Logical extensions of bathroom decision

[Lowe0]

No it does not, nor did I claim it did. But apparently some think it grants them the right not to be offended.

We have two fundamentally incompatible cultures sharing a single land area. People are inevitably going to be offended.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

We have two fundamentally incompatible cultures sharing a single land area. People are inevitably going to be offended.

But only one of those cultures has the backing of the ACLU and the Feds to come to their defense. Say anything disparaging about one subset and it's hate speech. Say something equally disparaging about the other subset and it's "Oh get over it. You're not being persecuted." I find that hypocritical, don't you? There IS such a thing as the tyranny of the minority, and we're seeing it more and more every day under the guise of "equality", when in reality, there is nothing equal about it.

 

[Lowe0]

But only one of those cultures has the backing of the ACLU and the Feds to come to their defense. Say anything disparaging about one subset and it's hate speech. Say something equally disparaging about the other subset and it's "Oh get over it. You're not being persecuted." I find that hypocritical, don't you? There IS such a thing as the tyranny of the minority, and we're seeing it more and more every day under the guise of "equality", when in reality, there is nothing equal about it.

Yes, if only the other side had its own organizational juggernaut in its corner. Perhaps a millennia-old one with 70% of the population as members?

 

[Leadeye]

The way out of this mess for private enterprise will probably be just to add new restrooms, the materials and labor being cheaper than the lawsuits which could come from any direction. I don't see it as a lasting solution though, people fixated on using the restroom of their choice probably won't be happy with having one of their own.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes, if only the other side had its own organizational juggernaut in its corner. Perhaps a millennia-old one with 70% of the population as members?

Which matters not. Hence my comment about the tyranny of the minority. Being in the majority isn't cool. It's hip to claim victimhood. It sells internet clicks.

 

[Lowe0]

Which matters not. Hence my comment about the tyranny of the minority. Being in the majority isn't cool. It's hip to claim victimhood. It sells internet clicks.

Have you considered that people may be supporting LGBT rights not because it's cool, but because it's the moral thing to do?

 

[printcraft]

Have you considered that people may be supporting LGBT rights not because it's cool, but because it's the moral thing to do?

The majority do due to crowd shaming.

 

[Lowe0]

The majority do due to crowd shaming.

Nice assertion. Don't suppose it comes with any evidence?

 

[jamil]

Unfortunately, during the Reagan administration, Federal and State support for mental healthcare was significantly scaled back. The burden of care was shifted to the individual, and therefore largely dropped altogether. Now we appear to be "normalizing" those with issues that once received the care they needed. Reap what we sow, I suppose.

As for the "cat person" - spay/neuter and declaw. If she cannot then be "adopted", euthanize. Issue resolved, with 100% equal treatment to the species to which she identifies. Be careful what you wish for.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eldirector again."

 

[The Meach]

Funny, bathrooms used to be treated the same way.

do you have any material on that? Is there any standing or past law inolving genders and bathrooms that could be relevant here? I was under the impression that we were wandering into new judicial and legislative territory. And that's what all this hub-ub is about.

Ah, if only they would afford others the same courtesy. No, they are very much saying that we have to accept it. Anything less than complete acceptance is bigotry according to the left.

Again nobody from the left is using the force of law to force anybody accept anything. Sure there may be cultural pressures at play but that's outside the realm of law and a honestly something I don't concern myself with.

The only entity here that has brought the force of law to bear here is the state of North Carolina. The "Left" may be leaning hard on cultural change and altering the existing social contract. But the "Right" has used the force of law to interfere with individuals rights and privacy.

I'll just quote my own post frome above

granting government the power to subjectively exert authority by force on individuals by no other probable cause but their outward appearance sounds like the motheload of terrible ideas.

This seems like a simple debate until the realities of enforcement are brought to bear.

 

[printcraft]

Nice assertion. Don't suppose it comes with any evidence?

Poll Shows The Majority Of Americans Oppose Transgender People Using Preferred Bathroom


Also: what makes supporting transgenders a positive moral decision?
That would solely depend on the perspective of the individual person.

 

[Lowe0]

Poll Shows The Majority Of Americans Oppose Transgender People Using Preferred Bathroom


Also: what makes supporting transgenders a positive moral decision?
That would solely depend on the perspective of the individual person.

I'm sure there are polls both ways: Poll: 6-in-10 oppose bills like the North Carolina transgender bathroom law - CNNPolitics.com

As for what makes it moral? That's easy. Are they harming anyone? If not, then what moral justification do I have for restricting them?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

do you have any material on that? Is there any standing or past law inolving genders and bathrooms that could be relevant here? I was under the impression that we were wandering into new judicial and legislative territory. And that's what all this hub-ub is about.



Again nobody from the left is using the force of law to force anybody accept anything. Sure there may be cultural pressures at play but that's outside the realm of law and a honestly something I don't concern myself with.

The only entity here that has brought the force of law to bear here is the state of North Carolina. The "Left" may be leaning hard on cultural change and altering the existing social contract. But the "Right" has used the force of law to interfere with individuals rights and privacy.

I'll just quote my own post frome above



This seems like a simple debate until the realities of enforcement are brought to bear.

Nobody is using force of law? Hate speech legislation mean anything to you (especially as it is selectively applied)? When someone defaces a mosque for example, it's news and the left is going on a witch hunt to find the islamophobic hate mongers. If a Christian church is burned to the ground, eh, just arson or vandalism... no hate there. And that's just criminal law. What about civil law? There was just a story in the news a couple of days ago about a mother that was going to bring suit against a school because she felt their rules were discriminatory because of a certain hairstyle that her daughter wore. She said her daughter was forever harmed because of the school's rules. (I submit that if her daughter were harmed it was because her mother raised such a big stink about what should have been a trivial matter.)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm sure there are polls both ways: Poll: 6-in-10 oppose bills like the North Carolina transgender bathroom law - CNNPolitics.com

As for what makes it moral? That's easy. Are they harming anyone? If not, then what moral justification do I have for restricting them?

Ah there we go. The "If it feels good, do it" approach. If it were evenly applied, that might work. It's not.

 

[The Meach]

Nobody is using force of law? Hate speech legislation mean anything to you (especially as it is selectively applied)? When someone defaces a mosque for example, it's news and the left is going on a witch hunt to find the islamophobic hate mongers. If a Christian church is burned to the ground, eh, just arson or vandalism... no hate there. And that's just criminal law. What about civil law? There was just a story in the news a couple of days ago about a mother that was going to bring suit against a school because she felt their rules were discriminatory because of a certain hairstyle that her daughter wore. She said her daughter was forever harmed because of the school's rules. (I submit that if her daughter were harmed it was because her mother raised such a big stink about what should have been a trivial matter.)

First, there is no hate speech law I know of in the US. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that. Now hate crime enhancements ( nothing to do with free speech) were made because we have a super ****ty history with minorities in this country. Do I always agree with how they are applied? No. Am I understanding of their origin? Yes. Unless you think burning a cross in a black man's lawn is "just" vandalism.

Civil suits against public schools are a dime a dozen and we can get way into the weeds on that stuff. My general opinion is that public schools should back off unless they can prove the hair, clothes, makeup, whatever is actually disruptive to the class.

But what do either of those things have to do with Transsexual bathroom rights in North Carolina?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

First, there is no hate speech law I know of in the US. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that. Now hate crime enhancements ( nothing to do with free speech) were made because we have a super ****ty history with minorities in this country. Do I always agree with how they are applied? No. Am I understanding of their origin? Yes. Unless you think burning a cross in a black man's lawn is "just" vandalism.

Civil suits against public schools are a dime a dozen and we can get way into the weeds on that stuff. My general opinion is that public schools should back off unless they can prove the hair, clothes, makeup, whatever is actually disruptive to the class.

But what do either of those things have to do with Transsexual bathroom rights in North Carolina?

What it has to do with the transsexual bathroom rights issue is that the issue is being blown out of proportion because of an almost infinitesimally small percentage of the population is being portrayed as a large population of victims, while the vast majority are told that their views and feelings don't count. Talk about being marginalized. I am not saying that the (infinitesimally small) minority should be ignored, but the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the majority is now being shamed into going along. The pendulum needs to stop and come to rest in the middle (where common sense and decency lies). But as I mentioned up thread, victimhood sells internet clicks.

 

[The Meach]

What it has to do with the transsexual bathroom rights issue is that the issue is being blown out of proportion because of an almost infinitesimally small percentage of the population is being portrayed as a large population of victims, while the vast majority are told that their views and feelings don't count. Talk about being marginalized. I am not saying that the (infinitesimally small) minority should be ignored, but the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the majority is now being shamed into going along. The pendulum needs to stop and come to rest in the middle (where common sense and decency lies). But as I mentioned up thread, victimhood sells internet clicks.

Of Course this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. no argument there.

but the Transsexuals didn't DO anything. The state of North Carolina did when they wrote an entire Law about it. I don't think anybody thinks Trans are a large population. And the people against this view this as big government picking on the little guy.

And when it comes to someone else's rights Your feelings DON'T count. Sorry if you feel marginalized.

 

[Lowe0]

What it has to do with the transsexual bathroom rights issue is that the issue is being blown out of proportion because of an almost infinitesimally small percentage of the population is being portrayed as a large population of victims, while the vast majority are told that their views and feelings don't count.

If you're not being harmed, then what specifically is supposed to be taken into account?

 

[IndyDave1776]

And twenty states explicitly banned civil unions. You sure you want to try to win this on numbers?

But hey, keep arguing for "separate but equal" if you want.

Damn you're talented at being willfully obtuse. The numbers are irrelevant. The point at issue is that after one particularly contentions fight, they were offered a reasonable alternative assigning everything but legislative imprimatur through the use of the word 'marriage', and they vocally rejected equal rights throwing a f**king sh*t fit until they got legislated imprimatur tantamount to policing thought. That was enough to take me from a modicum of sympathy to none whatsoever, but I understand that you are going to scream up a lung following the leftist line to the end.

Since you apparently don't understand the point, let me reiterate. Equality does not include legislating and/or adjudicating social acceptance, and no one is entitled to government-enforced social acceptance, which so far as I can see is a major part of this issue.

 

[Lowe0]

Damn you're talented at being willfully obtuse. The numbers are irrelevant. The point at issue is that after one particularly contentions fight, they were offered a reasonable alternative assigning everything but legislative imprimatur through the use of the word 'marriage', and they vocally rejected equal rights throwing a f**king sh*t fit until they got legislated imprimatur tantamount to policing thought. That was enough to take me from a modicum of sympathy to none whatsoever, but I understand that you are going to scream up a lung following the leftist line to the end.

Since you apparently don't understand the point, let me reiterate. Equality does not include legislating and/or adjudicating social acceptance, and no one is entitled to government-enforced social acceptance, which so far as I can see is a major part of this issue.

Separate but equal is your idea of a "reasonable alternative"?