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

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Because Syriusly
the issue of people's sexual orientation and gender
was THROWN into public policy and arena by pushing through govt.

That's like asking why are Atheists fixated on God and Christianity?

If prayers and Bibles, creation and whatever "faith based concepts principles and policies" weren't pushed through public schools and institutions, these would not be publicly challenged in response! By people saying no, govt should not be used to establish those things
as public policy for EVERYONE, much less PENALIZE people
who disagree and don't believe in being forced to comply
"because it includes and protects beliefs of other people."

Gay rights moved to the forefront because their rights were being denied. They grew tired of just "going along" because people hated them

Most of us don't give a shit about the gays one way or another.

 

[Timmy]

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.

That's now what's happening .

Do you really want someone who looks like Chaz Bono to be forced into the woman's room?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

The system worked for centuries? The truth is, there were no segregated by sex restrooms before about 1850.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I suspect that I would find fewer perverts in women's restrooms. At least, i would not find X senator Craig in their tapping his feet....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

That's now what's happening .

Do you really want someone who looks like Chaz Bono to be forced into the woman's room?

So, you turn yourself into a freak of nature and Now I gotta deal with it?

 

[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.

The system worked for centuries? The truth is, there were no segregated by sex restrooms before about 1850.

1.5 > 1 equires plural...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Great... now the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population has to deal with this shit.

 

[rightwinger]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

Are you sure women aren't peeking under the stalls and lifting their dresses over their heads?

 

[defcon4]

I suspect that I would find fewer perverts in women's restrooms. At least, i would not find X senator Craig in their tapping his feet....

He was tapping in a men's room where men were present. Interesting that you people keep bringing that up. So you are against gay people?
Your lack of logic is not surprising in saying that you would find fewer perverts in women's restroom if perverts were allowed by law entering women's restrooms.

 

[Pop23]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

So we have a lesbians opinion on the subject. Lesbians are comfortable pulling their pants down around women, therefor all women should feel comfortable pulling their pants down around men?

I think you should stay outta this.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Because Syriusly
the issue of people's sexual orientation and gender
was THROWN into public policy and arena by pushing through govt.

That's like asking why are Atheists fixated on God and Christianity?

If prayers and Bibles, creation and whatever "faith based concepts principles and policies" weren't pushed through public schools and institutions, these would not be publicly challenged in response! By people saying no, govt should not be used to establish those things
as public policy for EVERYONE, much less PENALIZE people
who disagree and don't believe in being forced to comply
"because it includes and protects beliefs of other people."

Gay rights moved to the forefront because their rights were being denied. They grew tired of just "going along" because people hated them

Most of us don't give a shit about the gays one way or another.

Sounds like sour grapes....you sure seemed to care when you were denying them basic rights

 

[rightwinger]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

So we have a lesbians opinion on the subject. Lesbians are comfortable pulling their pants down around women, therefor all women should feel comfortable pulling their pants down around men?

I think you should stay outta this.

People still gotta pee

Give it a rest

 

[Pop23]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

So we have a lesbians opinion on the subject. Lesbians are comfortable pulling their pants down around women, therefor all women should feel comfortable pulling their pants down around men?

I think you should stay outta this.

People still gotta pee

Give it a rest

We see you want too next to the chicks. Sorry, there's a app for that, the Men's room.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q Why do you want to go into women's restrooms? ?

Why are you fixated on everyone's sex lives?

Why aren't you willing to escort your young children into bathrooms, and why aren't you willing to protect your children by standing outside of women's restrooms?

 

[Syriusly]

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.”

Unfortunately, to the current regressive liberals it really matter what goes on in the bedroom... and they want to control that too. To them, "Yes means no".

It is the right wing nut jobs in the OP who want to control what goes on in the bedroom- and to discriminate against people based upon what you imagine happens in peoples bedrooms.

 

[Londoner]

The author claims that our nation can't let alternative sexualities be a role model, but this misses a big point about the role of government. The government shouldn't be in the business of imposing role models and morality on free individuals. Big Brother should stay out of the sacred decisions and choices that families make about their lives. The state should only get involved when an individual harms another person's property or body. Washington should be a minimalist vending machine that hands out contracts; it shouldn't be in the business of saving souls.

When it comes to private lifestyle variations between consenting adults, the government should not pick winners and losers.

We shouldn't look at heterosexual married couples as government imposed role models, to be morally sanctioned by the heavy hand of the state. Contrary to what republicans think, we shouldn't get our morality and role models from Washington.

The government should promote MAXIMUM choice for individuals, and leave morality to families and God. The minute government imposes one private lifestyle over another, individual freedom dies.

Put simply: I may be repulsed by the behavior of Evangelicals and Gays, but as long as both stay off my lawn and neither tries to proselytize to my children, I see no standing for the heavy moral hand of Big Government. To each his own. Let the individual stand before God not bureaucrats.

Republicans, on the other hand, want to place a big government thug at the foot of every bed, perhaps go door to door making sure we all live up to Washington's morally perfect utopia.

 

[Seawytch]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

Are you sure women aren't peeking under the stalls and lifting their dresses over their heads?

If they are, it's never been while I was in it. (Darn it!)

 

[Zoom-boing]

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

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.

 

[rightwinger]

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

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?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

Dear frigidweirdo

A.
Who ever said that either sides beliefs has to go away?
If Hindus and Muslims don't agree, we don't get the govt to enforce one side and penalize the other.
We say BOTH have equal religious freedom, NEITHER has the right to construe or abuse laws
to try to infringe on the same of the other groups' beliefs or membership,
and any conflicts should be kept private.

If neither Hindus or Muslims IMPOSE their conflicting beef/pork policies on anyone else,
then there is no problem.

And that's what people are saying about the LGBT beliefs, expressions and identity.
If you have this, that's fine but keep it to yourself. Don't create "special laws"
that force other people to recognize and protect your beliefs above and beyond
the beliefs of anyone else, much less to PENALIZE and harass/judge people of the other beliefs.

Going too far, and doing the equal and opposite judgment/rejection/discrimination/harassment
of people of conflicting views
commits the same or similar wrong as this legislation was intended to correct.
Just make sure the laws don't go too far.

Example:
It's one thing to make laws against bullying or harassing people of LGBT orientation, identity, belief
or expression; but "going too far" are laws that deny and regulate the free speech of others
to "ask questions of such an LGBT person in the restroom" as the Houston ordinance pushed "too far"

Compare:
the Arizona immigration law that sought to deter hiring of illegal immigrant workers,
but "went too far" as to BAN HAND SIGNALS at locations where people were known
to pick up workers/day laborers many of whom were undocumented workers.
The laws against employing noncitizens who are not eligible is the intent, and laws
that do that are valid. BUT it is going TOO FAR to start regulating communication
and fining/penalizing people for "speech or hand signals" that cannot be proven
to be unlawful solicitation of undocumented workers and starts infringing on free speech.

B. As for the cake issue, again there are two situations one that is within the accommodations
laws and cases that go beyond the terms conditions and jurisdiction of govt and into personal/private choices

1. if the transaction sale and service occurs ON SITE at the business considered public access and service,
then NO you cannot discriminate against serving a customer purely based on race, gender, religion
including LGBT beliefs that are the equivalent of someone's spiritual faith-based identity belief and expression.

However, customers engaging in BEHAVIOR such as disruptive or sexually offensive could be refused.
If a couple, whether gay or straight, is publicly displaying affection, that could be rejected depending how it's done. If a business has a certain dress code, and clothing considered indecent, disruptive or offensive hygiene
caused a nuisance to other customers, their policy could be enforced.

OJ Simpson was asked to leave a restaurant because his presence was disturbing other patrons,
and he was understanding enough to comply with the owners request and explanation.
I can't say a lot of good things about him, but I do respect him and the owner for doing the
best they could with an adverse situation. And wish more people would not take it personally.

2. HOWEVER with personal issues that go into PRIVATE choices
such as "whether videographers/photographers can be FORCED to film either
porn, gay couples, or any other activity they are religiously opposed to"
That has been contested as violating free speech to regulate and require certain
expressions of artists and professionals, instead of recognizing free choice of content and expression.
I have seen such cases lose, and I disagree, and think these should have been required
by law to resolve by consensus or refrain from conducting business if it imposes on one side or the other.

It takes both sides to resolve an issue or to block it from resolution.
So conflicts are not fair to blame and penalize one side for, if they both have conflicting beliefs with each other.

Also with the cake issue, the cases that "went too far"
required attending and participating in PRIVATE ceremonies in PRIVATE venues
off site, and outside public access to the business locations.

If people do not believe in certain religious ceremonies or functions,
they shouldn't be forced to go there.

So that is another prime example of "going too far"

frigidweirdo It is highly critical to make a distinction between these cases.
That is necessary for conflict resolution, and equal protection of people's beliefs.
Failing to address and resolve each issue and case individually
invites taking sides and making decisions based on judging on the person's beliefs
instead of the BEHAVIOR, the CIRCUMSTANCES, terms and conditions
that need to be met versus ones that "go too far."

If we don't make this distinction,
that is like failing to make a distinction between judging "all people"
with homosexual orientation as "the same as pedophiles and people with sexual or predatory disorders"

If it is clearly NOT FAIR to throw people in the same category
when some do have criminal illness or other mental disorders,
but others do not, then it is equally problematic and wrongful
to throw all the cases of "declining to serve a cake" without
checking if it was discrimination at a business of public access
or if the service involved going to a private venue or ceremony against someone's beliefs.

Those are two different circumstances, not to be confused or treated the same.
Or we make the same mistake as assuming "all cases of homosexuality
should be rejected and treated the same as pedophilia" which isn't fair either.

Well seemingly those defending the Christians seem to think that them making a cake for a gay wedding is them ending up supporting gay marriage. Therefore they'll go to hell for doing so, or some nonsense like that.

Yes, there is equal religious freedom, and that includes for atheists. If a Christian opens a shop however they have to serve people they might not agree with. They have to serve Muslims, they have to serve black people, disabled people etc.

People think the gay people went too far. Problem is they were doing political activism. There are laws in place, like Civil Rights laws, and the bakery broke those laws, so they went to court. Others would say the bakers went too far. So it ended up in court and the bakers didn't stand a chance because they broke the law.

Yes, I know you can refuse to serve people for reasons of disruptive behavior etc, however this isn't part of the issue here.

"criminal illness", what are you talking about?