This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

More on the Chalotte Bathroom Issue

As regular readers know, I wish Christians would stay out of the morality business. When Jesus sent his disciples out He told them to announce: "The kingdom of heaven has come near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons." He repeated these instructions in Mark 16:15 at the last: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel (good news) to all creation. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues." That is what He modeled for us and that is what we do if we are to be like HIm.  After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.
 
I will keep repeating this until the day I die. This was our commission. Nagging pagans about their morality was not. And I add, until we can master what we were told to do, we would be better off staying out of other people’s business.
 
Now, having gotten the above off my chest, this thread is about the Charlotte bathroom issue.

Taking Christians out of the mix, I could just go with the common sense of Americans like the commenter on this blog who wrote:
"There are too many problems with "restroom choice" for "transgenders." First, the threat isn't necessarily from "transgenders." It is from perverts who will abuse "restroom choice" to gain access to women's rooms. How do you intend to guarantee that ONLY transgenders will enter the "restroom of their identity?" Will there be a transgender test? ID armbands? If you grant to biological males who say, "I'm a woman" the "right" to choose either restroom, isn't that a "special right" for a certain class? If transgenders can "choose" to use the women's room, why not heterosexual males? Shouldn't the 14th amendment guarantee equal protection, in other words, the same rights as transgenders who are male to all males? Why just transgenders?

86 comments:

Blogger said...

Happily Married, you appear to be engaged in this subject. I have a sincere question for you or anyone else who can answer. We know that LGBT -- means lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. My question is how come a question about one of these brings down the PC police as if we have questioned all of them? For example, what justifies the corporations and rock singers of accusing us of discriminating against the LGB’s when our issue is with the transgenders. Transgenders are not LGB’s nor vice-versus. Was putting L and G and B and T in one group a ploy to make them into one sacrosanct religion? Touch one and you have touched them all?

Whitey said...

Pervert is as pervert does.

No morality no society, just chaos.

Anonymous said...

They are terms of sexual identification. Not identification in the sense of how a person appears, but identification in how a person defines themself.

Transgender refers to a person who has chosen to live as the gender they identify with that is opposite of their biologic presentation and are transitioning through therapy, hormonal therapy and, perhaps, surgery. This decision is not frivolous.

LGBT should be viewed on a continuum of sexuality and not "black and white", "either, or" identification.

Anonymous said...

Question: does a woman have a right to use a bathroom where no males are allowed? Does she have any rights to privacy in this regard? HM wants to talk about "equal rights," but what he is proposing is "special rights" for transgenders, in spite of his claims to the contrary. EQUAL rights would be like this: if a MALE who says, "I'm transgender" has a "right" to restroom choice, then ALL males must have the right to restroom choice. THAT is EQUAL rights. HM supports carving out a special right for a minute group of people based on an unprovable assertion. If I claim to identify as a woman and walk into a woman's restroom, prove that my claimed identity isn't sincere. Will transgenders submit to "tests" to prove that they are indeed transgendered? How does one "prove" they are transgendered? How does someone "prove" another person ISN'T transgendered? An unworkable policy.

Restroom choice will grant easier access for sexual predators to potential victims. If your daughter gets raped by a molester in a woman's room who abused "restroom choice," HM would probably just shrug and talk about the need for the greater good. He might even allow his own daughter (if he has one) to be sexually molested as long as transgenders don't get their feelings hurt. HM would gladly put thousands of people at risk to protect the feelings of less than 1% of the population. Jeremy Bentham must be turning over in his grave.

A Different Anonymous said...

Blogger,
The quote you use in this thread is mine. I posted it last night in response to HM on the Vent Page 106, and it appeared briefly then disappeared. Do you know where the entire comment is?

Anonymous said...

Gender identification is not sexual deviance.

Whitey said...

Pretending to be a female when your a genetic, physical male or visa versa is sexual deviance.

Redefining terms to legitimize your perversions has greatly harmed our society.

Blogger is just another pervert enabler by refusing to take a stand on morality.

Anonymous said...

I'll repeat for anon 8:35 -- does a woman have a right to use a restroom where a biological male is not allowed? Or is her right to privacy trumped by a transgender's right to restroom choice? If a biological male who claims to be transgender is allowed to use a woman's restroom, then wouldn't "equal rights" require that ANY biological male should be able to use a woman's restroom?

The bottom line to "restroom choice" is this:

-Transgender rights to restroom choice is more important than a woman's right to use the restroom absent a biological male;

-A biological male who claims to be transgender is given "rights" denied to other biological males.

-Allowing biological males into female restrooms will allow sexual predators to abuse the policy to gain access to potential victims, and those predators cannot be prosecuted until they harm another person whereas before they could be "stopped at the door."

You can spin as much as you want, but these statements are true. Liberals don't care about harm to people as much as the feelings of their "preferred" groups.

Blogger said...

Different Anon First of all thanks for your post. I don’t know for sure where it is. It is not in the spam folder. When a comment comes in it goes on the page and at the same time it comes in my email. When I read it in my email I knew you had nailed it. But when I went to look for it in the 106 thread, I did not see it right off. I just assumed it was somewhere among the ninety-some and I would find it later. So, I took the part on my email that said it all and posted it. I would have loved to have credited you if you had a nom de plume that people were familiar with. Different Anonymous was so impersonal it could be anybody so I did not know what to do. Again thanks. By the way, you are so good, I wish you would invent a name that could become familiar to readers.

Sarkazein said...

I don't know that my religion or faith would even enter my mind if I saw some girl-wanna-be with a 5'oclock shadow and a designer trench coat headed into the women's locker room when I knew HappilyMarried's wife and daughters were in there. If he HM is not man enough to do something about it, someone has to be. HM would patiently wait outside the door and give the perp a fist bump as he/she/? exited the building and then say' right on brother... I mean sister I mean...

Anonymous said...

Does no one want to touch that question?

Does a woman have a right to use a restroom where a biological male is not allowed? Or is her right to privacy trumped by a transgender's right to restroom choice?

I understand your reluctance to answer. If you respond, "yes, she has that right," then you acknowledge that restroom choice denies her that right. If you respond, "no, she does not have that right," then you are acknowledging that the granting of the right to "restroom choice" for biological male that are transgendered DOES deny another, and much larger, group of citizens a basic right. So the best course is to ignore the question. Special rights, not equal rights.

Happily Married said...

Anon et al,

This is another fine mess that puritanical religion has gotten us into. The religious stifling of sexuality has cross contaminated so many areas of life. Religion tells priests that sex is bad and they end up diddling little boys as they are so confused and frustrated. Religious morality provides for judgement against anything that is not considered normal - "Pervert is as pervert does". Whitey is simply an idiot. As stated, sexual identity does not equal sexual deviance. No one responded when I indicated that most people have been in the bathroom with someone of the opposite sex and not even been aware of it. Using public facilities is a basic right. Limiting any member of the public from using those same facilities is discrimination. In an absolute sense, bathrooms should not have any gender identification. Anon your statement does not make sense. "If you respond, "no, she does not have that right," then you are acknowledging that the granting of the right to "restroom choice" for biological male that are transgendered DOES deny another, and much larger, group of citizens a basic right." If I say she does not have that right - then a right is not being denied. You would argue that a female should have a right to use public facilities without a male. Yet foolishly, HB2 identifies a male versus a female - instead of a person identifying for themselves. No one has responded to the fact that someone who looks and acts like a man can walk into a woman's bathroom now completely legally because he was born female. LGBT is simply a reference for historically discriminated against group of persons. As absolutely no one should be discriminated against, the letter of the group that someone identifies with becomes irrelevant. Blogger it is almost like you were saying that it is OK to discriminate against transgenders but cut us some slack because we no longer discriminate against homos. Really?

Happily Married said...

The unfortunate reality is – and the main reason that so many are up in arms – is that HB2 is not just about bathrooms. It establishes protected classes of people for purposes of employment that specifically includes biological sex and excludes sexual identity or sexual preferences. Therefore (for those not keeping up) a gay person or transgender person can be fired just because they are who they are and the only choice would be for that person to try to fight it in Federal Court. It then goes on to say that local jurisdiction cannot make up their own rules regarding this or minimum wage – that these areas are the sole dominion of the State of NC. That is why HB2 is coming under fire regarding the LGBT community. It specifically allows discrimination as far as the State of NC is concerned.

Happily Married said...

As bathrooms have nothing to do with sex, in an absolute world gender specific bathrooms would be unnecessary. I have previously pointed out that this idea has been presented in shows like Ally McBeal and movies like Starship Troopers. Europe has evolved such that nudity is simply not that big of a deal. Since we are talking about PUBLIC facilities – how can one rail about a sense of privacy? If you are so concerned, then many entities have single user facilities that you can utilize. And I bet not one person read the NC General statute that I presented that offers punishment for those that might be bad characters. Good laws are not removed because of fear about a few who might abuse a situation. Since multi user bathrooms are not locked, bad characters can already access multi user public bathrooms. You people are so concerned about a “wierdo” that you are overlooking the real issues. I noticed that no one responded when I bring up real danger – 12000 deaths a month from guns and how when gun control laws are brought up conservatives go apeshit about it. When liberals bring this up the response is that gun owners should not be impacted by the few bad characters that have guns. Please explain the difference to me. Since we can’t seem to evolve into this absolute – an ordinance was created in Charlotte that mirrored 200 others just like it in other cities that have worked just fine. It did provide for some protections for transgender people – but if you think that it is somehow a god given right for a woman to be able to use a bathroom free of any biological male – then yes it would impact that right in a very few instances. I say bathrooms should simply be bathrooms for whoever needs to go. Restroom choice will not grant any easier access to potential victims than that which is already there. The bathroom safety issue is just an excuse to hate and discriminate against the LGBT community. Finally, for Sark and Anon who would suggest that I would applaud my wife or daughter being sexually assaulted – you can go fuck yourself. The suggestion is deplorable and infuriating – and just piss poor. But that should not surprise me given the complete lack of character you have shown on this board.

Blogger said...

HR Did you even read my comment above? You did not answer my questions and you glossed over my points that HD2 is not about religion but about common sense Americans. You are flimflaming me now.

Anonymous said...

HM is spinning SOOOOO fast. LOL! Three lengthy posts that aren't even worth reading, and no clear yes/no answer to my query regarding a woman's right to privacy in a bathroom. Here's the conundrum -- if using the bathroom in the presence of someone of another gender shouldn't be that big of a deal for a heterosexual woman, why is it such a big deal for a transgender? If HM is going to make the claim that heterosexuals should just "get over it," why not tell transgenders to just "get over it" -- you know, treat both groups the same? Ha! And I guess that those "more evolved" Europeans don't experience sexual assault anymore, right? You are trying your best to defend the indefensible and ridiculous. It makes you a ridiculous idiot.

Anonymous said...

HM, just answer with a straight yes or no -- does a woman have the right to use a restroom absent a biological male (for your clarification, that would be a person with a penis). I know you don't want to, but try...

Anonymous said...

And let me restate my earlier statement -- it wasn't exactly what I wanted it to say:

"If you respond, "yes, she has that right," then RESTROOM CHOICE CANNOT BECOME POLICY. If you respond, "no, she does not have that right," then you are acknowledging that the granting of the right to "restroom choice" for biological male that are transgendered DOES deny another, and much larger, group of citizens a basic right."


Blame religion? That's just pathetic. I've never claimed a religious motivation in this argument, just common sense and decency. And no one has claimed that they want to prohibit someone from using public restrooms completely, as you state. You are setting up straw men to knock down, because that's easier than answering direct questions directly and honestly. Basing public policy on TV sitcoms and science fiction movies? Idiot! Juvenile idiot, at that.

Again I ask, just respond with a simple yes or no -- does a woman have the right to use a restroom absent a biological male (for your clarification, that would be a person with a penis)?

Happily Married said...

Blogger, I did read your post and then thought about it for awhile. My first reaction was The one who walks away from Omelas. Your suggestion that the Transgender portion of the population was somehow subject to discrimination and they only joined the others in order to avoid it. NO ONE is subject to discrimination - that is the answer to your question. They are lumped together because they are all out of the norm in this society and subject to the same injustice as the other letters (see Whitey). I only made it about religion because that is the real root of the problem - the sexual morays of our society. You use phrases like common sense Americans and then refuse to acknowledge that the perspective is common sense Christian Americans who don't believe that public nudity is an acceptable activity - even so much so that you would like to see public breastfeeding banned. It is the same thing. An exposed breast does not indicate sex - it has many purposes and functions. The act of showering or relieving one self is not sexual in nature - but the religiously moralistic will decry it as possibly sexual and then try to "cover it up". Even making the naked body somehow shameful. That is patently absurd. God made the naked body and made it beautiful and only religion has decried it as sinful.
Anon, the very simple answer to your question (which you would have gotten if you had read) was no - a woman does not have any sanctimonious right to be able to use a public facility for showering or relieving herself with or without the presence of any other person, penis burdened or otherwise. The act of showering or bodily relief is not sexual in nature so the presence of the opposite sex should be irrelevant. EVERYONE is entitled to not be peeped on or sexually harassed or assaulted and we have laws to address that (still no one has read the statute). This statement will probably fly in the face of any religious person and their bodily shame and embarrassment. This is why the Charlotte law was phrased the way it was. Ultimately the law should read that no one has the right for use in a public facility separate from any form of sexually oriented person regardless. We will eventually get there. We just have to deal with you neanderthals until then. Once again for the addle minded, If I am saying she does not have a RIGHT - then that means I do not consider that a BASIC RIGHT has been denied to a larger group of citizens.

Anyone wan to tackle the flaw in HB2 that now allows someone who appears fully male complete with facial hair and hormone replacement being required by law to use the public women's facility?

Anonymous said...

"Anon, the very simple answer to your question (which you would have gotten if you had read) was no - a woman does not have any sanctimonious right to be able to use a public facility for showering or relieving herself with or without the presence of any other person"

You bury your answer in a lot of drivel. But there it is, so my next question is, if it shouldn't matter for a woman and she has no said right, then what's the big deal for transgenders? Why do they NEED a RIGHT to use a particular restroom based on what they say, or how they feel. It shouldn't be a big deal for them either, so they should just use the restroom of their actual biology. Pointless issue over.

In spite of the length of your posts and attempts to obfuscate the issue, you got destroyed in this debate.

Cyclops said...

HM said: That is why HB2 is coming under fire regarding the LGBT community. It specifically allows discrimination as far as the State of NC is concerned.

The was NO prohibition of LGBT discrimination in NC state law BEFORE HB2. A few NC cities like Asheville and Raleigh had LGBT anti discrimination protections in city ordinances, but none of these were as broad as Charlotte's proposed ordinance, which would have prohibited private owners and operators from designating SEPARATE gender specific bathroom and locker room facilities.

Under the Governor's just announced Executive Order, it is now state policy to prohibit LBGT discrimination in state government employment and services from state agencies. And BTW, I believe there is no Federal law that specifically prohibits discrimination against LBGTs. (There may be some EEOC regulations addressing this, I am not sure about that).

And this claim that over 200 U.S jurisdictions have bathroom/locker room ordinances similar to the one passed by the Charlotte City Council is BOGUS. Only Washington state and the City of Toronto have LGBT anti discrimination laws that prohibit gender specific bathrooms like Charlotte tried to do. And there have already been several documented instances where male sexual predators have entered female facilities in Washington and Toronto and there was no law under which they could be charged unless and until they tried to perform an illegal sexual act.

LBGT advocacy groups and their liberal allies are blatantly lying about liberalized bathroom access in other jurisdictions. When one actually examines the legal implications of most LBGT anti discrimination measures, one will find that the great majority do not allow unfettered access to gender specific rest rooms and locker rooms.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Try again, I agree that transgender individuals should not have special rights - and that woman should not have special rights - and bathrooms should be gender neutral for all and that you gender status should be irrelevant. I went on to state that the Charlotte ordinance only went halfway in providing special rights where none should be allocated. The reason is that implementing and ordinance where all bathrooms are gender neutral would cause the heads of most in here to explode and that Charlotte was trying to strike a compromise. I did not get destroyed - you did not read. Are you ready for completely gender neutral bathrooms. I imagine you are still a neanderthal when it comes to sexuality and believe breastfeeding in public should be illegal.

Happily Married said...

Cyclops,

That is exactly the issue. The State of North Carolina decided to enact an ordinance and specifically leave out LGBT protections and then go even further and dictate that the local ordinances were null and void (so it specifically eliminates protections for these people in Asheville and Raleigh.) The North Carolina general assembly could have easily simply nullified the bathroom piece of it and could have probably justified it based on its problematic premise (see above where I agree that arguing protection for transgender people in bathrooms is no different than arguing protection from opposite sex in a public bathroom.) They decided to not take that very simple course of action. They decided to define discrimination - specifically leaving out any reference to sexual preference or identity and then dictate that local ordinance could never trump this law. They then went on to dictate that local jurisdictions have no authority to dictate minimum wage. The Governor trying to backtrack and say state employees are protected is just ridiculous when the rest of the state no longer has any protections. As indicated on this blog, many of you would have no problem firing a transgender person just because you thought they were a weirdo or a pervert. NC went too far. Maybe the reaction has also gone too far. Both sides need to find a middle ground. The easiest way would be to make all bathrooms gender neutral - but I just felt the rumble of hundreds of heads exploding.

Happily Married said...

Cyclops,

Funny thing is that I am not sure if there was any previous ordinance that punished transgenders from using the bathroom of their choice - as stated it would not have punishable unless a crime occurred. In its attempt to do the right thing for the LGBT community, Charlotte made matters worse. In an attempt to address Charlotte's problem, NC showed its ass by by basically saying that no protections for the LGBT community would ever be recognized and local governments have no rights to do so either - and they really stepped in it from a business perspective.

Cyclops said...

My comment was not about trans genders, it was about male predators having access to female facilities--bath rooms, lockers rooms, etc. Under the Washington state law, several males gained access to female facilities for the stated purpose of satisfying sexual urges. There was no law in effect to prevent or prosecute them for doing so.

Under traditional legal codes and ordinances, intruders deliberately entering the wrong gender specific facility could be forced to leave by the owner/operator and if they refused, could be charged with trespassing in the case of a privately owned bathroom.

HB2 is not about punishing trans genders for using the wrong restroom. If fact, there is no enforcement provision included in HB2. HB2 prevents a local jurisdiction from mandating that privately-owned businesses cannot maintain and operate gender specific facilities. With regard to rest rooms/locker rooms in public schools and government run facilities, HB2 requires that there be separate gender specific facilities provided. But here again, there is no enforcement language. I suppose the state could take a local school district to court to enforce HB2, but I doubt that would happen under Roy Cooper's tenure as state Attorney-General

Anonymous said...

"I imagine you are still a neanderthal"

Yeah, I'm a "neanderthal" because I think men should go to men's rooms and women should go to women's room. Having common sense and decency makes me a neanderthal. Tell me, is there any "moral" that you agree to, other than some undeterminable undefinable "no discrimination" policy? Seems to be that for someone who support "not discriminating," you sure discriminate a lot against people that don't share your views on sex and nudity, and just about everything else, for that matter. Do you have any morals in these areas whatsoever?

And descending to name calling (neanderthal) does indeed show that you realize you lost this debate. You couldn't beat me, so you try to diminish me with a label.

Cyclops said...

HM, you are right about HB2 negating LGBT anti discrimination laws in local jurisdictions. Probably an unintended consequence that may be corrected.

But it seems to me it makes sense for the state to want to prevent a hodgepodge of different employment and anti discrimination laws among different jurisdictions across the state. Uniformity of laws affecting private business employment practices would seem to be a plus for generating economic growth, particularly when dealing with large employers with multiple locations throughout the state. And I am sure you are aware. of course, that all municipalities in NC are creations of the state and all local authorities and powers are granted to cities and towns by the state.

With regard to minimum wage laws and ordinances, that's where we get into severe liberal/conservative differences of opinion. As a conservative, I believe state laws or local ordinances mandating increases in the minimum wage have more adverse than positive impacts. While its not the subject of this thread to debate those impacts, it makes perfect economic sense to me for a state to have a uniform minimum wage across all jurisdictions. Thus I would support the provision of HB2 that prevents local jurisdictions from mandating a minimum wage different from that of the state.

Anonymous said...

HM's views:

Public nudity -- OK
Men and women sharing public restrooms -- OK
Religion in public -- Not OK; must be relegated to private areas (home and church)

And he's too stupid to see the ludicrous nature of his stands because he is so much more "evolved" than the rest of us.

Hey, HM, since you want to base your opinions on sitcoms and science fiction movies, do you think that eventually we'll evolve out of having sex altogether? Maybe we'll just put on VR headsets like in Demolition Man!

Anonymous said...

HM's ideal, move evolved world:

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/glennmccoy/2016/04/12/140368

Anonymous said...

I've given that VR headset thing some more thought and realized that it would never work in HM's more "evolved" world since it would rely upon the sense of sight. HM's position seems to be that in the future, human males will not be stimulated by sight any more, even though scientifically, sight is the primary trigger (animals rely more on sense of smell and pheromones).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women

"To begin with, it’s essential to note that the literature specifically studying men’s arousal patterns (gay as well as straight) has repeatedly emphasized their sensitivity to visual cues."

HM, your position is in opposition to science! I guess that can be expected from someone who bases their opinions on sitcoms and science fiction movies!

Anonymous said...

"I believe state laws or local ordinances mandating increases in the minimum wage have more adverse than positive impacts. "

Evidence points to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

http://img3.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/50028/1000544093/870/do-they-understand-the-purpose-of-signs-photo-u1.jpg

Happily Married said...

Anon 8:03,

Your comments are actually proving me right about evolving. I never suggested that male arousal would not be dependent on visual stimulus. It very much is and most likely always will be. Around this world we have nudist colonies where nudity is no big deal. that is not to say that males in these colonies are not visually stimulated. they are simply evolved enough so that they recognize an appropriate time and place to engage in sexual thought and activity. This is probably beyond your comprehension - but it suggests that just because males see nudity that they have to screw something. Yes, i do have morals. I believe all people should be treated treated with decency regardless of any classification. When they say something stupid trying to defend discrimination, that changes.

I go back to religious mandates and shame practices for firstly making sex something bad and then secondly making people ashamed of sex and of their bodies. Why is it that African and South American tribes have no problem with nudity? They are usually naked until influenced by whites to start wearing clothes.

So Ill ask the question again, the very small percentage of people who might - I say might try and take advantage of the bill and sneak into a bathroom in hopes of not getting caught and publicly embarrassed justifies this outrage but 12000 people a month are killed by handguns and the response is - don't you dare touch my right - or anyone else's right to own guns. Even USSRY thinks criminal and felons should not be exempt from the right to own guns. I simply dont understand the uproar over one and the pacifist approach to gun violence. Seems pretty hypocritical. Also, i notice no one has touched the fact that, as of right now, a person with full facial hair and hormone replacement therapy dressed as a man can legally go and hang out in women's bathrooms just because his birth certificate says he was born a woman. Remind me again how smart this law was? And if it is so great, why is NC being judged so harshly. Are we arrogant enough to think that we are smarter or better than the rest of the country that is in an uproar?

Cyclops said...

Anon 8:58 Don't bother providing me with your evidence that raising the minimum wage has mostly positive impacts. Provide it to you state Rep or Senator so he or she can share it with the General Assembly. Even if it's not credible, the liberal press and the Democrat Party will get behind it and help defeat the GOP in November. (LOL)

Cyclops said...

Anyone see the Governor on Meet the Press today? He really held his own against Chuck Todd and NBC NEws who were obviously trying to make him and the state GOP look bad. McCrory put Todd back on his proverbial heels (no pun intended) when Todd came up with his gotcha questions and parroted liberal and LGBT spin.

McCrory's appearance apparently was a disappointment to the liberal MSM. I've seen few follow up stories on it from the national press.

Anonymous said...

"And if it is so great, why is NC being judged so harshly. Are we arrogant enough to think that we are smarter or better than the rest of the country that is in an uproar?"

We are only being judged by vocal and obnoxious liberal and homosexual bully groups that seek to drive the conversation by dominating media attention. If you talk to the vast majority of sane, decent people, they know that male/female restrooms are common sense the correct choice. Who's condemned us? Uber liberal politicians in liberal states who are shoring up their own support. Uber liberal celebrities seeking to draw attention to themselves. Uber liberal media outlets who create a liberal echo chamber that will convince weak-minded liberals like you that "all educated and forward thinking" people agree with us. It's called a bandwagon -- try to make everyone think that THIS is THE only legitimate view. The silent majority knows better.

Let me ask you this -- I support a three restroom compromise. Male/Female/Gender Neutral. How about a compromise? Agreed? Why must the homo/transgender group get their way all the way?

Happily Married said...

I completely agree with the comp[romise - it helps families with kids anyway. Now amend the class of people to include the LGBT community such that someone cant get fired just because they are LGBT and remove the minimum wage part and we would be good to go. Once again (as stated earlier) Charlotte went too far one way and then NC went way too far the other way.

Happily Married said...

Also - get rid of any mandates or punishments regarding "biological". I have given a very real possibility that no one here can respond too. Transgenders used to go to bathrooms that most match their gender identity. Charlotte had to codify the practice - which was a mistake. I would also suggest to those who are so squeamish about the possibility of a penis being in a women's bathroom - you better find those single occupant bathrooms because I can guarantee you that most of you have been in a multi person bathroom where someone had a penis - and did not even know it.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that there are very many "Someones" who have a penis and do not even know it.

Cyclops said...

In some circumstances, single facility bathrooms will not suffice. Examples would be high school and middle school locker rooms and privately-operated fitness centers that cater to both males and females. In these cases, HB2 is right on target and there is no room for compromise.

Even in the Virginia case now before the federal courts, the school offered the trans gender male a private, single-facility restroom in lieu of him having access the female specific facilities. He and his family, no doubt egged on by LGBT advocacy groups, would not accept the compromise arguing that it was degrading for him not to be able to have access to female facilities.

So it's really specious to claim that a compromise can be structured to placate all sides. In public schools and private gyms, separate male and female locker rooms must be maintained or social order will be seriously undermined.

Happily Married said...

Cyclops,

In the case of "no room for compromise" then how do we decide who gets the short end of the stick? Your approach would be to let the LGBT suffer because the rest of us are "normal". In the Virginia case, it sounds like the boy wanted to be a girl - to be like the other girls, to participate in the same activities that the others girls did. It seams a stretch to think that he wanted to use the girls locker room because he(she) would gain sexual arousal from peeping or staring. The other girls could either treat him like a wierdo - or they could be understanding that he simply wants to be like the other girls. The Federal government has been fairly consistent in its approach to these issues - albeit over a long period of time. blacks no longer have to use a separate water fountain, even the main entrance to every new building has to be wheelchair accessible - because it it demeaning to be forced to use a loading dock when you just want to be like everybody else - but you are bound to a wheelchair. Change is slow.
I noticed everyone shut up when the anon tried to indicate that I was suggesting that people are not visually stimulated and I reminded him that nudist colonies exist all over the world - where teenagers are taught that nude and sex are not necessarily the same thing. Once again, our religious traditions have told us to cover up for fear of sexual arousal. I would definitely say that nudist colonies have evolved beyond the religious shaming doctrine. It might take a while, but we will get there someday. Please remind me again what threat this boy in Va poses?

Happily Married said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/opinion/transgender-bathroom-hysteria-contd.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Cyclops said...

HM, Your claims are straw men. No where have I seen it suggested, except in your posts, that the trans wanting to use female facilities is doing so for sexual arousal. That's a phony, disingenuous claim to try to marginalize the opposition to new LGBT "rights."

In terms who who gets the short end of the stick as you put it, do you really think teenage females would (or should) welcome a biological male into their dressing rooms. Liberals have always emphasized privacy rights, but now they're willing to relinquish those rights to satisfy the desires of a biological boy to act female and hang out with the girls? I just can't believe thoughtful liberals are willing and apparently eager to accept whole hog the LGBT agenda which would create new "rights" for a minuscule minority and weaken long-standing rights of the vast majority of the population.

This whole LGBT claim of new rights to access which ever gender specific venue they choose is nothing short of Orwellian. And it has great potential to increase hostility between heterosexuals and the LGBT community.

Happily Married said...

Actually Cyclops, many have suggested that trans people are perverts, immoral, and that someone with a penis is man no matter what - then followed up by men are driven by visual stimulation. No straw man or marginalization - connecting the dots are not a great leap - and the conservative view of just someone being trans is hateful. Great, so if Trans people want to use facilities of the gender that they most identify with (and most likely look most like) is not doing so for sexual arousal, and if people pay attention and start to understand that gay people and trans people are just people, then what is wrong with a trans person using that restroom that they most want to identify with? As stated many times, it has most likely already happened without anyone knowing any better. What privacy rights are liberals relinquishing if a biological boy acts like a female and hangs out with girls if there is no sexual arousal? Girls have had gay guy friends forever and today's generation especially will treat gay guys just like one of their regular girlfriends. Which longstanding "rights" would be weakened? The use of public facilities is a public health issue such that everyone has a right to access public facilities. Not sure where it is a "right" that public facilities only be occupied by a specific biological sex - it might be an expectation. If it is not a right then it is not old or new - and that is the only way to satisfy the issue of same rights. Everyone uses the bathroom or shower in the restroom of the sex that they most identify with - that way - everyone has the same rights. The more this discussion goes , the more I see the point of Charlotte's approach. If you are suggesting that equal rights will increase the hostility between heterosexuals and the LGBT community - then whose shoulders would that fall?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I doubt that there are very many "Someones" who have a penis and do not even know it."

Obama?

Cyclops said...

HM, You don't think there are existing privacy rights? Wasn't Rowe vs Wade decided on privacy rights? Don't teen age girls have a right to privacy from someone who is biologically a male? Under your liberal view, any male can access a girls' locker room by just claiming they identify as a female.

If there is no privacy right implied in gender specific bathrooms that have been the norm for centuries, under what rationale have separate male and female been legal and accepted?

Since the passage of HB2, I have seen no proponent of the law, including members of the General Assembly, claim that trans genders are "perverts" and "immoral."You are implying those motives to supporters of HB2 and that is a straw man argument. I challenge you to provide us a quote from a supporter of HB2 that trans are "perverts" and "immoral."

The biggest problem with the view that there should be no gender specific facilities is not with trans or other LGBTs. The problem is with heterosexual perverts taking advantage of liberalized access to gender specific facilities. This is the primary objection to the Charlotte ordinance and one that LGBT advocates like you fail to address.

I am not suggesting equal rights will increase hostility between the the two communities. I am saying that the granting of special rights that abridge the rights of the majority will create a hostile atmosphere and that will be the direct responsibility of LGBT advocacy groups and their liberal allies.

Happily Married said...

Cyclops,
Firstly see Whitey above for your bigotry. I also want to say that Sark through in a few choice words way back when the issue first came up but I am not going to take the time to research it.

See how hypocritical this is:

The biggest problem with the view that there should be no GUNS (gender specific facilities) is not with HUNTERS OR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS (trans or other LGBTs). The problem is with GUN TOTING CRIMINALS (heterosexual perverts) taking advantage of A COMPLETE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHEREABOUTS AND POSSESSION OF GUNS (liberalized access to gender specific facilities). This is the primary objection to the NRA (Charlotte ordinance) and one that GUN ADVOCATES(LGBT advocates) like you fail to address.

Gun owners and second amendment preachers will harp all day long about the fact that guns are not the problem and that it is the criminals that need to be punished. Please tell me how the bathroom situation is any different. Guns kill 3000 people a month. Bad characters in bathrooms pretending to be something they are not will be caught and should be punished harshly. Bad characters are going to try and take advantage wherever they can. The reality of the "MILLIONS AT RISK" is greatly exaggerated and overblown - and an example of fear tactics that work to allow for discrimination.

Blogger said...

H M gave us a link above to the insidious NY times. Here we go again. The article starts: “After the withering backlash against North Carolina for passing a discriminatory law against gay and transgender people, last month.”

Does anyone know of a discriminatory law against gays?

There is no discriminatory law against gays. There is only a common sense law to keep men out of women’s bathrooms. Nothing about gays. We all have agreed there is no necessary connection between transgender and gay. Juxtaposing the two is a sleazy left-wing artifice to associate one with the other in the minds of careless readers. The problem is, that like the Nazi propaganda trick of telling a lie over an over until people believed it, it is working.

Anonymous said...

Media bias on full display. The WAY in which media phrases and frames its articles is intentional. It is meant to shape public opinion. The opening line on an article on this issue could just as easily begin:

"Withering backlash has developed against North Carolina after the General Assembly recently adopted a law meant to shield women and children from potential harm from sexual predators seeking to exploit restroom choice."

Totally different tone. Totally different effect on how people think about this issue.

Gays and transgenders ARE NOT discriminated against through single gender restroom laws. HB2 does not ban ANY business or institution from adopting a three restroom policy if they choose -- male, female and gender neutral. The Charlotte ordinance was the extreme legislation because it REQUIRED ALL institutions to allow anyone claiming to be a transgender to have access to the restroom of their choice. Yet it is the NC HB2 that is being portrayed as extreme. Under the Charlotte ordinance, would churches be required to allow men who claim to be transgenders into women's restrooms? Yes.

Happily Married said...

Blogger

You (and most others here) are simply not paying attention. HB2 is discriminatory against gays. What is shameful is that I have to post it here before anyone here will actually read it - mostly due to the attention paid to your lying talking heads. Your comments just piss me off because the exact opposite is the truth:
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS SECTION 3.1. G.S.143-
422.2 reads as rewritten:
"
§ 143
-
422.2. Legislative declaration.
(a)
It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.

For those incapable of comprehension, HB2 provides for protected classes in thsi state and specifically EXCLUDES sexual orientation and INCLUDES BIOLOGICAL SEX. This means that if a gay person or transgender person were fired just because they are gay or transgender, they have no rights. This is exactly why this is a discriminatory law. The Gov tried to put the genies back in the bottle by issuing s directive that State employees are protected - but legal scholars believe that will not hold water. HB2 goes on further to state that local jurisdictions have no authority to provide for their own protected classes like Asheville and Raleigh had already done - meaning that not only did NC not consider them protected classes - they stripped the protections of local government and will not let them define ti for themselves. PLEASE PLEASE tell me you see how this is a discriminatory bill. A simple yes will suffice. Please tell me how you see that the articles words are not bias - that you have been told lies. This is simply too cut and dry.

Happily Married said...

Happily Married has left a new comment on your post "More on the Chalotte Bathroom Issue": HM for some reason, I can't find this yet on the blog but it was in my email.

Blogger

You (and most others here) are simply not paying attention. HB2 is discriminatory against gays. What is shameful is that I have to post it here before anyone here will actually read it - mostly due to the attention paid to your lying talking heads. Your comments just piss me off because the exact opposite is the truth:
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS SECTION 3.1. G.S.143-
422.2 reads as rewritten:
"
§ 143
-
422.2. Legislative declaration.
(a)
It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.

For those incapable of comprehension, HB2 provides for protected classes in thsi state and specifically EXCLUDES sexual orientation and INCLUDES BIOLOGICAL SEX. This means that if a gay person or transgender person were fired just because they are gay or transgender, they have no rights. This is exactly why this is a discriminatory law. The Gov tried to put the genies back in the bottle by issuing s directive that State employees are protected - but legal scholars believe that will not hold water. HB2 goes on further to state that local jurisdictions have no authority to provide for their own protected classes like Asheville and Raleigh had already done - meaning that not only did NC not consider them protected classes - they stripped the protections of local government and will not let them define ti for themselves. PLEASE PLEASE tell me you see how this is a discriminatory bill. A simple yes will suffice. Please tell me how you see that the articles words are not bias - that you have been told lies. This is simply too cut and dry.

Blogger said...

Happily Married has left a new comment on your post "More on the Chalotte Bathroom Issue": HM this came up on my email but not on the blog. I posted it and it disappeared again. This is the third attempt. Never had this happen before.

Blogger

You (and most others here) are simply not paying attention. HB2 is discriminatory against gays. What is shameful is that I have to post it here before anyone here will actually read it - mostly due to the attention paid to your lying talking heads. Your comments just piss me off because the exact opposite is the truth:
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS SECTION 3.1. G.S.143-
422.2 reads as rewritten:
"
§ 143
-
422.2. Legislative declaration.
(a)
It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.

For those incapable of comprehension, HB2 provides for protected classes in thsi state and specifically EXCLUDES sexual orientation and INCLUDES BIOLOGICAL SEX. This means that if a gay person or transgender person were fired just because they are gay or transgender, they have no rights. This is exactly why this is a discriminatory law. The Gov tried to put the genies back in the bottle by issuing s directive that State employees are protected - but legal scholars believe that will not hold water. HB2 goes on further to state that local jurisdictions have no authority to provide for their own protected classes like Asheville and Raleigh had already done - meaning that not only did NC not consider them protected classes - they stripped the protections of local government and will not let them define ti for themselves. PLEASE PLEASE tell me you see how this is a

Blogger said...

HM First of all, what hard proof do you have to back up the claim that leaving out one protected group was deliberately anti that group?

Obese people were not included and they get fired everyday, as do women who become pregnant and smokers and members of other groups. Do we include everyone we can think of in the list?

Keep in mind, most of us aren’t walking around with the same antenna out that you have. Thus when we see someone reading threats into things that don’t seem obvious to the rest of us, we tend to think of that as paranoid.

Anonymous said...

It's the same straw man tactic other liberals, and HM have used. "Religious freedom laws mean that if a paramedic is a Christian, then they can refuse to save the life of a gay person!" Lies! I have yet to see a single documented case where religious persons have sought the right to discriminate in wholesale fashion against gays. This entire animosity can be blamed directly on homosexuals and their liberal supporters (HM) because they have intentionally targeted Christian businesses and demanded that they provide services for gay weddings. In every case I know of -- the Oregon baker, the New Mexico photographer -- the Christian businesspersons have regularly provided services to homosexual customers. They simply have drawn the line at participating in gay weddings by baking the cake or being compelled, against their will, the be in attendance taking pictures. Legalized gay marriage was not enough for these zealots. They have intentionally sought out Christians to force their participation in gay marriages or destruction of their livelihood through discrimination accusations. Their tyranny has been met with attempts by state governments to shield people of faith from such attacks on their freedom of religion. These religious liberty laws now are described as "anti-gay" when they are responses to "anti-Christian" actions by the gay bullies and people like HM.

Gays have their gay marriage. They have rights. Now they want unlimited access to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. They want to invade every facet of your life and FORCE you to accept everything about them. Everything now is an attempt to denigrate Christians and force people of faith to change their beliefs or, at the minimum, prevent them from EVER expressing their beliefs in public or living and running their business according to their beliefs.

Liberals, and especially gay liberals, demand a tolerance they are completely incapable and unwilling to extend to others who dare disagree with them. HM is the perfect example. As has been stated before, if gays really understood tolerance, then when a Christian business owner asked -- BEGGED -- not to be forced to participate, against their will, in a gay wedding, the gay community would adopt an attitude of tolerance and acceptance and simply say, "I respect your beliefs and I will find someone else."

Blogger said...

Hm you are a real puzzle. The intensity you bring to all this would make one think you are one of those you so passionately fight for. Yet you told us that you yourself are not in among those being discriminated. The only other people I know like you are those highly developed Christian intercessorsk who devote long hours praying for others. How do you explain your passion for this group?

Happily Married said...

Blogger,

Thanks for the efforts. I think your initial question is answered in that fact that this act was created as a reaction to a non discrimination ordinance adopted by Charlotte. This act would have set up the same protections as Asheville and Raleigh for the City of Charlotte and not only did the NC action negate this act, it went on further to remove protections provided by Asheville and Raleigh and prevents any other local ordinances from providing these very specific protections. The simple question is why? You are absolutely right in that protected classes could be expanded to include others. No one should ever be fired for reasons other than inability to perform a task at a level of expectation. Unfortunately it happens all the time. Other responses to follow.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals, and especially gay liberals, demand a tolerance they are completely incapable and unwilling to extend to others who dare disagree with them. "

I suppose the Jews should have been tolerant of the Nazi's?

Sarkazein said...

The above comment ranks right up there with the dumbest comments ever. That's three new ones in such a short period of time.

Anonymous said...

Explain.

Anonymous said...

So, Anon 5:45, are you saying American Christians who request not to be forced to provide their services for a gay wedding are comparable to Nazis? A simple yes or no will do.

Anonymous said...

There are no gay bullies. Gays, transgenders and their allies aren't bullies and do not try to punish or intimidate people that disagree with them:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25562635/charlotte-could-lose-nba-all-star-game-if-hb2-law-isnt-changed

I'll bet Charlotte is wishing they had never started this with their stupid restroom choice dictate.

Governor McCoy and members of the GA -- DON'T GIVE IN! Please do not kowtow to intimidation and threats. Sometimes, fighting for the right thing comes with costs, but you are on the right side. You are protecting the majority of decent, common-sense citizens from obscene and stupid policies and ideas.

Every person who believes that men should use men's rooms and women should use women's rooms, and that grown men should NOT be allowed into women's rooms with women and little girls should boycott every company and entertainer that has waded into this issue. We ARE the vast majority. If we ALL used the same tactics of the left and boycotted every one of these companies, states and individuals, they would change THEIR tune! Research where you spend your money.

Anonymous said...

The rationale for the bigotry is consistent.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but wonder if a couple of our lefties here are simply getting excited over the possibility that they will be able to hang out it the ladies room! DemRex certainly comes across as the kind of person who would enjoy sniffing toilet seats in the woman's bathroom.

I'm not too sure about Happy. I think he is probably just ignorant. In either case, I don't think I want him in the girls room with my daughters.

Anonymous said...

Again I say:

There are no gay bullies. Gays, transgenders and their allies aren't bullies and do not try to punish or intimidate people that disagree with them:

Curt Schilling Fired from ESPN

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/21/curt-schilling-espn-and-your-god-given-plumbing.html

"Curt Schilling joins a growing list of Americans who have been punished for rejecting the basic tenets of the gender revolution. From bakers in Oregon to a florist in Washington State – there is a nefarious movement afoot to silence anyone who dares oppose the LGBT agenda.

Just this week, I wrote about Dr. Eric Walsh, a medical doctor and lay minister who was fired from his public-sector job in part because of sermons he delivered against homosexuality.

Again, those who preach tolerance have demonstrated time and time again – that they are the least tolerant."

Especially troubling? A bi-vocational minister who is fired from his secular job for what he said in his church. Free exercise of religion? Free speech? Not any more. Didn't HM once say that people can believe whatever they want and express those views in their homes and churches? Wheeeee, down the slippery slope some more!

Here's a good question -- if a religious person can lose their secular job for expression of religious views IN CHURCH, can religious institutions fire people for views of lifestyles NOT in line with the religious views of that institution? If a Catholic school discovers it has a gay teacher, can they fire them?

Zealot - def: a fanatical partisan; Gays, the gay lobby and their supporters (HM) are zealots. You cannot disagree with them. You will pay if you do.

Sarkazein said...

Building the ranks of The Thought Police.

Happily Married said...

If a Catholic school discovers they have hired a black teacher, can they fire him for being black?

Retro said...

HM asks: "If a Catholic school discovers they have hired a black teacher, can they fire him for being black?"

No, but could they fire him for being an outspoken atheist and promoting that view in classes he taught? I would certainly hope they could.

Socrates said...

If a gay couple asks a Muslim baker to bake them a cake with a picture of the prophet Mohammed on it, can the baker be required to do it?

Anonymous said...

"If a Catholic school discovers they have hired a black teacher, can they fire him for being black?"

That may be the DUMBEST comment I've ever read! Where to begin? Gay and black are not the same. Could anyone hire a black person and not know during the hiring process that the person was black? Well, in today's world, maybe it's a white person who IDENTIFIES as black, but doesn't say so until after they're hired. A person COULD hide the fact that they are gay until after getting the job. Could a Catholic church fire them? If a Christian can be fired from a secular job for religious beliefs expressed in church, can a gay person be fired from a religious job if their lifestyle conflicts with the views of that religion?

No comment on a bi-vocational minister getting fired from their secular job for what they said in church? No comment on the gay tyrants and their liberal supporters (you) persecuting people for their religious beliefs? What happened to you stating that, if it ever came to something like this, you would fight just as strongly for a person to have religious freedoms? Guess that was just a ruse to get what you wanted at that time. Liberals ARE dishonest to the core.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 6:10 PM- Well said!

Sarkazein said...

If a Catholic school hires a Black...????

The first Black Catholic priests were hired in the 1830's. Is HM still trying to make sexual preference a race?

The Catholics were proselytizing Blacks back in the 1500's.

Anonymous said...

Sark...It is VERY difficult to win an argument with a smart person - IMPOSSIBLE to win one with an idiot.

Stop wasting your time!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you can't win an argument.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Anonymous- Your definition of "winning an argument" is typing more words than the other person. Also, some of the Catholic Priests involved in homosexual pedophilia were fired no matter their race. They should have said they "identified" as a 12 year old girl.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals Want To Break You By Forcing You To Lie"

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/04/25/liberals-want-to-break-you-by-forcing-you-to-lie-n2152933

"Look, we feel terrible about your very real feelings that you aren’t the sex you are, and we don’t want to add to your pain, but the truth is the truth and we are not cruel or terrible or inaccurate when we refuse to pretend a delusion is reality. You can dope yourself with chemicals and submit to surgical mutilation, but there are things called chromosomes and they make the call. Chromosomes fall into the category of something called “science” – you know, that thing you libs say we conservatives hate when we refuse to believe Bill Nye when he frets that a three day heat wave in Phoenix foretells a fiery global apocalypse? Regardless, our wives and daughters are not going to endure creepy pervs – we’re really mostly worried about skeevy straight men pretending to be trans so they can get their jollies lurking in women’s toilets – so that we can somehow prove ourselves compliant with a God-free liberal moral code that encourages us to shout ever more eagerly that the Emperor’s new clothes are fabulous."

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 9:25 PM- I misread your message. I misread it and it read as a HM type comment. My apologies. Apparently the comment is a real Anonymous comment and not a fake Anonymous comment.

Sarkazein said...

But, the content of my comment remains the same, just not to the real Anonymous but to HM. HM, the resident Chief of the Thought Police and defender of public perversion everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Man decides to ask manager of Target if he can use women's restroom. Not a trans, just an ordinary man wanting to use the women's room -- kind of an experiment. Manager confirms he CAN use the women's room:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/25/watch-target-store-manager-confirms-to-man-he-can-use-womens-bathroom/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

This is what we're talking about -- restroom choice MUST lead to ANYONE being allowed to use the women's room. If you open women's rooms up to certain biological males, you MUST open them to ALL biological males. And not just the ones trying to make a point, like this guy. You MUST let in the sexual predators, the pervs, the pedophiles, the guys who like to install hidden video cameras in women's locker rooms. Will Target have the ability to run background checks to see if a customer who enters their store is a registered sex offender before they enter a women's restroom where a mother and her daughter have just gone in? Of course not! You'd have to run a check on everyone who wants to use the women's restroom -- what an invasion of privacy! What a consumption of time and resources! But Happily Married says, "Don't worry! In fifty years we will have evolved past all of this." But how many people will be harmed in the meantime?

Anonymous said...

With a restroom choice policy like this and the potential danger it poses to women, doesn't this constitute a REAL "war on women?"

Anonymous said...

Florida man caught trying to record woman trying on bathing suits in changing room next to his using a "shoe camera" --

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/25/watch-target-store-manager-confirms-to-man-he-can-use-womens-bathroom/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Maybe HM thinks we'll "evolve" out of this eventually, but current policy MUST be based on current reality, not some imagined, fanciful future based on TV sitcoms and science fiction movies. This is our current reality.

Anonymous said...

Wrong link above -- here's the right one:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/25/florida-man-recorded-woman-changing-in-forever-21-fitting-room-woman-says/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 7:24 PM- Perhaps the voyeur was not a voyeur at all and was simply a wanna-be-a-girl seeking to learn the proper way of adorning a bikini safely.

Anonymous said...

Again I say, "There are no gay bullies!" Actually, HM said that, but "There are no gay bullies! If you express a viewpoint in contradiction to the gay/trans agenda, you are perfectly within your rights to do so, and the gay/trans community and their supporters will respect your rights to free speech. They will not seek to destroy you and your business!" Yeah, right:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/04/25/transgender-activists-wrath-falls-on-texas-photographer/

Photographer creates a posts a meme on her personal facebook page opposing "restroom choice." Gay/trans activists target her photography business, flooding her page with negative reviews and ratings.

Sarkazein said...

Seinfeld had a great episode about "gay bullies". Kramer would not wear the ribbon in the AIDS marathon so the gay bullies beat him up. It's a funny episode because it relates to a reality.

Anonymous said...

The boycott of Target continues to grow. Target claims that its restroom policy is a policy of inclusion, but does that inclusion include making heterosexual women and their children feel safe in their restrooms? Is Target being "welcoming and inclusive" to these customers? Or are they taking the radical stand that, if you are a woman and feel uncomfortable going to the restroom with your children with grown men who are total strangers, that you just need to "get over it." Seems like the latter.

Here's another way of thinking of this -- restroom choice is a policy driven by corporate greed. ANY business COULD build third restrooms -- they just don't want to spend that money because that would be really expensive. If a business like Target wanted to be TRULY inclusive, they would have male, female and gender neutral restrooms. In fact, any business in North Carolina could do the same thing. They're too greedy, so better to condemn NC's law and not actually do anything to be inclusive for ALL viewpoints.

Liberal heads to explode in 3....2....1....

Anonymous said...

Now over 3/4 of a million people have signed on to boycott Target. More will be coming.