CDZ Should "Gender IDENTITY" be treated like physical Race/Gender or like Faith Based Affiliation?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by emilynghiem, Aug 13, 2018.

  1. Cecilie1200
    Online

    Cecilie1200 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    36,102
    Thanks Received:
    5,158
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,296
    Well, for one thing, the restroom in my home serves four people, on a normal day. And even then, we have two restrooms so that there's no waiting. A school or business, on the other hand, is going to have a lot more than four people in it potentially needing to use the restroom, which is why they tend to go with multi-facility bathrooms.
     
  2. Cecilie1200
    Online

    Cecilie1200 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    36,102
    Thanks Received:
    5,158
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,296
    Yes, and noticeably, it is not the responsibility of the business to alter itself and its requirements to fit with one employee's preferences. It is incumbent on the employee to either conform, or go find another job.

    That is, unfortunately, not the world we live in today. We live today in a world where people believe they not only have the right to be whatever they wish, but to do so free of all inconveniences and consequences of that, up to and including the possibility that other people will disagree and even disapprove.

    Would that we lived in a world where people had the maturity and self-confidence to say, "This is who I choose to be, and if you disagree, I can go on with my life without caring."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Cecilie1200
    Online

    Cecilie1200 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    36,102
    Thanks Received:
    5,158
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,296
    Capitalism is a handy thing, is it not?
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Yep BlackSand that's the whole point
    Nothing needs to be forced on anyone!

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroger-unisex-bathroom-sign/

    Here are links to one of the best bathroom signs that went viral.

    Kroger Draws Mixed Reactions to Unisex Bathroom

    BR sign universal.jpg
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14,587
    Thanks Received:
    4,190
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +16,121
    The reaction the sign draws ...
    Is the same reason Kroger felt the need to explain their decision with the note below the sign.
    It concerns people who want to define what other people do and/or classify it as necessary or acceptable.

    I am, fortunately, someone who doesn't give a damn about something someone wants to tell me I cannot do.
    I am always more interested in figuring out how I can do what it is I want to do ...
    As well as how few people I am going to have to get to agree with me in order to do it.

    Anyone can look at the Unisex sign ... And come up with a practical use that doesn't involve something they disagree with.
    If anyone looks at the unisex sign and it creates an obstacle for them ... They are a "cannot person" and not a "can do" person ...

    ... At which time I have no use for them, or whatever it is they cannot accept or do ... :thup:

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14,587
    Thanks Received:
    4,190
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +16,121
    I also don't want to stray too far from the topic with my personal dissertation ... But one fact will always remains the same.

    Man's law is fallible ... And inevitably going to cause complications.

    Adaptation and innovation Always beats limitation and governance.
    Governance attempts to bind us where we are ... When change is only thing evitable.

    How we manage change ... Is where it is decided who moves forward and who get's left behind.
    If people on either side of the argument want to argue about it ... They're going to have to catch the next bus ...
    We're moving on and don't have to hurt anyone to do it.

    .

    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    So BlackSand let's write laws to be as neutral as possible.
    So we avoid the fork in the road altogether.

    That way whatever biases or preferences we are going to have,
    that isn't written into the public law but bypassed so it IS left to individuals to work that out, flawed or not.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14,587
    Thanks Received:
    4,190
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +16,121
    Let's avoid putting forks in the road thinking laws are more important than solutions.
    I understand what you are saying ... But it has been my experience the things that inhibit greater/better results are laws.

    If your intent of a law is to settle an argument ...
    And you do so by recognizing both sides as being on equal ground ...
    You are failing to recognize it's a law (or the abuse of a law) you are trying to fix ...
    And that should never have been written or left up to interpretation in the first damn place.

    You don't have to accept what I am going to do (it's not going to violate silly laws).

    I think where you and I separate the most ...
    Is in the fact that I am not interested in the people who want to argue about it ...
    And have no problem leaving their rear-ends behind.

    To me ... Their desire to argue ...
    And furthermore look towards government for a solution ...
    Is the stupidest decision anyone could make.

    I mean, bless your heart Emily ... Good luck saving the world ...
    I will guarantee you it wont be the same place you are trying to save tomorrow ...
    And I am going to get ahead of fixing the crap other people have already messed up and want to fight about.

    Some people have vision ... Let's stop following the blind ... :thup:

    .
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Then have both Cecilie1200 where people can agree to the rules on them.
    Many schools solved this problem by keeping the regular restrooms as they were,
    and just allowing special exceptions for students who opted to use the faculty or single stall units.


    If not, if they can't agree, then have separate units.
    So everyone still has a choice how they want to solve each issue in each case.

    This would also reward communities that can work out their issues
    and those that cannot reach agreements civilly would be limited
    to whatever they can agree on, including removing public restrooms
    and making them private if that solves the problem and treats everyone equally!
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    You cannot have "protected classes" and "equal protection", you can have one or the other, but they cannot both exist at the same time.

    Great post by Golfing Gator on another thread:
    Remember The Baker Cleared By SCOTUS? Well, Guess What

    I am copying it here because I think it states it best,
    and explains why laws need to be neutral and all inclusive
    because if they are biased toward one group more than another,
    that's a form of discrimination by creed instead of equal protections of the laws
    for all people of all beliefs. Thanks again to Golfing Gator for this point!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page