Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.
Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.
Everyone has access to cake also
The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.
A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.
Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.
Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.
I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.
Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.
Bathrooms aren't a good or service being sold to anyone. PA laws apply only to public business. Which might explain why nothing you've predicted, nor any of your pseudo-legal gibberish has ever had the slightest relevance to the real world.
Everything you've ever predicted as been wrong. On essentially any topic I've ever seen discussed. Incest marriage, same sex marriage, bathrooms, PA laws, everything. Your record of failure has been perfect.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
And neither are gym lockers/showers?
Women only workout rooms?
Hmmmm, I hear those advertised almost daily.
Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
They are to lesbians and gay males!
Nice try (not really)
Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.
Do you have anything else? Or is this it?
Read the oregon PA law.
Is there any point to this post?
Yes. Have someone help you with the big words, Cleetus.
Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.
And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.
Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....
Compelling state interest
Similarily Situated
And you are really this unprepared?
Now that's funny!
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.
You're simply wrong. That an action is motivated by a thought doesn't mean its the thought that is being regulated. If such were the case then premediated murder would be 'thought control' by your standards. As would any action motivated by any thought. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense. Thoughts and actions aren't the same. And regulating one isn't 'controlling' the other.
You can think whatever you'd like. But when those thoughts motivate action, that's when the regulation can apply.
Denying the cake based on sexual orientation was an action. And regulating action is well within the authority of the govenrment. Especially State governments on issues of intra state commerce. Over which they clearly have jurisdiction.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
Just as killing isn't illegal. Only killing for the wrong reasons. What's your point? That state government isn't allowed to set criteria for the regulation of behavior?
You're obviously wrong again. Of course they can.
You need help with reading comprehension. You posted as a response to mine - which you quoted. But it doesn't seem you even read what you were responding to.
Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.
And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...
So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?
What was old is new again.
There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?
You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.
You need help with reading comprehension. You posted as a response to mine - which you quoted. But it doesn't seem you even read what you were responding to.
No, I read it and gave you a perfectly good answer.
No one has ever been tied to a fence and lit on fire for being fat.
They've totally done that to gay people in this country.
The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
Would you have said the same thing about lunch counters and public accommodation in the 60s?Poor baby!You are a bigoted hateful jackass.Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!
Feel better?
Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.
Bull shit, only a fag couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.
You need help with reading comprehension. You posted as a response to mine - which you quoted. But it doesn't seem you even read what you were responding to.
No, I read it and gave you a perfectly good answer.
No one has ever been tied to a fence and lit on fire for being fat.
They've totally done that to gay people in this country.
So, you didn't read it. For posterity, here's the post you were responding to:The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
Wanna try again?
And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.
Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....
Compelling state interest
Similarily Situated
And you are really this unprepared?
Now that's funny!
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.
No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?
As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.
This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.
So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."Shower at home Pops.
For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
They are to lesbians and gay males!
Nice try (not really)
Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.
Do you have anything else? Or is this it?
Read the oregon PA law.
Yup. Have you? If so, explain how a woman's locker room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.
And then explain why woman's locker room has never been found to be a violation of Oregon PA laws by any legal authority in Oregon. Or any other state. What do they know that you don't?
And Pop's meltdown continues.
But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.
No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?
As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.
This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.
So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."Shower at home Pops.
For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
Bake your own damn cake?
See how that works?
Then there's this.
Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller
Maybe straights should just all shower at home?
Funny, YOU wanted the USSC to make same sex couples declared similarily situated, now that they did, you want them NOT considered that way?
You are a hoot Wytch, simply a hoot.
Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.
You're simply wrong. That an action is motivated by a thought doesn't mean its the thought that is being regulated. If such were the case then premediated murder would be 'thought control' by your standards. As would any action motivated by any thought. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense. Thoughts and actions aren't the same. And regulating one isn't 'controlling' the other.
You can think whatever you'd like. But when those thoughts motivate action, that's when the regulation can apply.
Denying the cake based on sexual orientation was an action. And regulating action is well within the authority of the govenrment. Especially State governments on issues of intra state commerce. Over which they clearly have jurisdiction.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
Just as killing isn't illegal. Only killing for the wrong reasons. What's your point? That state government isn't allowed to set criteria for the regulation of behavior?
You're obviously wrong again. Of course they can.
The stipulations defining different kinds of murder are concerned with intent, not motive.
The only question is how deliberate the act was, because we have different punishments based on how much responsibility can be reasonably assigned. But murder isn't right or wrong based on why someone was killed. To make a valid comparison you'd have to find laws that said murder was only wrong if you did it because you didn't like the person's race (religion, gender, etc... ), but otherwise was fine.
I don't see how you can steer around the central point here. These kinds of laws put government in charge of deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't. When they agree with you, I guess it can seem like an ok policy, but what if things change? What if someone with different values than you is in charge of deciding which opinions are valid?
Our ability to express our values through "the company we keep" is a key component of social morality.
It's what allows us to function as a society without laws policing our every action.
We work and deal with the people who share our values, we avoid those who oppose them. That's a fundamental human right.
Stripping it from people simply because they are "engaged in commerce" is merely an inroad made possible by the commerce clause.
There's nothing inherently different about commerce than any other human interaction, and if we allow this kind of policy in the name of business regulation, we're going to get it other arenas as well.
You need help with reading comprehension. You posted as a response to mine - which you quoted. But it doesn't seem you even read what you were responding to.
No, I read it and gave you a perfectly good answer.
No one has ever been tied to a fence and lit on fire for being fat.
They've totally done that to gay people in this country.
So, you didn't read it. For posterity, here's the post you were responding to:The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
Wanna try again?
I understood his response. What he's saying is that PA laws protect groups that have historically been targeted for discrimination.
In some states they have obviously encountered issues with weight and discrimination since they added weight to their anti discrimination laws.
Weight Discrimination
The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.
You're simply wrong. That an action is motivated by a thought doesn't mean its the thought that is being regulated. If such were the case then premediated murder would be 'thought control' by your standards. As would any action motivated by any thought. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense. Thoughts and actions aren't the same. And regulating one isn't 'controlling' the other.
You can think whatever you'd like. But when those thoughts motivate action, that's when the regulation can apply.
Denying the cake based on sexual orientation was an action. And regulating action is well within the authority of the govenrment. Especially State governments on issues of intra state commerce. Over which they clearly have jurisdiction.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
Just as killing isn't illegal. Only killing for the wrong reasons. What's your point? That state government isn't allowed to set criteria for the regulation of behavior?
You're obviously wrong again. Of course they can.
The stipulations defining different kinds of murder are concerned with intent, not motive.
Intent is a thought. And thus meets your nonsense 'thought control standard'. If we inexplicably equate thought with action.
Which no one does.
The only question is how deliberate the act was, because we have different punishments based on how much responsibility can be reasonably assigned. But murder isn't right or wrong based on why someone was killed. To make a valid comparison you'd have to find laws that said murder was only wrong if you did it because you didn't like the person's race (religion, gender, etc... ), but otherwise was fine.
My analogy is perfectly fine. As our standard is the regulation of action. Once you move from thinking to doing, you've crossed a threshold. You can think without doing and you don't meet the same threshold. The State doesn't regulate thought. The state regulates action. And has every right to do so.
Your 'thought control' nonsense only works if we equate thought with action. Which doesn't work. As you can think without acting with no consequence or legal intervention. Its only when you move past thought to include action that you fall under the regulation of the law.
I don't see how you can steer around the central point here. These kinds of laws put government in charge of deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't. When they agree with you, I guess it can seem like an ok policy, but what if things change? What if someone with different values than you is in charge of deciding which opinions are valid?
The law doesn't regulate opinion. It regulates actions. You can hold whatever opinions you like. But when you act on those opinions, your actions are subject to regulation. You are again equating thought with action. And they aren't the same thing. The entire premise of your argument is simple nonsense.
Our ability to express our values through "the company we keep" is a key component of social morality.
Not in the context of public business. In private life you have every right to express your values in that manner. Public business is a public act and an act of commerce. When engaged in commerce you are subject to regulation by the State governments. You can be held to minimum standards of conduct in business.
It's what allows us to function as a society without laws policing our every action.
Ivory tower bullshit. In the real world, we don't base our ability to police ourselves on denying gay people cake. Denying goods and services to black people does not 'allow us to function as a society'. Its entirely possible to work as a society and set minimum standards of conduct in business. As every society does.
We work and deal with the people who share our values, we avoid those who oppose them. That's a fundamental human right.
Denying black people goods and services is not a 'fundamental human right'. Refusing to employ women is not a 'fundamental human right'. Insisting black folks get to the back of the bus is not a 'fundamental human right.
Again, commerce is a public act. And the state has every authority to regulate public actions. Private associations are most definitely yours alone to define. You can wave your dick at a mirror to your heart's content in private. But wave it at traffic on a street corner and you're going to run into trouble.
Public, by definition, involves more than just you. And as such effects more than just you.
Commerce is the way goods and sevices are distributed in our society. This is how we get our food, our clothing, our shelter. And denial of goods and services can have a dramatic impact on other people. And we've seen it play out as a method of abuse and control and exploitation. Those States with PA laws decided that in such public acts that there should be minimum standards of conduct to prevent those predictable outcomes or to enforce the conception of justice held by its people.
And establishing standard of public conduct is not only within the authority of society, its exists in every society. You're insisting that society can enforce NO standards of public conduct. And you're simply wrong.
Stripping it from people simply because they are "engaged in commerce" is merely an inroad made possible by the commerce clause.
We're speaking of State PA laws. The commerce clause has nothing to do with it as it defines federal power. And you know this. The authority of the State to regulate intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State.
There's nothing inherently different about commerce than any other human interaction, and if we allow this kind of policy in the name of business regulation, we're going to get it other arenas as well.
We already regulate action in other arenas. And we always have. This mythical society where there is no regulation of actions in public, where there is no enforcement of any standards of public conduct does not exist nor has ever existed.
And we've seen the product of permitting the kind of rampant discrimination against blacks, jews, women, gays, etc in our society. Our society finds the outcome of such acts to be unacceptable. And has regulated accordingly. These are choices that society has the authority to make.
You ignore the outcome of the policies you propose, ignore the history of discrimination that is the product of them, ignore the vast and systematic impact on the lives of individuals, and instead imagine an ivory tower society in which society does not nor cannot regulate public behavior nor enforce any standards of public conduct.
The negative outcomes of your policies is real. While your mythic society of no regulation is imaginary.
Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?
They are to lesbians and gay males!
Nice try (not really)
Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.
Do you have anything else? Or is this it?
Read the oregon PA law.
Yup. Have you? If so, explain how a woman's locker room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.
And then explain why woman's locker room has never been found to be a violation of Oregon PA laws by any legal authority in Oregon. Or any other state. What do they know that you don't?
Read the USSC ruling. I am now the same as a lesbian.
It's already starting:
Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller
See your crap about showers/lockers being gender specific for a reason is simply crap.
You need help with reading comprehension. You posted as a response to mine - which you quoted. But it doesn't seem you even read what you were responding to.
No, I read it and gave you a perfectly good answer.
No one has ever been tied to a fence and lit on fire for being fat.
They've totally done that to gay people in this country.
So, you didn't read it. For posterity, here's the post you were responding to:The point, which you ran away from, isn't that fat people have it just as bad as gay people. The point, is that PA laws don't protect everyone equally. They are the opposite of equal rights. They are special rights for some.
Wanna try again?
I understood his response. What he's saying is that PA laws protect groups that have historically been targeted for discrimination.
In some states they have obviously encountered issues with weight and discrimination since they added weight to their anti discrimination laws.
Weight Discrimination
The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
I'm not sure he said all that, but I wasn't saying his post wasn't understandable. It was clear enough. I don't even disagree. Just that had nothing to do with mine. He's just typing for the hell of it, I suppose.
Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.
You're simply wrong. That an action is motivated by a thought doesn't mean its the thought that is being regulated. If such were the case then premediated murder would be 'thought control' by your standards. As would any action motivated by any thought. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense. Thoughts and actions aren't the same. And regulating one isn't 'controlling' the other.
You can think whatever you'd like. But when those thoughts motivate action, that's when the regulation can apply.
Denying the cake based on sexual orientation was an action. And regulating action is well within the authority of the govenrment. Especially State governments on issues of intra state commerce. Over which they clearly have jurisdiction.
To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.
Just as killing isn't illegal. Only killing for the wrong reasons. What's your point? That state government isn't allowed to set criteria for the regulation of behavior?
You're obviously wrong again. Of course they can.
The stipulations defining different kinds of murder are concerned with intent, not motive.
Intent is a thought. And thus meets your nonsense 'thought control standard'. If we inexplicably equate thought with action.
Which no one does.
The only question is how deliberate the act was, because we have different punishments based on how much responsibility can be reasonably assigned. But murder isn't right or wrong based on why someone was killed. To make a valid comparison you'd have to find laws that said murder was only wrong if you did it because you didn't like the person's race (religion, gender, etc... ), but otherwise was fine.
My analogy is perfectly fine. As our standard is the regulation of action. Once you move from thinking to doing, you've crossed a threshold. You can think without doing and you don't meet the same threshold. The State doesn't regulate thought. The state regulates action. And has every right to do so.
Your 'thought control' nonsense only works if we equate thought with action. Which doesn't work. As you can think without acting with no consequence or legal intervention. Its only when you move past thought to include action that you fall under the regulation of the law.
I don't see how you can steer around the central point here. These kinds of laws put government in charge of deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't. When they agree with you, I guess it can seem like an ok policy, but what if things change? What if someone with different values than you is in charge of deciding which opinions are valid?
The law doesn't regulate opinion. It regulates actions. You can hold whatever opinions you like. But when you act on those opinions, your actions are subject to regulation. You are again equating thought with action. And they aren't the same thing. The entire premise of your argument is simple nonsense.
Our ability to express our values through "the company we keep" is a key component of social morality.
Not in the context of public business. In private life you have every right to express your values in that manner. Public business is a public act and an act of commerce. When engaged in commerce you are subject to regulation by the State governments. You can be held to minimum standards of conduct in business.
It's what allows us to function as a society without laws policing our every action.
Ivory tower bullshit. In the real world, we don't base our ability to police ourselves on denying gay people cake. Denying goods and services to black people does not 'allow us to function as a society'. Its entirely possible to work as a society and set minimum standards of conduct in business. As every society does.
We work and deal with the people who share our values, we avoid those who oppose them. That's a fundamental human right.
Denying black people goods and services is not a 'fundamental human right'. Refusing to employ women is not a 'fundamental human right'. Insisting black folks get to the back of the bus is not a 'fundamental human right.
Again, commerce is a public act. And the state has every authority to regulate public actions. Private associations are most definitely yours alone to define. You can wave your dick at a mirror to your heart's content in private. But wave it at traffic on a street corner and you're going to run into trouble.
Public, by definition, involves more than just you. And as such effects more than just you.
Commerce is the way goods and sevices are distributed in our society. This is how we get our food, our clothing, our shelter. And denial of goods and services can have a dramatic impact on other people. And we've seen it play out as a method of abuse and control and exploitation. Those States with PA laws decided that in such public acts that there should be minimum standards of conduct to prevent those predictable outcomes or to enforce the conception of justice held by its people.
And establishing standard of public conduct is not only within the authority of society, its exists in every society. You're insisting that society can enforce NO standards of public conduct. And you're simply wrong.
Stripping it from people simply because they are "engaged in commerce" is merely an inroad made possible by the commerce clause.
We're speaking of State PA laws. The commerce clause has nothing to do with it as it defines federal power. And you know this. The authority of the State to regulate intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State.
There's nothing inherently different about commerce than any other human interaction, and if we allow this kind of policy in the name of business regulation, we're going to get it other arenas as well.
We already regulate action in other arenas. And we always have. This mythical society where there is no regulation of actions in public, where there is no enforcement of any standards of public conduct does not exist nor has ever existed.
And we've seen the product of permitting the kind of rampant discrimination against blacks, jews, women, gays, etc in our society. Our society finds the outcome of such acts to be unacceptable. And has regulated accordingly. These are choices that society has the authority to make.
You ignore the outcome of the policies you propose, ignore the history of discrimination that is the product of them, ignore the vast and systematic impact on the lives of individuals, and instead imagine an ivory tower society in which society does not nor cannot regulate public behavior nor enforce any standards of public conduct.
The negative outcomes of your policies is real. While your mythic society of no regulation is imaginary.
Alright. Ostrich up. The reactionaries are coming back, and they're going to use this shit against you.
Alright. Ostrich up. The reactionaries are coming back, and they're going to use this shit against you.
And by 'ostrich up', you mean recognize that your society in which no standards of public behavior are regulated has never existed?
Or is it the recognition of the massive harm caused by your policies in the past?
You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?
They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?
You crack me up Wytch.
For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.
Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?
Cheaper then lez porn, huh?
See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.
No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?
As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.
This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.
So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."Shower at home Pops.
For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
Bake your own damn cake?
See how that works?
Then there's this.
Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller
Maybe straights should just all shower at home?
Funny, YOU wanted the USSC to make same sex couples declared similarily situated, now that they did, you want them NOT considered that way?
You are a hoot Wytch, simply a hoot.
I see how your mind works, Poppy, but you obviously don't see how life and the law works. You are not being denied public accommodation. You are not denied access to a facility. You can pee and shower. No laws have been broken.
If you would like to petition a private company for gender neutral bathrooms, go for it. Heck sweetie pie, you can even sue. Best of luck.
