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.
Your post clearly show that you abandon Christian duty: you clearly hate the sinner. I am not championing the morality or not of the LGBT any more than I condemn your cheating ways. I do champion their right to be what they are and don't care if you disagree.
Flaky's typical weak argument...
How quick Flaky forgets the Christian loves the sinner...
But blames the Christian who doesn't love the sin...
What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
Why respect a mental illness?What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
Are you sure those acts were committed by a trannie?They should not be harassed but beaten beyond that last inch. The girl that was choked. The woman that was beaten can be traced right back to the transgendered.They are the cause of all these dangerous changes in the laws.I hope so many dead bodies are found in restrooms that this asinine policy ends and saves many more lives. This started with transgendered whining. There's nothing wrong with it being open season on them.
What the hell did they ever do to you?
A tiny minority, who just wants to use the bathroom without harrassment...is not the cause of "dangerous" things?
Ever been in a ladies room? It's not the den of iniquity you all seem to think.
How about your young daughter or young son?
I don’t know who has an issue with using a same sex bathroom. However, kids not being mature and intact more often than not immature….no thanks. Your daughter or son you take to Chase Field or to an ASU game and they go to the restroom; you don’t expect them to see members of the other sex in that room.
I’m sorry but adults who will abuse kids is a real concern; adults who will photograph kids is a real concern.
How about your young daughter or young son?
I don’t know who has an issue with using a same sex bathroom. However, kids not being mature and intact more often than not immature….no thanks. Your daughter or son you take to Chase Field or to an ASU game and they go to the restroom; you don’t expect them to see members of the other sex in that room.
I’m sorry but adults who will abuse kids is a real concern; adults who will photograph kids is a real concern.
Dear candycorn
If the only condition by which people would accept such facility policies is to vote on
which guards to keep on duty in the restrooms, then the govt/people in each city can pay to keep a pair of guards at every facility in question. By the time you're looking at costs, the unisex restrooms seem more cost-effective.
It is not a "belief"What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
It is not a "belief"What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?
Your post clearly show that you abandon Christian duty: you clearly hate the sinner.
I am not championing the morality or not of the LGBT any more than I condemn your cheating ways.
I do champion their right to be what they are and don't care if you disagree.
GWV5903, you are not acting as our Lord and Savior clearly revealed in scripture.
No one is asking you about your opinion on the morality of the LGBT. Why? Because your moral opinion remains irrelevant. That you think LGBT have a choice is irrelevant.
You can believe women should not vote, or that people of color are second class citizens, or that LGBT are despicable. But your sniveling explanations mean noothing.
You are wrong.
LGBT and their rights are recognized by courts and legislatures are facts.
Your moral weakness, GWV5903, is that you think you can speak for and rule in the name of God, and your weakness too is meaningless.
How often do you share those opinions in Austin?
How about your young daughter or young son?
I don’t know who has an issue with using a same sex bathroom. However, kids not being mature and intact more often than not immature….no thanks. Your daughter or son you take to Chase Field or to an ASU game and they go to the restroom; you don’t expect them to see members of the other sex in that room.
I’m sorry but adults who will abuse kids is a real concern; adults who will photograph kids is a real concern.
Dear candycorn
If the only condition by which people would accept such facility policies is to vote on
which guards to keep on duty in the restrooms, then the govt/people in each city can pay to keep a pair of guards at every facility in question. By the time you're looking at costs, the unisex restrooms seem more cost-effective.
I am of the opinion that if a man/woman come out of a restroom and report a person of a different sex is in that restroom; the offender should be arrested.
If you got a pecker, use the men’s room.
If you don’t, use the women’s room.
If society has provided you with these 2 choices, society is under no obligation to make you more comfortable.
It is not a "belief"What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?
And the topper is that somehow a gender confused gal/guy will be offended by spending 30-90 seconds in a restroom. It is liberalism run amuck.
It's 3% of men, dumbass. You already pee with them so, relax. They aren't out to touch your tiny thing.First queer I find in a men's room gets his ass beat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's 3% of men, dumbass. You already pee with them so, relax. They aren't out to touch your tiny thing.First queer I find in a men's room gets his ass beat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah, you are not manly enough.It's 3% of men, dumbass. You already pee with them so, relax. They aren't out to touch your tiny thing.First queer I find in a men's room gets his ass beat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They don't need to touch, asshole
Just be in a fucking men's room
Ass kicked
Period
That's most likely a man and a woman. And I wouldn't fuck with gay men, they work out a lot and will very likely kick your homophobic ass.It's 3% of men, dumbass. You already pee with them so, relax. They aren't out to touch your tiny thing.First queer I find in a men's room gets his ass beat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They don't need to touch, asshole
Just be in a fucking men's room
Ass kicked
Period
