You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Right. I’m less concerned about actual transgender people than I am about guys who would pretend to be transgender in order to hang out in the women’s locker room. So far, I haven’t seen anyone in favor of these bathroom laws offer a solution to that problem.The first step in defeating your opponent’s position is to distort it. There isn’t that great a concern that men who have surgically or chemically made themselves look like women will use women’s rest rooms. The real problem comes from men who consider themselves to be men also using women’s facilities and justifying it simply by claiming to be women. An unwillingness to address the actual problem is a good indication that your opponent has no good way of responding to it.
Ender
If gender is merely a mental construct, by what basis could we determine that such a man is lying about being transgender? The law gives cover to guys who would normally be arrested for voyeurism or indecent exposure. All the guy would have to do is say that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body. In our current culture, who would want to be the one to accuse him of lying? Who would want to chance being wrong?
If there’s a solution to that concern, I would be very much interested in hearing it.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Since most multi-user restrooms have private toilet stalls with only the area where you wash your hands being shared, what would a voyeur see? Or do you suppose that they might stick their heads under the stall doors or take a peek in the cracks around the stall doors to take a look?Right. I’m less concerned about actual transgender people than I am about guys who would pretend to be transgender in order to hang out in the women’s locker room. So far, I haven’t seen anyone in favor of these bathroom laws offer a solution to that problem.
If gender is merely a mental construct, by what basis could we determine that such a man is lying about being transgender? The law gives cover to guys who would normally be arrested for voyeurism or indecent exposure. All the guy would have to do is say that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body. In our current culture, who would want to be the one to accuse him of lying? Who would want to chance being wrong?
If there’s a solution to that concern, I would be very much interested in hearing it.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Slavery was an institution, right. A very profitable one. I am not sure the left can really distinguish between capitalism and principle, if it is one of their own causes. Now, Exxon, that is another story…Again, should our core principles be governed by money?
The other thing that is interesting is that a majority of people in North Carolina believe the law should be repealed but also that bathroom use should be restricted to one’s brith gender. The poll answers don’t make any sense. The majority essentially support the provisions of the bill, but are being bullied by the corporate boycotts. Again, a majority of citizens in the state want what the law does. They are being bullied by corporate America.
And, none of these boycotting companies refuse to do business in countries that have very active anti-gay legislation - homosexuality is even illegal in some cases (Russia, Middle East). They are watching their own bottom line. They can afford to pull out of NC…simple as that. I think if it were more and more states, that would change. The other thing is that the liberal media is really pushing this story, in the state and the country. Those are the sources that are putting this out there. But the business community is worried; I don’t deny that. I think it would be interesting to see what happens in 5 years or so. If NC holds, that is. And more states put up this kind of straightforward legislation, which is actually quite reasonable.
We call it culture war for a reason, better than a real one…but still pretty ugly.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Article seems kind of light on specifics but fairly heavy on speculation.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Before five years is up, the Federal courts will have weighed in and declared the North Carolina law unconstitutional.I think it would be interesting to see what happens in 5 years or so. If NC holds, that is. And more states put up this kind of straightforward legislation, which is actually quite reasonable.
We call it culture war for a reason, better than a real one…but still pretty ugly.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Right, how can you actually measure this? The law was just enacted. It seems like you would have to wait a year at least.Article seems kind of light on specifics but fairly heavy on speculation.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Those concerns apply more so with locker rooms than bathrooms.Since most multi-user restrooms have private toilet stalls with only the area where you wash your hands being shared, what would a voyeur see? Or do you suppose that they might stick their heads under the stall doors or take a peek in the cracks around the stall doors to take a look?
C
clem456
Guest
A human being is black as a mattter of the way he/she is, from birth. The genetic makeup of a human being determines these things.So, a restaurant can refuse service to an African American that wants to sit at the front counter.
So a person’s “blackeness” or “whiteness” is intrinsic to their being human.
Skin color is one indispensable part of being a fully human person.
To deny a person anything based on part of their true humanity is an offense against human dignity.
Similarly, it is an offense against human dignity to pay a woman less money for the same work as a man. A woman simply is…it is not an invented or manufactured state in life. Like me claiming to be a pro basketball player cause I have arms, legs, a ball, and a desire. That’s a wish, and I can make a claim for rights. I should have these rights. I demand them, and I need the money and the affirmation.
Surely you can see the difference between intrinsic human characteristics, and a sex change operation. A sex change operation manufactures a characteristic and makes a claim to a right based on a deception.
Not even remotely the same thing.
And
Do not expect to have a more humane society if you are going to insist on deceptions about what it means to be human.
You will get exactly what you ask for…murder, genocide, abuse, unequal pay, starvation, euthanasia, bigotry and prejudice, etc…
The further this nonsense goes, the more barbaric society will become, because you can’t give human rights lip service. It asks for truth and commitment.
We just never learn from history. Sad.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So what about denying service to someone because you don’t like their religion? That’s not intrinsic. For example, would it be OK to deny service to a Muslim because you think that Islam is a heretical or bad religion?A human being is black as a mattter of the way he/she is, from birth. The genetic makeup of a human being determines these things.
So a person’s “blackeness” or “whiteness” is intrinsic to their being human.
Skin color is one indispensable part of being a fully human person.
To deny a person anything based on part of their true humanity is an offense against human dignity.
Similarly, it is an offense against human dignity to pay a woman less money for the same work as a man. A woman simply is…it is not an invented or manufactured state in life. Like me claiming to be a pro basketball player cause I have arms, legs, a ball, and a desire.
Surely you can see the difference between intrinsic human characteristics, and a sex change operation. A sex change operation manufactures a characteristic and makes a claim to a right based on a deception.
Not even remotely the same thing.
And
Do not expect to have a more humane society if you are going to insist on deceptions about what it means to be human.
You will get exactly what you ask for…murder, genocide, abuse, unequal pay, starvation, euthanasia, bigotry and prejudice, etc…
The further this nonsense goes, the more barbaric society will become, because you can’t give human rights lip service. It asks for truth and commitment.
We just never learn from history. Sad.
E
estesbob
Guest
Lets see if we can simplify this:So what about denying service to someone because you don’t like their religion? That’s not intrinsic. For example, would it be OK to deny service to a Muslim because you think that Islam is a heretical or bad religion?
Refusing to serve a person = BAD
Refusing to provide services for an event = OK
Bruce Springsteen just took option 2 and I dont see anyone on the Left accusing him of bigotry
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So would it be OK to refuse to bake a cake for a Muslim wedding because you don’t like Islam? Or how about refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage because you don’t think that the races should mix? Both of those would be refusing to provide service for an event (a wedding).Lets see if we can simplify this:
Refusing to serve a person = BAD
Refusing to provide services for an event = OK
Bruce Springsteen just took option 2 and I dont see anyone on the Left accusing him of bigotry
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I am not sure why it is so tough to use the bathroom that aligns with one’s physical makeup. Relieving bodily waste is hardly the arena to affirm one’s sex.Slavery was an institution, right. A very profitable one. I am not sure the left can really distinguish between capitalism and principle, if it is one of their own causes. Now, Exxon, that is another story…
The other thing that is interesting is that a majority of people in North Carolina believe the law should be repealed but also that bathroom use should be restricted to one’s brith gender. The poll answers don’t make any sense. The majority essentially support the provisions of the bill, but are being bullied by the corporate boycotts. Again, a majority of citizens in the state want what the law does. They are being bullied by corporate America.
And, none of these boycotting companies refuse to do business in countries that have very active anti-gay legislation - homosexuality is even illegal in some cases (Russia, Middle East). They are watching their own bottom line. They can afford to pull out of NC…simple as that. I think if it were more and more states, that would change. The other thing is that the liberal media is really pushing this story, in the state and the country. Those are the sources that are putting this out there. But the business community is worried; I don’t deny that. I think it would be interesting to see what happens in 5 years or so. If NC holds, that is. And more states put up this kind of straightforward legislation, which is actually quite reasonable.
We call it culture war for a reason, better than a real one…but still pretty ugly.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes both would be OK.So would it be OK to refuse to bake a cake for a Muslim wedding because you don’t like Islam? Or how about refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage because you don’t think that the races should mix? Both of those would be refusing to provide service for an event (a wedding).
M
Monkey1976
Guest
This. Just because an opinion is unpopular doesn’t mean it should be illegal to express it. Remember - even the ACLU defended the right of the American Nazi Party to openly march in Skokie. Rights apply to everyone, not just those with whom we agree.Yes both would be OK.
C
clem456
Guest
Yes it really is intrinsic to a human being to have a set of beliefs and want to express them. I think it is wrong to refuse service to Muslims.So what about denying service to someone because you don’t like their religion? That’s not intrinsic.
If you have issues with competing beliefs then you must weight those issues. If I ran a pharmacy and you wanted an abortifacient I should have the right to not provide. (you have other options anyway).
If you want me to put something blashpemous on a cake or some other violation of my beliefs, then we have an issue with competing beliefs.
Race is not like this at all.
Neither is gender.
Neither are a matter of belief.
I believe that would be wrong but I can see the case to be made on the other side.For example, would it be OK to deny service to a Muslim because you think that Islam is a heretical or bad religion?
meltzerboy
New member
What might be the societal implications of refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple, or a Muslim (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc.) wedding? That is, how far might this be taken, and how can it be supported by one’s RELIGIOUS belief rather than one’s own (prejudiced) personal belief? Do you prefer to make it an economic issue and let the free market decide?Yes both would be OK.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I was responded to a post that said that service can be refused for any event that a baker may feel uncomfortable with, so I think it’s a question if race would be included in that. What do you think? Would it be ok for a baker to refuse service to a black couple because his religious beliefs call for segregation?A human being is black as a mattter of the way he/she is, from birth. The genetic makeup of a human being determines these things.
So a person’s “blackeness” or “whiteness” is intrinsic to their being human.
Skin color is one indispensable part of being a fully human person.
To deny a person anything based on part of their true humanity is an offense against human dignity.
Similarly, it is an offense against human dignity to pay a woman less money for the same work as a man. A woman simply is…it is not an invented or manufactured state in life. Like me claiming to be a pro basketball player cause I have arms, legs, a ball, and a desire. That’s a wish, and I can make a claim for rights. I should have these rights. I demand them, and I need the money and the affirmation.
Surely you can see the difference between intrinsic human characteristics, and a sex change operation. A sex change operation manufactures a characteristic and makes a claim to a right based on a deception.
Not even remotely the same thing.
And
Do not expect to have a more humane society if you are going to insist on deceptions about what it means to be human.
You will get exactly what you ask for…murder, genocide, abuse, unequal pay, starvation, euthanasia, bigotry and prejudice, etc…
The further this nonsense goes, the more barbaric society will become, because you can’t give human rights lip service. It asks for truth and commitment.
We just never learn from history. Sad.
E
estesbob
Guest
Correct-just because i say someone should be able to do something does mean i agree with it.This. Just because an opinion is unpopular doesn’t mean it should be illegal to express it. Remember - even the ACLU defended the right of the American Nazi Party to openly march in Skokie. Rights apply to everyone, not just those with whom we agree.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.