So...these religious freedom (aka anti tranny) laws are making liberals self-ban from here? YAY!

[HenryBHough]

Pass the bill!!!!

If you pass it.....they (libs) won't come!!!

Yeah, but show 'em a naked picture of Hillary and they'll come!

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

the little girl that has to see that asshat, that sin.

So the little girl is sinning?

 

[BULLDOG]

Are they already transgendered? If so...sure. If not...HELL no. Is it a sin? No. But it damn sure is disgusting.

If it's not a sin, then that throws religious objections out the window. I personally don't get the transgender thing myself. I admit the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but trans women have to live as a woman for a time before their surgery. The law is just for trans people. Just putting a dress on doesn't make you trans, and a man in a dress would receive the same punishment as a man in men's clothes. I just don't see where allowing someone who has made the commitment to live as a woman use the woman's restroom is more dangerous than allowing an aggressive bull dyke to use it. Actually it would be less dangerous..

how will you know? Do you have a special test you can run? hahahahahahahahha, stupid shit, that's the fkn point.

And how do you know? Do you have a link that says transgenders are more likely to molest?

 

[jknowgood]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

 

[jc456]

Are they already transgendered? If so...sure. If not...HELL no. Is it a sin? No. But it damn sure is disgusting.

If it's not a sin, then that throws religious objections out the window. I personally don't get the transgender thing myself. I admit the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but trans women have to live as a woman for a time before their surgery. The law is just for trans people. Just putting a dress on doesn't make you trans, and a man in a dress would receive the same punishment as a man in men's clothes. I just don't see where allowing someone who has made the commitment to live as a woman use the woman's restroom is more dangerous than allowing an aggressive bull dyke to use it. Actually it would be less dangerous..

how will you know? Do you have a special test you can run? hahahahahahahahha, stupid shit, that's the fkn point.

He may not bubba, but quite a few New Jersey School Districts do. Here is our rational approach to the issue: Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date (post 304)

This is how things are done in a civilized state.

I agree, protect the kids from the queers.

 

[jc456]

Are they already transgendered? If so...sure. If not...HELL no. Is it a sin? No. But it damn sure is disgusting.

If it's not a sin, then that throws religious objections out the window. I personally don't get the transgender thing myself. I admit the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but trans women have to live as a woman for a time before their surgery. The law is just for trans people. Just putting a dress on doesn't make you trans, and a man in a dress would receive the same punishment as a man in men's clothes. I just don't see where allowing someone who has made the commitment to live as a woman use the woman's restroom is more dangerous than allowing an aggressive bull dyke to use it. Actually it would be less dangerous..

how will you know? Do you have a special test you can run? hahahahahahahahha, stupid shit, that's the fkn point.

And how do you know? Do you have a link that says transgenders are more likely to molest?

sure, they are admittedly confused on who they are. When and where they belong is their issue, not ours. they got a whittle pee pee, they use the men's room. Explain what is so hard to understand there? what is it they are afraid of?

Let's take the fear to the little girls of the world. yeah, that's the ticket. dude, it's fking hilarious the stupid you all like to walk with.

 

[jc456]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

There is no such thing as a transgendered person. They are transvestites.

Of course there are Transgender is someone who already has or is transitioning to another gender. Transvestite has to do with clothing only.

I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that Brucy Jenner still has his whittle pee pee. His wifie liked it I'm sure. LOL, Again, you all like to go after the meek and weak. The true americans, the conservatives will protect the kids.

 

[jknowgood]

I keep seeing all these liberals self-banning themselves from states with "anti tranny" laws....or....religious freedom laws. Sharon Stone from Mississippi. Bruce Springstein from NC. Countless others.

So....the more of these we pass....the fewer liberals we will have down here??? YES!!! THATS AWESOME!!! PASS THE BILL!!!



What else will work??? Can we ban Che t-shirts and ban hipster douche beards?

Dear Sir, may I inquire? When exactly did it become tyranny for a minority to demand to be treated with respect and dignity?

When the minority dictates against the demand for dignity by the majority. Or anyone else for that matter. You want to cherry-pick your fascism.

You mean like when those pesky black folks wanted to ride in the front of the bus and the white majority felt it was an aaffront to their dignity? Or, like when women sought the right to vote, and men were indignant?

You do realize that a man cannot become a woman? Right? They chose to do what they do and the rest of society shouldn't punished for his choice. Especially little girls. Anyone who is for this is a pervert.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

Allowing people to pick and choose their customers or keeping queers out is only a religious in as far as religion is a protected right. But it shouldn't need a religious opt out from liberal insanity. Plus it isn't just a religion, it's still the dominate one of the country.

 

[Iceweasel]

I keep seeing all these liberals self-banning themselves from states with "anti tranny" laws....or....religious freedom laws. Sharon Stone from Mississippi. Bruce Springstein from NC. Countless others.

So....the more of these we pass....the fewer liberals we will have down here??? YES!!! THATS AWESOME!!! PASS THE BILL!!!



What else will work??? Can we ban Che t-shirts and ban hipster douche beards?

Dear Sir, may I inquire? When exactly did it become tyranny for a minority to demand to be treated with respect and dignity?

If they acted like they had dignity and respect they wouldn't impose themselves onto others and they'd just do their business quietly where it would cause the least amount of fuss. So they have no right to demand what they refuse to give.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

 

[jc456]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

the little girl that has to see that asshat, that sin.

So the little girl is sinning?

what does that even mean?

 

[BULLDOG]

Are they already transgendered? If so...sure. If not...HELL no. Is it a sin? No. But it damn sure is disgusting.

If it's not a sin, then that throws religious objections out the window. I personally don't get the transgender thing myself. I admit the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but trans women have to live as a woman for a time before their surgery. The law is just for trans people. Just putting a dress on doesn't make you trans, and a man in a dress would receive the same punishment as a man in men's clothes. I just don't see where allowing someone who has made the commitment to live as a woman use the woman's restroom is more dangerous than allowing an aggressive bull dyke to use it. Actually it would be less dangerous..

how will you know? Do you have a special test you can run? hahahahahahahahha, stupid shit, that's the fkn point.

And how do you know? Do you have a link that says transgenders are more likely to molest?

sure, they are admittedly confused on who they are. When and where they belong is their issue, not ours. they got a whittle pee pee, they use the men's room. Explain what is so hard to understand there? what is it they are afraid of?

Let's take the fear to the little girls of the world. yeah, that's the ticket. dude, it's fking hilarious the stupid you all like to walk with.

I asked for a link, but you couldn't supply one.

 

[jc456]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

there aren't constitutional laws different for transgender folks. Show me if you disagree.

 

[jc456]

Are they already transgendered? If so...sure. If not...HELL no. Is it a sin? No. But it damn sure is disgusting.

If it's not a sin, then that throws religious objections out the window. I personally don't get the transgender thing myself. I admit the whole idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but trans women have to live as a woman for a time before their surgery. The law is just for trans people. Just putting a dress on doesn't make you trans, and a man in a dress would receive the same punishment as a man in men's clothes. I just don't see where allowing someone who has made the commitment to live as a woman use the woman's restroom is more dangerous than allowing an aggressive bull dyke to use it. Actually it would be less dangerous..

how will you know? Do you have a special test you can run? hahahahahahahahha, stupid shit, that's the fkn point.

And how do you know? Do you have a link that says transgenders are more likely to molest?

sure, they are admittedly confused on who they are. When and where they belong is their issue, not ours. they got a whittle pee pee, they use the men's room. Explain what is so hard to understand there? what is it they are afraid of?

Let's take the fear to the little girls of the world. yeah, that's the ticket. dude, it's fking hilarious the stupid you all like to walk with.

I asked for a link, but you couldn't supply one.

a link for what?

 

[jknowgood]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

So if you don't agree with the subject at hand. A woman really cannot chose about her body? Can I say hypocrite?

 

[guno]

I keep seeing all these liberals self-banning themselves from states with "anti tranny" laws....or....religious freedom laws. Sharon Stone from Mississippi. Bruce Springstein from NC. Countless others.

So....the more of these we pass....the fewer liberals we will have down here??? YES!!! THATS AWESOME!!! PASS THE BILL!!!



What else will work??? Can we ban Che t-shirts and ban hipster douche beards?

Must be difficult for you old bloated hick crackas to see the world changing all around you , even the southern hick spawn are losing the cletus hick accents , yes being marginalized mocked by America sure must be tough on you hicks. Thankfully the once hick children are being taught about the new America and their place in it as being one of many different groups with no special white christian privilege .

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

There is no such thing as a transgendered person. They are transvestites.

Of course there are Transgender is someone who already has or is transitioning to another gender. Transvestite has to do with clothing only.

I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that Brucy Jenner still has his whittle pee pee. His wifie liked it I'm sure. LOL, Again, you all like to go after the meek and weak. The true americans, the conservatives will protect the kids.

You want to deny rights to an entire class of people because you are afraid Bruce Jenner's wife enjoyed sex with him in the past? I guess we have to expect the crazies to whine for a while longer, but this has already been settled, and you should try to come to terms with it. You lost. Get over it.

 

[jc456]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

There is no such thing as a transgendered person. They are transvestites.

Of course there are Transgender is someone who already has or is transitioning to another gender. Transvestite has to do with clothing only.

I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that Brucy Jenner still has his whittle pee pee. His wifie liked it I'm sure. LOL, Again, you all like to go after the meek and weak. The true americans, the conservatives will protect the kids.

You want to deny rights to an entire class of people because you are afraid Bruce Jenner's wife enjoyed sex with him in the past? I guess we have to expect the crazies to whine for a while longer, but this has already been settled, and you should try to come to terms with it. You lost. Get over it.

nope, I want to protect the kids from the very thingy that old brucie has become. it's the kids stupid.

Again, you got that piece from the constitution that gives old brucie extra rights?

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't get it. If LGBT's have rights in service from businesses, use of bathrooms, etc...why can't religious folks have the same rights to say "No" because it is against that religion????

What IS the big deal and why are so many determined to shut groups out and no tolerance is shown to them yet they demand tolerance to be given to them?

No. I don't get it.

What sin being committed when a transgender person uses a restroom matching their target sex? Who is committing that sin?

the little girl that has to see that asshat, that sin.

So the little girl is sinning?

what does that even mean?

The question was "what sin is being committed when a transgender uses a bathroom that matches their chosen sex, and who is committing that sin?" You replied "the little girl"