in dress and appearance under guidance and the recommendation from a licensed therapist that deems it best for their mental health to transition to the gender they identify with. People at this point are hard to distinguish as their "born" sex.

 

[Slade3200]

ahh got it, I asked "At what point can they use the bathroom that matches their lifestyle?" Substitute lifestyle with gender identity or transition status... Did you really not understand my point? Are we playing word games now?

No I get it completely and I replied earlier. At NO point, nobody have to adjust themselves to someone's lifestyle.

But you kept bragging and repeating that we do.

Nope.

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

unfortunately, history has shown that to gain mass acceptance there is a fight. Blacks, women, gays, and religious groups have all gone threw it. I don't like all the over exaggerated "in your face" statements that many groups do, but it is how they gain attention and break down barriers.

 

[Slade3200]

Again with the word games... Are you having fun? It is their lifestyle, it is their identity... Whether it is choice, biology, a mental disorder, or a natural occurrence is what the debate is about. I don't really think that stuff matters very much because it is what it is and it exists so we need to deal with it.

You dont think that it matters?

The whole mess, and not just on the transgenders issues are due to the redefining the words.

Lets redefine what marriage means. It's just a word, right?

Lets redefine word criminal, from now on, we use "justice-Involved Individuals".

Let's redefine what woman is.

It does matter. It's enough of that leftist crap.

Yes words do matter I agree. Especially when it comes to defining law and respecting others. I was referring to our discussion on this thread about the issue at hand. You keep trying to trap me by playing word games and taking my points out of context. I was responding to that.

 

[ChrisL]

No I get it completely and I replied earlier. At NO point, nobody have to adjust themselves to someone's lifestyle.

But you kept bragging and repeating that we do.

Nope.

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

unfortunately, history has shown that to gain mass acceptance there is a fight. Blacks, women, gays, and religious groups have all gone threw it. I don't like all the over exaggerated "in your face" statements that many groups do, but it is how they gain attention and break down barriers.

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to accept. This is the United States of America, a FREE country. We are all entitled to our own thoughts and feelings on things like this.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

unfortunately, history has shown that to gain mass acceptance there is a fight. Blacks, women, gays, and religious groups have all gone threw it. I don't like all the over exaggerated "in your face" statements that many groups do, but it is how they gain attention and break down barriers.

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to accept. This is the United States of America, a FREE country. We are all entitled to our own thoughts and feelings on things like this.

True, Bo stated it very eloquently with the "tolerance" post. I apparently am having trouble with my words today

 

[ChrisL]

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

You are correct that if someone completes "transition" with surgery, I would agree that person could use the restroom of his/her gender identity.

The second part is what I was waiting for, you start putting words in my mouth.

Where have I said, and you noted, that I am against surgeries. Link Please.

I was talking to Chris L. She has made that statement many times.

But your point does prove that you have criteria that defines and lays out acceptable terms that will recognize a trangenders transition. It is genitalia... That is fine, that is the debate... Where are those lines drawn? I don't think a guy should be able to put on a wig and dress and say he feels like a woman and then go into a ladies room. I think the solution has to be somewhere in between your "genital" idea and their "feeling" idea. I think it is going to be something along the lines of a person living the lifestyle in dress and appearance under guidance and the recommendation from a licensed therapist that deems it best for their mental health to transition to the gender they identify with. People at this point are hard to distinguish as their "born" sex.

People are free to choose whether to "recognize" them or not. That's a personal matter. I don't and will never accept a biological man as a woman or vice versa. Sorry. That's the way I feel about it. That doesn't mean I "hate" them either. I don't even know them. I just don't believe that you can be something other than what your biology dictates. You can change your outward appearance, but that doesn't change your biology.

 

[Ame®icano]

Again with the word games... Are you having fun? It is their lifestyle, it is their identity... Whether it is choice, biology, a mental disorder, or a natural occurrence is what the debate is about. I don't really think that stuff matters very much because it is what it is and it exists so we need to deal with it.

You dont think that it matters?

The whole mess, and not just on the transgenders issues are due to the redefining the words.

Lets redefine what marriage means. It's just a word, right?

Lets redefine word criminal, from now on, we use "justice-Involved Individuals".

Let's redefine what woman is.

It does matter. It's enough of that leftist crap.

Yes words do matter I agree. Especially when it comes to defining law and respecting others. I was referring to our discussion on this thread about the issue at hand. You keep trying to trap me by playing word games and taking my points out of context. I was responding to that.

No no, You said clearly and here is a quote.

At what point can they use the bathroom that matches their lifestyle?

And I answered in very next post

At NO point nobody gets to use the bathroom that match their "lifestyle".

I don't have to respect or accept anyone's lifestyle. I don't give a shit about how you want to live your life.

I do have to respect other people rights, especially constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If you find the amendment or law that gives special right to man to violate women privacy, please post it here.

 

[Ame®icano]

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

You are correct that if someone completes "transition" with surgery, I would agree that person could use the restroom of his/her gender identity.

The second part is what I was waiting for, you start putting words in my mouth.

Where have I said, and you noted, that I am against surgeries. Link Please.

I was talking to Chris L. She has made that statement many times.

Yeah, I noticed after I posted. My bad.

 

[ChrisL]

No I get it completely and I replied earlier. At NO point, nobody have to adjust themselves to someone's lifestyle.

But you kept bragging and repeating that we do.

Nope.

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

 

[Slade3200]

Again with the word games... Are you having fun? It is their lifestyle, it is their identity... Whether it is choice, biology, a mental disorder, or a natural occurrence is what the debate is about. I don't really think that stuff matters very much because it is what it is and it exists so we need to deal with it.

You dont think that it matters?

The whole mess, and not just on the transgenders issues are due to the redefining the words.

Lets redefine what marriage means. It's just a word, right?

Lets redefine word criminal, from now on, we use "justice-Involved Individuals".

Let's redefine what woman is.

It does matter. It's enough of that leftist crap.

Yes words do matter I agree. Especially when it comes to defining law and respecting others. I was referring to our discussion on this thread about the issue at hand. You keep trying to trap me by playing word games and taking my points out of context. I was responding to that.

No no, You said clearly and here is a quote.

At what point can they use the bathroom that matches their lifestyle?

And I answered in very next post

At NO point nobody gets to use the bathroom that match their "lifestyle".

I don't have to respect or accept anyone's lifestyle. I don't give a shit about how you want to live your life.

I do have to respect other people rights, especially constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If you find the amendment or law that gives special right to man to violate women privacy, please post it here.

This debate is revolving around the Lifestyle of transgenders. Lifestyle simply means the way in which a person or group lives.
Transgenders live as a member of the opposite sex that they were born with... They want rights based on their gender identity not based simply on their lifestyle. These rights and subsequent rules dictating bathroom use (in this case) is what the debate is about.

 

[boedicca]

No I get it completely and I replied earlier. At NO point, nobody have to adjust themselves to someone's lifestyle.

But you kept bragging and repeating that we do.

Nope.

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

unfortunately, history has shown that to gain mass acceptance there is a fight. Blacks, women, gays, and religious groups have all gone threw it. I don't like all the over exaggerated "in your face" statements that many groups do, but it is how they gain attention and break down barriers.

I see you use the term Acceptance. FORCED Acceptance is an Oxymoron. I see that you caught the mistake in another post. We need to use words precisely.

 

[Ame®icano]

This debate is revolving around the Lifestyle of transgenders. Lifestyle simply means the way in which a person or group lives.
Transgenders live as a member of the opposite sex that they were born with... They want rights based on their gender identity not based simply on their lifestyle. These rights and subsequent rules dictating bathroom use (in this case) is what the debate is about.

I'm glad you used "gender identity" term, and not gender, since those are two different terms.

If someone completes the transition, including living as a different gender, legal name change, and surgery, I have no problem accepting their new gender identity. The problem is that most never do that (and I guess those fit under your term of lifestyle), but still wants to be treated as the gender of their choice. I got problem with that and I believe, many others too.

 

[Slade3200]

This debate is revolving around the Lifestyle of transgenders. Lifestyle simply means the way in which a person or group lives.
Transgenders live as a member of the opposite sex that they were born with... They want rights based on their gender identity not based simply on their lifestyle. These rights and subsequent rules dictating bathroom use (in this case) is what the debate is about.

I'm glad you used "gender identity" term, and not gender, since those are two different terms.

If someone completes the transition, including living as a different gender, legal name change, and surgery, I have no problem accepting their new gender identity. The problem is that most never do that (and I guess those fit under your term of lifestyle), but still wants to be treated as the gender of their choice. I got problem with that and I believe, many others too.

I can appreciate that. I think your voice and other opposers need to be heard... Also the objectives of the trans community need to be heard and common sense solutions proposed. As for my opinions, I fall somewhere in the middle, I've already expressed solutions that seem reasonable to me. There is going to have to be compromise on both ends.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, I like this. We do not have to adjust to someone else's lifestyle. If they have a penis, they need to use the men's room. If they have changed THEMSELVES so much so that they cannot be recognized as a "male", then that is not our problem.

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.


...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw

 

[ChrisL]

I thought you agreed that if somebody had surgery then you would support them using the transitioned gendered bathroom? Noted that you don't support the surgeries in the first place.

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.


...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw

In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.

I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

 

[boedicca]

The amount of men that actually go through surgery to become "women" is so small that they are statistical outliers. In polite and Civil Society, they would be tolerated and left alone (even to use the women's room if they live as women). We wouldn't need laws that affect the vast majority to tolerate such a minority.

But this is NOT what government intrusion does. By making this a major issue and a matter of Public Policy, surgically altered men aren't the object. Any male who "says" he feels like a female (however fleetingly), can use that as an excuse to violate the privacy of real females. The REAL AGENDA is to breakdown what should be an inviolate barrier between individuals and The State. If one's own body can be so abused, so can every other aspect of the individual, until there is no individual...just serfs to the collective (cf. State Elite) will.

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.


...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw

In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.

I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?

It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.

A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake to be made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Which restroom did he choose?
- via Proud Democrat


Anti-Gay North Carolina Republican Outed as Former Drag Queen
An anti-gay Republican candidate in North Carolina worked as a drag queen performer and emcee known as 'Miss Mona Sinclair,' according to a bombshell…
proudemocrat.com

 

[Slade3200]

They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.


...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw

In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.

I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?

It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.

A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.

Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their lease

 

[boedicca]

I make a distinction between Tolerance and Acceptance. Tolerance means that you are free to do your thing and I am free to do mine. In other words, we leave each other alone. Acceptance is a closer relationship, one of support or participation in whatever the other is doing. The danger in stressing Acceptance over mere Tolerance is what we have seen played out in putting a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding gay. The refusal did not prevent the gay couple from getting wed (hence tolerance was already satisfied). But that's not good enough for the Statists. One must Accept, Support and Participate in what is dictated.

I, for my part, want nothing to do with such Compulsory Groupthink.

I would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.

That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.


...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw

In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.

I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?

It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.

A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.

Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their lease

Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....