Bathroom Politics: How did this escalate and where is it going?

[emilynghiem]

How the bathroom became a political battleground for civil rights

Not sure how all this escalated, from the wedding cake lawsuits to the same sex marriage policies,
and now the conflicts over bathroom policies.

Had people just focused on working out their issues civilly, I think they would succeed.

But this business of badmouthing and attacking opposition COLLECTIVELY in order to make PUBLIC political statements (perhaps to get sympathy and momentum in the media for the same sex wedding issue), compromised both sides by detracting from the root issues and just turning into political sides going at it.

If you want to play the bullying game for political gain, there's a price to pay for that,
and it has injured and cost both sides to get this divided, distracted, and derailed.

Perhaps people need to calm down first, and maybe we can go back to working out solutions civilly.

I really believe the backlash this has caused does more harm than good.

This whole approach of trying to politicize it as a civil rights issue ran into complications
because of beliefs on both sides that govt is not prepared or authorized to address.

The best way I could envision resolving these issues is treating them as spiritual issues
and addressing people personally instead of politically trying to punish anyone or make statements.

But this political bullying and backlash seems like the strategy of the times: similar to how the push to reform health care used a similar politicized battle to pass some contested bill through to FORCE the issues, even at the expense of both left and right where neither got what they wanted and both are held hostage until the current system is refined or replaced with other alternatives.

I still find this to be an abuse of govt to push political statements outside the role and Constitutional limits of govt.

It succeeds as a political move to get issues into the public arena and media, but at the expense of
public authority abused to make statements that involve personal and political beliefs
that don't represent all the public and even violate the beliefs of citizens.

All for politics. I don't agree with abusing govt this way, but if the media feeds on this,
people will keep using this as a shortcut to push their agenda.

 

[Blackrook]

The left made it an issue for their own nefarious purposes. They way to figure out why they do what they do what they do is to understand they hate Jesus Christ, and get their marching orders straight from hell. That is why they must murder 3000 unborn babies a day. The human sacrifice to pagan gods in the days before Christianity has returned, but the pagan gods were never real. It was always Satan demanding the blood of the innocent.

 

[emilynghiem]

The left made it an issue for their own nefarious purposes. They way to figure out why they do what they do what they do is to understand they hate Jesus Christ, and get their marching orders straight from hell. That is why they must murder 3000 unborn babies a day. The human sacrifice to pagan gods in the days before Christianity has returned, but the pagan gods were never real. It was always Satan demanding the blood of the innocent.

Dear Blackrook
Whatever the liberal left blame and hate the Christians for,
it seems they have to walk in those same shoes in order to answer their own questions
of why this happens and what does it take to correct it. Until you experience it yourself,
and act like the very people you criticize, how can you understand the work it takes to change the things you demand of others?
If you aren't even ready to face these changes yourself when it's your turn and the other side is demanding that of you?

The same way the secular left sued to remove references to God and Crosses from public institutions,
now we'd have to remove references to Marriage from the state to keep beliefs from clashing over what that means to people.

Using faith in Jesus as a criteria for judging other people
has been replaced with a new test of "whether people believe in Global Warming"
as a reason to judge, reject and condemn people who want to see proof first that makes sense to them.
It's okay for atheists to reject Jesus and God as religious condition or test of judgment, until proof is provided
that someone accepts freely, but it's not okay for people to reject Global Warming as faith based belief not fully proven.

People are attacked for rejecting Global Warming, the same way atheists and others have
been attacked for not believing in Jesus and the Bible based on faith.

The same way the secular left has demanded that Christian prayer be kept private and not imposed on the public,
now beliefs about homosexuality and transgender issues are being pushed beyond private into the public arena.
And people are harassed if they ask to keep that in private, the same way their beliefs have been treated.

The disturbing irony is not lost on me how liberals object to the bullying and harassing, rejecting and accusing gay and transgender people,
but turn around and accuse, bully, harass, reject and even penalize people of Christian belief for not supporting gay relations which should
remain a spiritual and religious choice for people to decide how they feel and if they want to change their approach.

How can Christians be faulted for believing they have the truth and rejection is not a choice,
but when liberals push their secular beliefs about homosexuality and marriage, nobody should question this,
and govt should enforce their beliefs under threats of penalty.

Such beliefs should not be forced onto people through govt, any more than
forcing Christianity, spiritual healing or prayer on people that is a private choice.

I saw similar tables being turned regarding the right to life and right to health care issues.
instead of the right to life pushing govt policies to save more lives at the expense of free choice,
now it's the leftwingn politicians' turn to push govt regulations at the expense of free market health care.
So the prolife who want free choice are now making similar arguments that
used to come from the prochoice advocates on why govt should not impose on private decisions.

My guess is this is part of a spiritual process for people divided by these conflicts to walk in each other shoes,
and understand what the argument feels like on the other side, when the shoe is on the other foot.

I hope we figure it out soon. or else it going to get old
yelling back and forth when both sides feel stepped on by other groups abusing govt to overreach.