Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[Vandalshandle]

I nominate Defcon4 as PR specialist for the GOP! I love it when the Right decides that social issues should be the Right's main agenda!

 

[Zoom-boing]

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

That happened to me when I was six months pregnant with my second kid. Not one person offered me a seat. I thought they were rude and wouldn't have done that. But I don't want some law requiring it.

So you don't think they should set aside seats for the handicapped and pregnant women?

Is that what I said?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

That happened to me when I was six months pregnant with my second kid. Not one person offered me a seat. I thought they were rude and wouldn't have done that. But I don't want some law requiring it.

So you don't think they should set aside seats for the handicapped and pregnant women?

Is that what I said?

Clarity is an amazing thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Anti trans laws don't "protect your family's young female members from sexual predators".

The system worked for centuries, all of a sudden perverts gained special attention because their votes are crucial for the left. Letting adult pervert males into women's restrooms is not anti trans law, it is promoting perversion.

Dear defcon4 and Seawytch
I am losing your points and arguments
because of this sidetracking about the perversion agenda issue.

Can I please ask your help to make a distinction between
(A) legal and legislative lobbying for LGBT inclusion
(a1) both changes to policy that are about stopping harassment
bullying and discrimination, similar to stopping harassment
and discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Atheists for beliefs
(a2) AND the contested/unconstitutional "overreaching"
policies that "go too far" and lead to penalties or harassment
of people who don't agree with LGBT beliefs that violate theirs)
where the contention is over DECLARING A CLASS similar
to RACE, but based on gender identity and orientation
^ These issues are plenty to address and I ask we focus here ^

(B) enabling or promoting "perversion" either deliberately or
by negligence or refusing to acknowledge flaws in the law
that invite abuses for criminal intent outside of (A)

^ arguing if people have perverse agenda is a third debate
and we haven't finished addressing the first two debates!

There are many people fighting about (A) which is key;
and who don't want any criminal abuses or perversion as in (B)
so this is distracting from the key issues in (A).

Can we please focus and finish resolving our
differences over (A) and not drag in (B) about perverted intent.

I will vouch for Seawytch that the intent is sincere to
defend LGBT from harassment and discrimination especially
by Christians, the same way Atheists have dealt with same.

But I do not agree with trying to establish LGBT as a class
when this is faith based like religions, and not like race which
is genetic. LGBT orientation and identity involves deeply spiritual
processes, and is more effectively addressed as religious beliefs,
where people do not have to proof their preferences genetically
in order to claim and protect their identity and affiliation of choice.

If the root issue is whether to recognize LGBT
as a belief so it is protected along with Christianity and Atheism,
where govt cannot endorse one and penalize the other "beliefs"
or if it is genetically determined like race, and if this can be proven or not,
let's stick to that first.

Arguing over who has perverse motives is not provable and is
going to distract from the other arguments that can be
settled as either provable or not provable and faith based.

Thank you, can you please help stick to what we can resolve?
I appreciate you and everyone who has participated here.
I will try to keep thanking all messages, and encourage
this dialogue and discussion to continue until we reach resolution.

 

[defcon4]

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Anti trans laws don't "protect your family's young female members from sexual predators".

The system worked for centuries, all of a sudden perverts gained special attention because their votes are crucial for the left. Letting adult pervert males into women's restrooms is not anti trans law, it is promoting perversion.

Dear defcon4 and Seawytch
I am losing your points and arguments
because of this sidetracking about the perversion agenda issue.

Can I please ask your help to make a distinction between
(A) legal and legislative lobbying for LGBT inclusion
(a1) both changes to policy that are about stopping harassment
bullying and discrimination, similar to stopping harassment
and discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Atheists for beliefs
(a2) AND the contested/unconstitutional "overreaching"
policies that "go too far" and lead to penalties or harassment
of people who don't agree with LGBT beliefs that violate theirs)
where the contention is over DECLARING A CLASS similar
to RACE, but based on gender identity and orientation
^ These issues are plenty to address and I ask we focus here ^

(B) enabling or promoting "perversion" either deliberately or
by negligence or refusing to acknowledge flaws in the law
that invite abuses for criminal intent outside of (A)

^ arguing if people have perverse agenda is a third debate
and we haven't finished addressing the first two debates!

There are many people fighting about (A) which is key;
and who don't want any criminal abuses or perversion as in (B)
so this is distracting from the key issues in (A).

Can we please focus and finish resolving our
differences over (A) and not drag in (B) about perverted intent.

I will vouch for Seawytch that the intent is sincere to
defend LGBT from harassment and discrimination especially
by Christians, the same way Atheists have dealt with same.

But I do not agree with trying to establish LGBT as a class
when this is faith based like religions, and not like race which
is genetic. LGBT orientation and identity involves deeply spiritual
processes, and is more effectively addressed as religious beliefs,
where people do not have to proof their preferences genetically
in order to claim and protect their identity and affiliation of choice.

If the root issue is whether to recognize LGBT
as a belief so it is protected along with Christianity and Atheism,
where govt cannot endorse one and penalize the other "beliefs"
or if it is genetically determined like race, and if this can be proven or not,
let's stick to that first.

Arguing over who has perverse motives is not provable and is
going to distract from the other arguments that can be
settled as either provable or not provable and faith based.

Thank you, can you please help stick to what we can resolve?
I appreciate you and everyone who has participated here.
I will try to keep thanking all messages, and encourage
this dialogue and discussion to continue until we reach resolution.

It's all yours Emily, see how far you'll get with them....

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am ashamed to admit that I had to disown my own daughter when she became a thespian....

 

[hazlnut]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Africa?

 

[defcon4]

So, you want to go to women's restrooms, huh?

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Here you go....
Attempted Sexual Assault in Women's College Bathroom

 

[defcon4]

I nominate Defcon4 as PR specialist for the GOP! I love it when the Right decides that social issues should be the Right's main agenda!

Man suspected of attempted sexual assault in Mt. San Jacinto College gender-neutral bathroom (UPDATE)

 

[Syriusly]

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Here you go....
Attempted Sexual Assault in Women's College Bathroom

Oh my- if only that bathroom had had a 'women's only sign' on the door- that would have stopped this predator....

 

[defcon4]

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Here you go....
Attempted Sexual Assault in Women's College Bathroom

Oh my- if only that bathroom had had a 'women's only sign' on the door- that would have stopped this predator....

He couldn't walk just right in unopposed and unreported... Why do you want to go into women's bathrooms?

 

[rightwinger]

I am ashamed to admit that I had to disown my own daughter when she became a thespian....

She may have just been acting

 

[emilynghiem]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Africa?

^ What's wrong with progressive leadership and reforms coming out of Africa ?
hazlnut

Africa also developed the reconciliation villages where tribes that previously committed and suffered genocide against each other
now live in peace and work together for a better future. We in America still have gangs killing each other and innocent people with no collective way to address this and resolve issues.

America hasn't figured out how to bring together the ALM and BLM
movements to work on solutions. And we consider ourselves civilized.

So yes we can learn from Africa and leadership and ideas
coming from all over the world.

Microlending that came out of Indonesia won the Nobel Prize
back in 2006, and we still haven't figured out that is the solution
to welfare and developing sustainable businesses and jobs/training
in health care, medical education, production and economy in general.

Why not look at the content of the corrections,
regardless of where the problems or solutions are coming from.

Can't we all benefit from better ways to address similar problems?

 

[Divine Wind]

Dear Timmy:
he's saying that people shouldn't have special rights
just because they are gay or transgender.....

IMHO, no one should have special rights over another citizen.

If an employer wants to fire all Christians, gays, women, whatever, they shouldn't be restricted or sued. It's their business, amirite?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Here you go....
Attempted Sexual Assault in Women's College Bathroom

Oh my- if only that bathroom had had a 'women's only sign' on the door- that would have stopped this predator....

Dear Syriusly
(A) Why is consensus important
By AGREEING ON AND ENFORCING a consistent standard, this deters more people from trying to circumvent that standard that is AGREED UPON AND ENFORCED BY CONSENSUS. That has an EFFECT when everyone is on the same page; because whoever isn't in line is going to stand out. This is why community policing works.

If you look at classroom behavior and discipline, if the teacher gets all the students to sign on to the same policy and process at the beginning of class, they have a common frame of reference. And anyone with disruptive intent STANDS OUT and can be called out immediately. But if the whole class is running amok and doesn't agree to the same process, you can't tell who is really a problem because no one is acting uniformly. Then disruptive people "take advantage of the chaos" and can get away with more because it's so distracting when people are divided and you can't tell who is doing what for what reasons.

This is just standard social psychology to understand collective human behavior.

(B) Unlike defcon4 who thinks you must be a pervert one to want this,
obviously you aren't. Because you have no clue how they think.

Because you have no intent to circumvent or abuse the laws,
and "can't imagine anyone would" and don't see this as a threat,
you don't get why people DO see it as opening the door to threats.

You think people like defcon4 are making some "false argument"
for disingenuous reasons, and don't think it is sincere or real.

So both of you are stuck.

If you keep discrediting each other's motives,
that is your problem.

You aren't going to hear the SUBSTANCE behind each other's real points and grievances/issues with the policy or its rejection, because you are too busy making assumptions about each other's intent as flawed to begin with.

is that really what you want.
to stay deadlocked because you both distrust
each other's intent?

What about the policy you want to address.
Are you ever going to get to that if you
are stuck on what is the ulterior motive
the other person is denying is going on??

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Timmy:
he's saying that people shouldn't have special rights
just because they are gay or transgender.....

IMHO, no one should have special rights over another citizen.

If an employer wants to fire all Christians, gays, women, whatever, they shouldn't be restricted or sued. It's their business, amirite?

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

 

[Divine Wind]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

Yes, Divine.Wind
And THIS WOULD BE the best way to protect businesses from lawsuits over such conflicts.

The business makes sure all employees or customers sign waivers agreeing to either mediation/consensus to resolve conflicts, or arbitration as chosen by the business. So any conflicts either get resolved, or the agreement says they don't do business together.

If they don't agree to such conditions with that business, then they stay away. SO the business only deals with customers or employees who agree to resolve conflicts without legal action or expense, or don't interact at all.

Get it? You don't even have to spell out what the conflicts are. Either people agree to resolve them, whatever conflicts arise, or stay away from each other and dissolve relations, cease and desist.

so yes, the business can tell the person **up front** if they are not going to be able to resolve conflicts and thus cannot conduct relations with that person.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

Yes, Divine.Wind
And THIS WOULD BE the best way to protect businesses from lawsuits over such conflicts.

The business makes sure all employees or customers sign waivers agreeing to either mediation/consensus to resolve conflicts, or arbitration as chosen by the business. So any conflicts either get resolved, or the agreement says they don't do business together.

If they don't agree to such conditions with that business, then they stay away. SO the business only deals with customers or employees who agree to resolve conflicts without legal action or expense, or don't interact at all.

Get it? You don't even have to spell out what the conflicts are. Either people agree to resolve them, whatever conflicts arise, or stay away from each other and dissolve relations, cease and desist.

so yes, the business can tell the person **up front** if they are not going to be able to resolve conflicts and thus cannot conduct relations with that person.

Sorry, but not a fan of lawyers. The simpler we make the law the better.

If a business owner doesn't want to hire women, gays, etc, they shouldn't be required to do so. Having laws about it just mucks up the legal system.

 

[Seawytch]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

Yes, Divine.Wind
And THIS WOULD BE the best way to protect businesses from lawsuits over such conflicts.

The business makes sure all employees or customers sign waivers agreeing to either mediation/consensus to resolve conflicts, or arbitration as chosen by the business. So any conflicts either get resolved, or the agreement says they don't do business together.

If they don't agree to such conditions with that business, then they stay away. SO the business only deals with customers or employees who agree to resolve conflicts without legal action or expense, or don't interact at all.

Get it? You don't even have to spell out what the conflicts are. Either people agree to resolve them, whatever conflicts arise, or stay away from each other and dissolve relations, cease and desist.

so yes, the business can tell the person **up front** if they are not going to be able to resolve conflicts and thus cannot conduct relations with that person.

Sorry, but not a fan of lawyers. The simpler we make the law the better.

If a business owner doesn't want to hire women, gays, etc, they shouldn't be required to do so. Having laws about it just mucks up the legal system.

So how come nobody is going after the FEDERAL law that requires a business owner to serve Christians, women, blacks, etc?