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

[Seawytch]

Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom?

Because they have been discriminated against, based on what they do in the bedroom.

Not even the bedroom. Plenty of gay virgins are bashed and discriminated against. Heck, even those perceived to be gay that weren't have faced discrimination for the perception of being gay.

 

[defcon4]

“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."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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

 

[emilynghiem]

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And ?

Should we discuss legacies ? Veteran prefences ?

Veterans earned Veteran status by serving the country. They also are not a minority, and are not included under the definition of affirmative action. How's the view from your rectum, in which your head is firmly planted?

Dear Pumpkin Row
Thanks again for your intelligent above board responses and participation in this discussion.

I think there are some areas or states where employment laws and other policies have added on
terms pursuant to Equal Opportunity that refer to veteran status, like disability, as a basis by which
applicants "cannot be discriminated against". Houston tried to pass one anyway.

Maybe it depends?

If anything I think we abuse Veterans, using Taxpayer resources to put them in crippling
situations, with PTSD, other disabilities, inability to work and pay for home and health.
And then send them through an equally crippled VA system that Vets themselves
have fought to reform.

If anything we discriminate against them by creating an adverse situation
where they face worse burdens than before they served. Unfortunately.

 

[emilynghiem]

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Dear rightwinger: Some AA was struck down as unconstitutional.
Although the intent was to do as you say, some of it went too far, or approached it in a flawed way.
And caused the opposite or equal problem it was trying to counteract.
People aren't perfect and neither are our laws.

I agree that the intent was in the right place, and many cases of
AA did accomplish the intended goal. I know some good people who
created niches for minorities they couldn't have accessed without AA,
who credit this, and use it to pay forward and try to lift up those in unequal situations.
So yes, there are many success stories owed to AA, and who don't perpetuate
the victim cycle but seek to break it by pushing forward.

It does work in some cases. But that doesn't mean the real cases of
reverse discrimination haven't happened, aren't real, and aren't a real problem. They are, too.
Both things have gone on, so we have to take the good with the bad,
and not deny either one, but acknowledge both. To be fair.

 

[Syriusly]

“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."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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

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

 

[defcon4]

“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."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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.

 

[Vandalshandle]

“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."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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!

 

[defcon4]

“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."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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.

 

[Syriusly]

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, .

The Leftists take America out of the Great Depression, save farms, bring us Social Security and the GI Bill?

Man I can see why conservatives hate that.

Oh, this guy again. The lefttards extended the Great Depression by seven years, you just buy into the lefttard propaganda because you lack independent thought. Go educate yourself instead of wasting my time.

LOL- you retarded right wing nut jobs just hate it that Republicans got America into the Great Depression and FDR got us out- and along the way lead America to victory in WW2, brought American Social Security, bank depositors insurance, the GI Bill and save farms.

Of course you hate that.

So, what you're saying is "You're just jealous!" what an intelligent and mature response.

FDR not only caused the Great Depression, as at the start of his presidency, the economy was only mildly recessionary.

You are an ignorant idiot.

When FDR became President the United States was on the verge of a revolution- in the Mid-West farmers were already taking action- closing down highways to protest against farm prices and farms being foreclosed on.

Change in economic indicators 1929–32[17]


United States Great Britain France Germany
Industrial production –46% –23% –24% –41%
Wholesale prices –32% –33% –34% –29%
Foreign trade –70% –60% –54% –61%
Unemployment +607% +129% +214% +232%

FDR became President in 1933- after the United States had plunged into the Great Depression.

If you think unemployment increasing by 607% percent is only mildly recessionary......

•In 1929, unemployment was at 3%

•In 1930, unemployment had jumped to 9%.

•In 1931, unemployment reached almost 16%.

•In 1932, unemployment climbed to 24%

•In 1933, unemployment reached almost 25%.


•In 1934, unemployment dipped slightly, to 22%.

•In 1935, unemployment fell to 20%.

•In 1936, unemployment dropped to 17%.

•In 1937, unemployment lowered to 14%.

•In 1938, unemployment rose again, to 19%.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

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?

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

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.

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Passed wrongs don't need to be 'righted' with people who never experienced said wrongs. Each human being is not a representative of a 'race' or gender that they belong to, and do not feel or experience what other members of that race or gender feel or experience. We are not a collective that needs to be compensated for what other people of the same color or gender experienced. I wasn't alive when women were being oppressed, and I don't know anyone who was, so I don't care today. We're treated equally now, and that's what matters.

Dear Pumpkin Row
No, we are not treated equally
Examples
A. people with govt jobs and offices have unequal benefits paid for by taxpayers
that the average person doesn't have
B. people with legal connections have protections of the law and leverage to do
what they want because they can sue if they don't get their way; vs the average
person who doesn't have that leverage, access to legal resources and protection

I think what you mean is the govt cannot impose the debt to correct
on people without due process. We'd either have to prove which
people owe what to whom OR promote VOLUNTARY corrections
which is what I recommend.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding taxpayers for investing donations
or business loans/capital into microlending, job training, education, or
community development that helps uplift people out of poverty.

This can be done VOLUNTARILY and does not need to be
legislated or required through govt (except if someone is duly
CONVICTED of wrongdoing, such as trafficking drugs or humans
under RICO and can be required to forfeit property and money
to the victims or community affected by their organized crime)

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall

RE: @rightwinger "I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall"

Man undresses in front of girls in Seattle locker room, cites “Gender Identity” regulation

The issue is that the policies vaguely written are difficult to enforce and thus
invite abuses which "can't be policed because discrimination is penalized"

Because gender identity/orientation is internal/faith based
it can't be proven if someone has this or not; UNLESS we agree
on medical standards; this is why people are saying people should fully
change their gender where someone is LEGALLY DECLARED
and recognized as the gender they claim (similar to a DISABILITY
THAT REQUIRES MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION to be enforceable).

But if it is left vague based on someone's "feelings or claims"
then anyone can abuse this and create unsafe conditions for others
who don't feel they are protected against such abuses of poorly planned laws.

 

[bendog]

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.”

Ah kep lokin fer these heah wummen at mah gym's showah, but they ain't shownin up.

 

[emilynghiem]

You seem to be evasive with your answer...

What else do you need splained to you?

I asked why do you want women and underage girls to be exposed to "indecent exposure" what is against all decency and still against criminal law in states?

I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

Dear rightwinger It's not the women people are worried about
but the men who can now abuse the laws to commit such exposure:
Man undresses in front of girls in Seattle locker room, cites “Gender Identity” regulation

 

[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?

I am fixated on protecting my family members from those whose sexual perversion expresses itself partially in exposing their genitals to young girls
in women's restrooms. If the sign on the door indicates it is a female restroom it is easy to spot perverts trying to or entering it thus get busted before they have a chance to act upon their despicable sexual fantasies. You are deflecting too much and never answered the question: Why do you want to go into women's restrooms? You are focusing on me instead of focusing on adult males' desires to go into women's restrooms. I told you before, I wasn't the one. It is you who want that. Why do you want to go into women's restrooms?

 

[emilynghiem]

I asked why do you want women and underage girls to be exposed to "indecent exposure" what is against all decency and still against criminal law in states?

I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

I am not identifying as a woman

I have no objection to someone who does having to use a restroom. if someone commits a crime in a ladies room ...arrest them

rightwinger There are as many people who "don't have a problem"
with people teaching or preaching other "beliefs or faith-based policies" including God, prayer, Jesus, creation in public schools and institutions.

But because of restrictions barring govt from establishing faith based beliefs that not all people consent to, public resources and authority are NOT supposed to impose these much less "penalize people for refusing to comply or accept" with such a policy!

Just because that policy doesn't bother us
doesn't give anyone the right to impose beliefs through govt on people of other beliefs.

 

[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.”

Why? Because they are being denied equal rights.

Dear NYcarbineer
Yes and no.
Yes I agree it is wrongful to have discrimination AGAINST people of LGBT beliefs, orientation or expression.
But overreacting and overcorrecting by poorly planned laws
that have unintended consequences is NOT the solution,
and creates the equal and opposite BACKLASH
where now the people of the other beliefs are targeted for harassment, denial of equal beliefs, and
discrimination penalizing them for their views.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They cause twice the problems instead of solving them.

Neutral gender, single stalled or unisex restrooms would solve the problem
and not require anyone to change their beliefs because of other people's.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

Dear defcon It's got to be symbolic of public establishment of social recognition and equality. Because if it was only a matter of equal access, then this issue would already be settled with neutral gender, unisex or single stalled facilities.

There is a psychological need to establish one's identity as socially recognized in order to "counteract" for the historical rejection and refusal to recognize LGBT.

So of course it's more a psychological reason to push this.

The liberals use the state to establish beliefs collectively
as the conservatives go through the church to unite
and establish agreement.

Part of the process.

Most doctors' offices, stores and workplaces already have single room all gender bathrooms but perverts want to go into specifically designated female restrooms to shake their genitals "legally" in front of women and young girls when specifically designated restrooms for people with male appendage are available. Like malls, airports..

Dear defcon: to be fair, the same way I called out rdean for generalizing that "ALL Republicans are haters who want gays dead," it is only fair to ask you to be more clear and distinguish between people abusing the law for criminally/sick intent, and those who intend for the law to defend against bullying, harassment, exclusion and discrimination against people of LGBT orientation and belief. Rejecting both of these, as if they all have equally negative intent, just creates the opposite rejection and loses the point.

If you come across as generalizing, that all people pushing this policy support the abuses,
that's making the same overly broad condemnation that rdean makes for political bias.
It detracts from the argument that is valid.

I am trying to help frigidweirdo and others make a CLEAR distinction
between the criminal abuses vs. the intent against discrimination.

If we don't make this distinction how can we correct the problems with these policies?

 

[emilynghiem]

whos discriminating on what people do in the bedroom ?

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

How is being allowed to marry like anyone else a 'special right'?

Dear Syriusly
I'm saying NOBODY should have the right to impose THEIR beliefs about marriage
through the govt and expect everyone to endorse that as public policy.

So this goes for the traditional marriage people also.
Pushing THEIR marriage beliefs would be a special right.

NEITHER has the right to abuse govt to endorse THEIR beliefs that impose on those of others.
NEITHER should have special rights to take ANY religious or spiritual beliefs/institution
faith based practice etc and enforce/impose that through govt.

They are both equally guilty of violating "separation of church and state"for people of the other view/belief.
That's why they both reject and denounce the other as pushing special rights.

(Aside: same also with right to life and right to health care, where both
decry the other as abusing govt to push THEIR beliefs at the expense
of other people's beliefs in free choice. That is special rights for one group's
beliefs over the others.)