Yeah, way to show more instances of when non-discrimination laws facilitate sexual assault. Story 1 has no sexual assault. And story 2 has none either. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...hetoric-and-transgender-bathroom-battles.html Hey, texxx, you're starting to sound a bit like a SJW! What are you doing about the above stats other than the whole transgender protection bit that does absolutely nothing? Or are your irrelevant 5 incidents representative of millions of cases? Yeah, conventional gender roles right now are A+ fantastic which is why we should discriminate against a sexual minority.
"I stand with those who wish to protect their safety."--what, like Jane Doe Inc.? "Beyond specious to say laws will lead to sexual assault". Or 250 other partners? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sexual-assault-bathroom-law_us_57190d25e4b0d912d5fdda6b LOL
Look at you having to change the topic and pursue a pitiful line of logic. This law gives creepers cover to go into the women's restroom and endanger the safety of women and little girls. All examples I shared highlight this window of opportunity for the wrong-doers. I do enjoy watching you get all defensive and scramble to find some links that you think are relevant, but aren't. In situations like this, it's best for you to slink away and accept your humiliating defeat, rather than try to dig out of your hole.
Way to go PC bro's! It seems women with a male physique are being harassed more than ever over this issue. Its a real shame innocent people are being victimized by an extreme minorities bathroom obsession issue. https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/women-harassed-in-bathroom-for-appearing-205610620.html
What changing? Show me more examples of non-discrimination laws facilitating sexual assault. So I can show you 250+ organizations that actually work at reducing sexual assault contradict you. http://www.politifact.com/north-car...ty-nc-director-no-public-safety-risks-cities/ At least dig out the allegations in the States involving people who didn't make it their thing to violate sexual assault laws on the regular BEFORE non-discrimination laws were passed. Maybe this is why the regressive ideas you believe in are going to die
Yeah, the fact that you live in a society that did the shaming before and now seem adamant about it now makes me think you have no credibility on the issue. But, yeah, let's fix the issue: legislative reconciling of inconsistent laws
Northside - tell me this. 1. Do you believe there are creepers out there who wish to enter women's bathrooms to peep on women, and potentially molest and/or assault them? 2. Do you believe making a law that provides these creepers cover to enter a women's bathroom is a good idea? Your answer should be in the form: 1. Yes (or no) 2. Yes (or no)
I honestly dont care about the issue one way or another. I find it a bigger issue that people are making an issue out of this, either way. Its ludicrous that some believe we need to legislate this. In the end, it hurts way more people than it helps. I have sympathy for people who get harassed simply the way they look. I have little sympathy for those who think they deserve a relatively unimportant right at the expense of others. I understand we do not always need to take the path of least resistance, but you PC Bros are taking the path of the absolute most resistance. If I appear against this issue, this is the reason why.
1) HELL YES 2) HELL NO My turn for two questions: 1) Why do you think non-discrimination laws "provide cover for creepers" when you couldn't find a credible incident (not ONE) and you're being contradicted by 250+ organizations who actually give a lot of s**ts about sexual assault? I and the Human Rights Commission flatly contradicted your example with the Seattle incident. Read again? 2) Since when do you give THIS much of a s**t about sexual assault?
um, wut. The path of absolute resistance being gender identity protections enshrined in discrimination provisions consistently? Not too much resistance there--really an Appeals court ruling that stands on, or a Supreme without Scalia. I don't know if you know too many transgender people who say this hurts them more than helps, but I'd like specific examples of the people you sympathize with.
Correct. I am not following you, because it is a ridiculous path to take. There is nothing facilitating assaults. Show me some assaults that have happened before that have caused you to be afraid of this fantasy scenario. You act like guys didn't have peep holes in women's bathrooms before this....which was still illegal. Do you worry about men assaulting you in the men's restrooms? I mean there are actual cases of men having sexual encounters in men's restrooms. I posted one earlier. And honestly how would you feel if some trans woman walked in the men's restroom? Aroused? Frightened? Angered? Happy? Supportive?
So you surrender? OK. Stereotypes? I'm talking about abuses. The Charlotte ordinance was stupid and HB2 was an over-reach. Try again. "Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers. "Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family." Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-ba...-discrimination/15594951/#Hm0ytCw1RAROGJi4.99 If you are not going to be specific with counter-intelligence, please don't just spout off to try and impress us.
Well I'm happy that you share my views on these important two questions. Now continue reading and I will completely dismantle your simplistic logic. 1. Yet another example of how cover is provided. All a creeper has to do is throw on a dress and people will be afraid to question her for fear of being labeled a bigot. Boom. ...drops mic http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html 2. Since always.
From you? UNLIKELY Couldn't even type one sentence without tossing a turd off of Bullsh!t Mountain. Nice straw man, nobody has claimed it does. As we have seen repeatedly throughout all of recorded history, employers will take advantage of their employees if given half a chance. Small businesses are not bound by minimum wage laws, so a great many businesses can indeed negotiate "mutually acceptable terms," bigger businesses should be bound to pay a minimum wage. In theory, yes. The empirical evidence shows that reasonable increases in minimum wage don't meaningfully impact employment. I realize you care more for theory and ideology than facts and evidence, but that's your failing. No, their origins were in the FDR era, when he paid federal employees a high enough wage that other employers had to respond without minimum wage legislation. http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-origin-2015-7
Greg Abbott Verified account @GregAbbott_TX JFK wanted to send a man to the moon. Obama wants to send a man to the women's restroom. We must get our country back on track. #tcot [tweet https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/732586745481547776 ]
In this grand pointless issue, there is only one form of discrimination; Women do not want penis's in their facility. This has nothing to do with transgenders. Quit making it out like this is on par with civil rights for blacks or women. Its not. If you are going to let one penis in, then all should be allowed in. Thus, unisex. But clearly the likes of you do not want this. I was not implying transgenders were hurt by this, even though they are. All of this idiotic rambling on by both sides have upset many across this nation. They have been embolden to call out anyone that may remotely look the opposite sex. Where as before, this was little issue sans an incident here and there. As others have pointed out, TG's have been using whatever restroom they wanted for years. People like you need to accept that there are assholes out in the world and need to quit trying to change them. We are all intolerant of some group in one form or fashion. Get off your high horse.
I have never made it out to be like the Civil Rights Movement, I have simply stated that the Supreme Court should reconcile inconsistent laws and I have a very low tolerance for people who think things just because. It's great that people are intolerant, but I don't accept that a country's laws have to be as a result. I don't know what's so high horse about appealing to the law to protect against irrational discrimination.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry/nc-gov-pat-mccrory-defends-hb2-meet-press/ Bolded is mostly false (see Politifact above). http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article58005098.html The big thing is the system of fines though... Not saying that doesn't suck, but this whole "this will unleash the tides of hell on my business" is quite exaggerated. Factually speaking, there would be no "systems of fines" despite what business owner X thought, unless they maybe violated the injunction the city may seek or you consider the suspension of city contracts "fines".
1. LOL this is getting f**king ridiculous. I have to point out that is not a case of sexual assault, that this case is covered by current laws, that your tangential fear didn't even come true because the man was arrested for breaking actual laws while cross-dressing (which really had nothing to do with him being in a dress) because the woman didn't hesitate an iota to report that s**t. what other boogiemen do you have? Show me more examples of non-discrimination laws facilitating sexual assault. Google harder, drone. As for 2., you should act like it more often.
