The horrifying experience in a Target bathroom that I won't soon forget

[Pop23]

You've lost any credibility since you claimed that anything created after the constitution and it's amendments were ratified dont apply to the 14th amendment.

I did no such thing, and you can't prove I did.

Did you not write:

"I don't need anything from you. I'd enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to prove that it applies to restrooms in retail stores (i.e., private establishments), considering it was written in a time before indoor plumbing."


Done dufus.

Subordinate clause, i.e., dependent upon the independent clause or the gist of the sentence. See if you can respond to the main thought of that sentence, which is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to restrooms.

Let's see you make the argument that it does.

Please, that would then make the whites only restrooms justified under the 14th amendment

But go on with your argument.

Should be interesting to say the least.

 

[Arianrhod]

You've lost any credibility since you claimed that anything created after the constitution and it's amendments were ratified dont apply to the 14th amendment.

I did no such thing, and you can't prove I did.

Did you not write:

"I don't need anything from you. I'd enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to prove that it applies to restrooms in retail stores (i.e., private establishments), considering it was written in a time before indoor plumbing."


Done dufus.

Subordinate clause, i.e., dependent upon the independent clause or the gist of the sentence. See if you can respond to the main thought of that sentence, which is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to restrooms.

Let's see you make the argument that it does.

Please, that would then make the whites only restrooms justified under the 14th amendment

How so?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Surprise, who would have ever saw this kind of scenario coming ?

This woman is obviously a bigot, and she should be shunned for expressing herself in this fashion.


Using a Target bathroom got really uncomfortable really fast

I went to Target with my daughter last week, and since it was right after dinner and I'd had three iced teas with my Mexican food, I made a pit stop to the restroom first thing while she went on ahead to check out the swimsuits.

I was alone in the restroom. There were two large handicap-access stalls, complete with baby-changing tables, and two regular stalls. I headed all the way down to the farthest single stall, up against the wall, and I sat down to take care of business.

That's when stuff got weird.

The outer door opened, and someone came in. She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me.

I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre, even. This wasn't a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren't really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away, into one of the larger stalls.

I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out.

"Sorry about that," she said. "But you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom now. I was making sure you were a woman."

I didn't say a word, because I really didn't know how to answer that.

MORE: The horrifying experience in a Target bathroom that I won't soon forget

Exactly what we said would happen...the RW becoming Peeping Toms and Potty Police. Very creepy.

What the hell you turning this shit on us. You're the ones who want to allow grown pedophile men legal access to the same restroom as our daughters.

 

[Pop23]

You've lost any credibility since you claimed that anything created after the constitution and it's amendments were ratified dont apply to the 14th amendment.

I did no such thing, and you can't prove I did.

Did you not write:

"I don't need anything from you. I'd enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to prove that it applies to restrooms in retail stores (i.e., private establishments), considering it was written in a time before indoor plumbing."


Done dufus.

Subordinate clause, i.e., dependent upon the independent clause or the gist of the sentence. See if you can respond to the main thought of that sentence, which is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to restrooms.

Let's see you make the argument that it does.

Please, that would then make the whites only restrooms justified under the 14th amendment

How so?

You brought up subordination.

Cite the use in reference to the restroom issue

And while you're at it, kindly explain how using a restroom designated for your gender disadvantages you over others of the same gender.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The peeping woman isn't necessarily a bigot or a hater. But she is an idiot and she did do a very creepy thing. She was the only creepy person in that restroom.

Are you peeping in the stalls to make sure that the person inside is legit? Are you a creep?

No, but you see that's the whole point. Target has created a situation where some people may now feel compelled to do such a thing because they now feel more vulnerable and exposed.

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target if you're not comfortable doing so. There is no rights in the Target restroom. It's private property and they may set whatever policy they choose as long as they aren't excluding anyone. Peeping on someone in a stall is not acceptable by anyone of any sex at any time. That is the only questionable behavior under discussion.

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The peeping woman isn't necessarily a bigot or a hater. But she is an idiot and she did do a very creepy thing. She was the only creepy person in that restroom.

Are you peeping in the stalls to make sure that the person inside is legit? Are you a creep?

No, but you see that's the whole point. Target has created a situation where some people may now feel compelled to do such a thing because they now feel more vulnerable and exposed.

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target.

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

 

[Pop23]

No, but you see that's the whole point. Target has created a situation where some people may now feel compelled to do such a thing because they now feel more vulnerable and exposed.

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target if you're not comfortable doing so. There is no rights in the Target restroom. It's private property and they may set whatever policy they choose as long as they aren't excluding anyone. Peeping on someone in a stall is not acceptable by anyone of any sex at any time. That is the only questionable behavior under discussion.

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

 

[bodecea]

Surprise, who would have ever saw this kind of scenario coming ?

This woman is obviously a bigot, and she should be shunned for expressing herself in this fashion.


Using a Target bathroom got really uncomfortable really fast

I went to Target with my daughter last week, and since it was right after dinner and I'd had three iced teas with my Mexican food, I made a pit stop to the restroom first thing while she went on ahead to check out the swimsuits.

I was alone in the restroom. There were two large handicap-access stalls, complete with baby-changing tables, and two regular stalls. I headed all the way down to the farthest single stall, up against the wall, and I sat down to take care of business.

That's when stuff got weird.

The outer door opened, and someone came in. She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me.

I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre, even. This wasn't a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren't really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away, into one of the larger stalls.

I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out.

"Sorry about that," she said. "But you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom now. I was making sure you were a woman."

I didn't say a word, because I really didn't know how to answer that.

MORE: The horrifying experience in a Target bathroom that I won't soon forget

Exactly what we said would happen...the RW becoming Peeping Toms and Potty Police. Very creepy.

What the hell you turning this shit on us. You're the ones who want to allow grown pedophile men legal access to the same restroom as our daughters.

You are the ones encouraging Peeping Toms in public restrooms.

 

[Pop23]

No, but you see that's the whole point. Target has created a situation where some people may now feel compelled to do such a thing because they now feel more vulnerable and exposed.

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target.

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

 

[Pop23]

Surprise, who would have ever saw this kind of scenario coming ?

This woman is obviously a bigot, and she should be shunned for expressing herself in this fashion.


Using a Target bathroom got really uncomfortable really fast

I went to Target with my daughter last week, and since it was right after dinner and I'd had three iced teas with my Mexican food, I made a pit stop to the restroom first thing while she went on ahead to check out the swimsuits.

I was alone in the restroom. There were two large handicap-access stalls, complete with baby-changing tables, and two regular stalls. I headed all the way down to the farthest single stall, up against the wall, and I sat down to take care of business.

That's when stuff got weird.

The outer door opened, and someone came in. She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me.

I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre, even. This wasn't a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren't really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away, into one of the larger stalls.

I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out.

"Sorry about that," she said. "But you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom now. I was making sure you were a woman."

I didn't say a word, because I really didn't know how to answer that.

MORE: The horrifying experience in a Target bathroom that I won't soon forget

Exactly what we said would happen...the RW becoming Peeping Toms and Potty Police. Very creepy.

What the hell you turning this shit on us. You're the ones who want to allow grown pedophile men legal access to the same restroom as our daughters.

You are the ones encouraging Peeping Toms in public restrooms.

As often as you write about peeping Toms it would indicate you know them well?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target if you're not comfortable doing so. There is no rights in the Target restroom. It's private property and they may set whatever policy they choose as long as they aren't excluding anyone. Peeping on someone in a stall is not acceptable by anyone of any sex at any time. That is the only questionable behavior under discussion.

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

Sure. Target is being inclusive with it's policy, not exclusive. There is no requirement for anyone to use their restrooms so no civil-rights rights are in question.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Target did nothing. It's the creep's own dysfunction that caused the behavior.

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target.

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

Looking into an occupied stall is a deviant behavior. The very behavior she claims she was frightened of.

 

[Pop23]

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target if you're not comfortable doing so. There is no rights in the Target restroom. It's private property and they may set whatever policy they choose as long as they aren't excluding anyone. Peeping on someone in a stall is not acceptable by anyone of any sex at any time. That is the only questionable behavior under discussion.

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

Sure. Target is being inclusive with it's policy, not exclusive. There is no requirement for anyone to use their restrooms so no civil-rights rights are in question.

Inclusive how?

Allowing men in woman's restrooms?

Those they are allowing have legal documents that they are male. They share 100% of the biology of a male. Thier DNA is that of a male as is their chromosomes.

They never needed this "inclusion" nor do they need to intrude on the privacy of those of the opposite gender

 

[Pop23]

No, target gave NOTICE that they were allowing males in woman's restrooms. If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

If you fear for your own self, you have every right to do what you feel advisable to protect your rights.

Including not using the restroom at Target.

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

Looking into an occupied stall is a deviant behavior. The very behavior she claims she was frightened of.

No one denies that what she did was an invasion of privacy, but there is no evidence that she did so for titillation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Including not using the restroom at Target if you're not comfortable doing so. There is no rights in the Target restroom. It's private property and they may set whatever policy they choose as long as they aren't excluding anyone. Peeping on someone in a stall is not acceptable by anyone of any sex at any time. That is the only questionable behavior under discussion.

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

Sure. Target is being inclusive with it's policy, not exclusive. There is no requirement for anyone to use their restrooms so no civil-rights rights are in question.

Inclusive how?

Allowing men in woman's restrooms?

Those they are allowing have legal documents that they are male. They share 100% of the biology of a male. Thier DNA is that of a male as is their chromosomes.

They never needed this "inclusion" nor do they need to intrude on the privacy of those of the opposite gender

Inclusive of transgendered guests. Good thing they don't want or need your approval.

 

[Pop23]

You sure about that?

So, you think a shop owner can not serve colored folk?

You idiots crack me up.

You realize that Target, the one that sets all it's own rules, can't even open without public restrooms.

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

Sure. Target is being inclusive with it's policy, not exclusive. There is no requirement for anyone to use their restrooms so no civil-rights rights are in question.

Inclusive how?

Allowing men in woman's restrooms?

Those they are allowing have legal documents that they are male. They share 100% of the biology of a male. Thier DNA is that of a male as is their chromosomes.

They never needed this "inclusion" nor do they need to intrude on the privacy of those of the opposite gender

Inclusive of transgendered guests. Good thing they don't want or need your approval.

They are not excluded anywhere.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Including not using the restroom at Target.

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

Looking into an occupied stall is a deviant behavior. The very behavior she claims she was frightened of.

No one denies that what she did was an invasion of privacy, but there is no evidence that she did so for titillation.

Her intent is really irrelavent to the result.
She engaged in the very behavior and victimized another in the same way she herself feared. So you see, it wasn't the policy or any tranny causing the trouble, it was the actions of a stupid, fearful reactionary conservative loser who can't mind her own business.

 

[Pop23]

And surprisingly enough, same Is true of the tranny!

Oops, Houston we got a problem.

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

Looking into an occupied stall is a deviant behavior. The very behavior she claims she was frightened of.

No one denies that what she did was an invasion of privacy, but there is no evidence that she did so for titillation.

Her intent is really irrelavent to the result.
She engaged in the very behavior and victimized another in the same way she herself feared. So you see, it wasn't the policy or any tranny causing the trouble, it was the actions of a stupid, fearful reactionary conservative loser who can't mind her own business.

What evidence do you have that she was a conservative?

Before you stated she was a deviant without any evidence, now this.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You didn't even read what I posted.

I think I did. The rights you say you don't have on "private" property is nonsense.

Civil rights are not subject to the whims of the property owner. The property owner must comply to the standards the government sets to even be allowed to be in business.

Sure. Target is being inclusive with it's policy, not exclusive. There is no requirement for anyone to use their restrooms so no civil-rights rights are in question.

Inclusive how?

Allowing men in woman's restrooms?

Those they are allowing have legal documents that they are male. They share 100% of the biology of a male. Thier DNA is that of a male as is their chromosomes.

They never needed this "inclusion" nor do they need to intrude on the privacy of those of the opposite gender

Inclusive of transgendered guests. Good thing they don't want or need your approval.

They are not excluded anywhere.

That's your opinion. Others don't see it that way and aren't asking for your input. Don't like it? Don't use public restrooms. The same advice you offer trans people.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Except that's not necessary at target is it. The incident in the OP only involved a deviant conservative , not a " tranny".

There is no evidence that the woman was deviant. She had a fear because Target instituted an insane policy.

Looking into an occupied stall is a deviant behavior. The very behavior she claims she was frightened of.

No one denies that what she did was an invasion of privacy, but there is no evidence that she did so for titillation.

Her intent is really irrelavent to the result.
She engaged in the very behavior and victimized another in the same way she herself feared. So you see, it wasn't the policy or any tranny causing the trouble, it was the actions of a stupid, fearful reactionary conservative loser who can't mind her own business.

What evidence do you have that she was a conservative?

Before you stated she was a deviant without any evidence, now this.

Only a conservative would impose their deviant bullshit on others in that way to satisfy themselves. Liberals don't give a shit.