What gay-crusading corporations in North Carolina don’t get
If you’re tired, like me, of being bulldozed by political correctness, especially when it applies to gays and the transgendered, then you just have to cheer for North Carolina Governor, Pat McCrory, for standing up to the corporate extortion against his state for passing commonsense legislation to deal with the issue of who can use what bathrooms. Unlike Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal, who caved in to the out-of-state pressure and betrayed his constituents, McCrory showed some spine and nicely told all the corporate extortionists where they could stick their threats of jobs and tax losses.
This is a phenomenon taking place all over that part of America where common sense still rules the thinking of those ordinary citizens fed up with the growing lunacy of political correctness. This is especially true in those situations where the lesbian/gay/whatever coterie seem hell-bent on forcing their behaviors on communities that have long held them unacceptable. The problem arises when gay activists are unwilling to settle for resigned, indifferent acceptance of their proclivities, instead becoming insistent on forced public acknowledgment and acceptance of such issues as gay marriage and restroom access. This they do by taking aim at businesses operated by those whose faith precludes their participating in nuptials that are an outright abomination according by their religious tenets or opening public restrooms used by their daughters to whatever confused gender-bending male arbitrarily decides he’s female.
As for Christian businesses, walking through the door of the targeted baker, florist, or photographer, the gay activists know full well they are going to be refused. That is entirely the point, for the refusal of service for a gay social event sets into motion a process of legally lynching those business owners who fall victim to this form of social intimidation. The usual course is mass negative media exposure closely followed by civil legal action from gay activist organizations to compel the targeted business to surrender their religious beliefs and provide services. Their only other option is to close their doors.
Here’s my conundrum: if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?
If I’m a huge professional football fan living in Atlanta and the NFL people remove my city from contention for a near-future Super Bowl because they feel my state is discriminating against the transgendered, am I not the victim of discriminatory business practices on the part of the NFL? What about those organizations and corporations that cancel annual conferences and business meetings because of the actions of my state legislature? Aren’t these big corporations refusing to do business with my state simply because they consider our practices immoral, just as those bakeries, florists, and photographers see gays as immoral? Other than scale, I see little difference.
Okay all you smart readers: Tell me where I’m wrong.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
Political correctness is the belief you can pick up a piece of shit from it’s clean end.
The only doors I want to hear slamming are the freaks going back into their closets.
To further add to the clean end of the turd belief….
The PC / Liberal crowd always insist that YOU… pick it up. Never themselves, only you!
They give instructions such as:
“It’s ok, do what I’m telling you… what? it stinks?…. well just grab the clean end and quit being a bigot!”
Word
You’re not wrong. That’s why I will never again buy Diageo products, including my beloved Guinness. You don’t tell me what I have to accept or support, then expect me to buy your sh!t
I suggest 14th Star brewery its vet owned and operated.
No difference, at all.
It will be interesting to see if some lawyers decide to go the “class action” route against those companies.
To “hoist them on their own petards”, so to speak…
Over at AOSHQ this comment was featured in the overnight thread as the comment of the day:
All the talk about bathrooms misses their point.
Every knee must be made to bend.
It’s not about the knee.
It’s not about the bending.
It’s always about the making.
Church Ladies off their meds
It’s the theme of many “progressive” businesses, just go online and look any day of the week. Zuckerberg and Howard Schultz are the poster children for “Corporate Social Responsibility” in America now – but their companies don’t say shit about atrocities in the Arab World or in other countries.
Remember the campaign last year that Schultz started, and later had to back down from when he wanted baristas to talk about racial issues when you went into Starbucks to get coffee? IF you don’t like a company’s stand on an issue, don’t use their business or products – and put them on blast on social media. When enough people speak out or shun them for business, they’ll listen.
Use their Alinsky tactics on them – punch back twice as hard! Libs/Progs don’t have the guts to fight back when confronted.
No, instead they get the shyster lawyers at the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) to take their case pro bono and SUE YOUR ASS because you hurt their feelings and were mean to them!
You mean the Anti-Christian Litigation Union?
Careful there O 8. Treading on thin ice inviting a former (Thank God FORMER) commenter who told us all, “People who are afraid of Communists are fools”.
Former? Did the illiterate fuckwit finally get himself banned?
I respect your opinion but disagree. The way the law is worded in NC is the main concern as it singles out LGBT and protects only religious beliefs that apply to discrimination against them. What of the Muslim worker who denies service to a single female because of his sincerly held religious belief? How is that any different than the resteraunt owner who denies me and my husband service on date night? Not participating in my wedding, I can forgive, but this bill goes far beyond that.
As far as the bathroom debate goes, I challenge you to find me even 1 legally proven instance of a sexual predator taking advantage of Trans protections to carry out abuse.
Here ya go sweetie:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/video_sexual_predators_take_advantage_of_transgender_laws.html
Thanks “hun”, watched the entire video. Of all the cases they mentioned only one, Christopher Hambrock, took place in a city offering bathroom rights. And in that case, it was still illegal for him to enter as he has never been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. All your video proves is that laws keeping men out of women’s bathrooms and locker rooms do nothing to stop predators anyway.
So will there be an ID card issued to men with “Gender Dysphoria”, and an attendant at the women’s bathroom to verify it?
No, All Im bring up is Transgender protections, in regards to bathrooms, do not make it any easier or harder for sexual predators. They will do what they are going to do regardless of the law. Its the same empty argument people use against campus carry. That somehow, just because its law, its going to stop some deviant from commiting a premeditated criminal act.
However, the tangible benefits to legimate transgender individuals are significant.
You stated that the man in the women’s room wasn’t there legally because he hadn’t been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. My question was and still is, how do we know which males are allowable and which are not?
We don’t and we don’t need to. If someone enters the restroom and commits a crime, we prosecute them same as we do now. What I’m trying to point out is any fears people have about bathroom and locker room assaults are not affected by restricting them to one’s birth sex. Criminals will still do what criminals do.
However, by allowing someone with gender dysphoria to use whatever restroom they identify with, you can prevent unnecessary mental anguish and harassment of those individuals.
Criminals will still do what criminals do.
Yes they will, and once upon a time it was fairly simple to spot them when they were doing what that-“that individual with the cheap wig and the five o’clock shadow probably doesn’t belong in the women’s bathroom-I’ll call a cop.” But now you have no idea whether or not that person will claim “gender dysphoria” and you will be accused of “transphobia” (or some other such nonsense). It seems to a lot of us that we have not made such a good trade in rearranging long-standing cultural norms to accommodate the .3% of the population this condition supposedly affects, YMMV.
How. Do. We. Know. If. The. Man. In. The. Women’s. Bathroom. Is. Gender. Dysphoric. And. Not. Just. A. Voyeur.
+1 and WORD!
Yup
Ever heard of a guy named Solzhenitsyn?
According to him, the Russian proverb was “The yes man is your enemy, your friend will argue with you”.
It’s not causing unnecessary mental anguish, harassment and grief to prevent people that are mental from getting to do their thing.
IOW the inmates are not running the asylum whatever the constitution says.
Not really a predator, but there are definitely people taking advantage of the law.
http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
And I agree, this law is too specific.
None of this would have even happened if the mayor of Charlotte hadn’t put in place a city transgender bathroom ordinance allowing men to use the women’s bathroom.
Oh yeah, and this bill was pushed forward to the city by a was lead by a registered and convicted sex offender.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/convicted-sex-offender-leads-transgender-rights-effort-north-carolina/
I think there was a problem put in place that needed to be addressed.
You and your partner are not a protected class. That same business owner could refuse to serve me because he doesn’t like my eye color or the way I dress. That’s how freedom of association works.
The problem arises when states (not he federal gov’t) seek to create a new protected class based upon sexual behavior- behaviors which are alterable and mutable.
Sexual orientation, activity, identity, etc. are not immutable traits like disability, race and sex. Freedom of conscience was so important to early Americans that they also carved out an exemption for religious beliefs.
That is really it in a nutshell. People, maybe even most people, misunderstand what “rights” they actually have and how they are derived.
Here in my hometown of Longview , Texas , a bakery (Kern’s Bakery) refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple . It hit the newspapers , for some reason , and almost all the comments from readers were from the “Perverted few” . When I went to show my support for the bakery , they were nearly sold out of everything and had extras working full bore . The owner said that he attributed all the extra business to something that he called “The Chick-Fil-A Effect” . I , for one , vote with my billfold .
I’m probably in the minority here. I think the businesses can do what they think is correct (most reserve the right to refuse service to anyone) as long as they don’t discriminate, and as long as they’re willing to accept any consequences of their actions.
But as for the root issue here, I don’t see why casual indifference can’t be the solution. Have a male, female, and neutral bathroom and call it good. If you’re not one of the first two then you can use the third. Otherwise we end up with situations like this. What would you do in this situation if your daughter had been in there? http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
But I really think we’re making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. But I can’t wait to see the presidential candidates weigh in on how they think we should implement some stupid scheme like this in all the federal buildings. I should get some popcorn …
And you have seen how many small businesses with, or the room for, a third restroom? Who’s gonna pay for that – the 99% who are not LGBT?
Me, I am thinking the easiest course for dealing with someone I don’t want to deal with is chaging them the absolute maximum for 100% of the minimum I can do for them. Caveat emptor.
And in somewhat related to the OP news, HUD has issued a 10 page guidleine to apartment owners saying that if they run routine background checks on tenants, they may be running afoul of anti-discrimination laws since minorities tend to commit more crimes and have more extensive records. How the landlord is supposed to protect his property or other tenants is, of course, left up to the landlords to figure out. If they get sued for negligence because they rented to a serial rapist, for instance… well, that’s a problem. For the landlord.
I don’t think small businesses (or existing establishments) should have to build a new one. On the flip side, I have seen businesses simply put a lock on their bathroom door and make them both gender neutral so anyone can use them, but this also restricts each bathroom to one person at a time.
If it wasn’t clear, I don’t think NC has a good solution. And I also don’t have the answer, just one proposal.
The HUD thing doesn’t surprise me. It’s stupid, just like squatter’s rights laws they have here in California. My friend found squatters in her apartment she was trying to rent out (her parents owned the complex). They couldn’t evict them for a few months (that’s right, evicting squatters, not kicking them out and getting their property back). And to spite them, the squatters destroyed every wall and anything else they could, caused over $10k in damages. Nothing they could do.
You don’t get it.
A third bathroom for the TG is horror of horrors, the cardinal and unforgivable sin of discrimination as well as the rape and dismemberment of that sacred Cow and idol of egalitarianism.
That is, radical egalitarianism in the sense of ‘equal outcome’ – not ‘equal opportunity’ or ‘equality before the law’ – necessitates the acceptance of the LGBQTG?+ as morally equivalent to heterosexuality or else the hissy fit hits the shan.
Women will rise up in support of the potty law when they discover that the Gilbert ‘self-indentifiers” leave the seat up and/or piss all over the seat without bothering to lift it up.
Funny how all of the LGBT folks who used to scream about getting the government out of their personal lifestyle choices are trying to use the government to force others to accept their lifestyle choices.
It’s all about fairness I guess
*chuckle* Ever been in a ladies room in Cracker Barrel especially on a Sunday? Not just the guys…
Stacy031 wins the intertoobs for today!!!!!!
In a GI bar near Verdun, France I was visiting in about 60′, I was taking a wiz in the “bathroom”. Several of us lined facing the concrete wall with flowing water and gutter drain at the bottom. Girls were passing right behind us heading to the seating area not paying attention to us but I heard their voices so I turned to figure out WTF. Fortunately I had consumed enough adult beverages (think I was 19 at the time) to not much care. The upside of the arrangement was if one of the girls saw something she liked on the way out you had a friend for the rest of the evening. Problem is this ain’t France, this ain’t the 60’s and one of the “girls” could be a granddaughter.
Simply put, it isn’t about morality – it’s about the law. Morality on this issue differs depending on what side you’re on, but the law says you can’t discriminate against gays, lesbians or transgenders. It doesn’t say you can’t refuse service to a state (which by definition consists of a wide range of people and isn’t discrimination against a specific, singular human characteristic like race or sexual orientation.)
I don’t know where I stand on the legal aspects of this since on the one hand I feel private businesses should be entitled to do what they want, but on the other I do feel it is discrimination -and, in my opinion, not very Christ-like- to turn people away based on what they do in their private lives. But I definitely think it’s over-blown – as Bubblehead says above, it ain’t hard to have unisex bathrooms. And while locker rooms are slightly more complicated, I don’t think it’s a truly terrible imposition for people who are a very, very small percentage of the population to understand that and use private rooms for changing.
The issue blows up the more hot air it’s exposed to. On both sides.
not very Christ-like
I’m clearly no religious man, but it does not mean I’ve no idea what’s inside the covers of the bible…
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Seems to me if that was stated in my guide book, I might be a bit more conscious about not serving members of the public because I didn’t like how they lived…do these righteous folks ask their other clients if they are in a second marriage and thus adulterers?
Or thieves?
Or blasphemers or non-believers?
If they are so concerned about promoting other non-christian values they should also refuse service to other “sinners”….
George Bernard Shaw said it best about the bible….
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
You misunderstand the cases in question. In every case I’ve seen, they will happily sell whatever they have on hand, not asking any questions.
It has to do with special orders, essentially a form of participation. In the cake cases, it’s making a cake with two male statues on top instead of one each, or some equivalent.
You want to buy a cake and decorate it yourself? I can’t find an example anywhere of a bakery that would care.
The easiest example I can think of is asking a jewish bakery to make a cake celebrating the holocaust. The neo-nazi could quite happily buy whichever cake and decorate it themselves, but I sincerely doubt a jewish bakery would decorate a cake saying “6 million down, 50 million to go” or some such, eh?
THAT is what is being talked about, not just general business.
The problem is that “people who are a very, very, small percentage of the population” are using their “protected minority” status as a bludgeon to force the rest of the country to be “tolerant” to their “identity”. It’s simple. If you have a dick, use the men’s room. If you do not, use the women’s. I want to see some tolerance from the very, very small minority for a change.
Playing devil’s avocado: Pre-op or post-op? What if you have undergone hormone-therapy, so that you have a beard and look like a man (i.e. Buck Angel), but didn’t go through with phalloplasty yet? Wouldn’t it cause much more of a commontion to see such an individual in the women’s restroom than if s/he had gone to the male restroom? I don’t think it’s all as simple as you imagine.
I get it, I really do. I just have a problem being accommodating to a group that’s main negotiating tool is to put good people out of business or bury them in litigation. If you come to me and negotiate with a club, I’m gonna swing one back just as hard.
If someone who looks like a man goes into a men’s room no one is going to check. It’s not like there are going to be attendants checking people out, this is self-policed.
The thing is, biology being what it is, men are bigger than women, so transwomen tend to stand out. Even with perfect surgery Caitlyn Jenner would still be freakishly large for a woman. And anyone who looks “wrong” is going to generate discomfort in a ladies room.
You are making a category error. The important cases where Christians have been forced out of business has not been about the identity of the refused customers, it has been about being forced to participate in their ceremonies.
The bakery in Portland used to serve gay customers all the time, and everyone knew it. But, when they refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding, they were fined and driven out of business.
In the US, we used to have freedom of association. And, freedom from government coercion of religion is in the First Amendment, even ahead of freedom of speech.
That US is no more. Progressives have always disliked the Constitution, and their justices have turned it on its head.
People wonder at support for Trump (whom I do not support). A big part of it is a huge reaction to this offensive and oppressive political correctness. Trump gets away with saying things that his supporters never could – standing up to it.
It’s interesting that treating gays and transgendered as equals is considered political correctness instead of just the correct thing to do.
You are confusing morality with legality thus creating your own conundrum.
If a business operates in service to the public, ie; it’s primary business is offering to the public some product or service, that business is typically required to operate under the constraints of public accommodation laws where refusing service based on protected classes as defined by the government is prohibited. In many states refusing service to gays is not a violation of this law and these business are free to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality as much as they like. Just as it was once acceptable to refuse service to blacks if you found that immoral.
Conversely a business hosting events in various locations is free to discriminate against any location based on virtually any criteria it wishes as in that regard hosting that event places the business in the role of consumer and not supplier. The business is seeking to purchase the rights to a site for the express purpose of operating a particular event. The business can decide based on cost, accessibility or the potential discomfort of event attendees where to locate that event. There is no express right implied for a consumer to have to offer equal opportunity to any business. You are not required to buy your flowers from a gay florist or your cookies from a gay bake shop…in much the same way the NFL isn’t obligated to consider each Superbowl location as equally attractive. If your city truly wants the Superbowl, and why you would makes no fucking sense to me at all, then your city should consider what the NFL finds attractive about Superbowl site locations and work to accommodate those requirements or expect to be disappointed.
Apples and oranges Poe…
Well maybe pears and tangerines, VOV.
Any business providing major sporting events will of course be a consumer of ancillary services from the business community in which it chooses to site its production. However, in the larger sense of who is the primary provider/consumer of services, it is the sporting business which is the contracted provider of the entertainment service and in the case of huge championship events like the Super Bowl they do in fact receive remuneration in various forms from local governing entities, perhaps even state governments, to perform that service.
I understand that in a legal sense there are large differences in the situations but in a moral sense, not so much. And in that way,
apricots and persimmons maybe?
If I was being politically incorrect, as I am want to on occasion, I woulds that pears/tangerines/apples/oranges what does it matter?
All fruits anyway….
I will respectfully continue to disagree with the NFL analogy as the inducements you mention are precisely that inducements to entice a buyer, a tax break or kick back is no different than a coupon or discount to entice a buyer.
I will however point out that the NFL was granted an anti-trust exclusion by the government, which makes for entertaining conversation on its own. That exclusion might allow one to make a bit of an argument in favor of compelling the NFL to rotate Superbowl cities based on the idea that the league can force broadcasters to have to deal with the whole league instead of just the teams where the markets are more profitable and consequently more government oversight of their activities is appropriate based on the huge amount of government welfare the NFL receives.
Mississippi’s Governor, Phil Bryant signed similar legislation last week.
And if we had only known how easy it would be to ensure Bryan Adams never set foot in our state, we would have done it decades ago.
Bryan Adams had to return to the U. S. to announce that he was cancelling an appearance. Because he felt that Mississippi was being “intolerant”. He had to leave Egypt, a Muslim country.
Does he think Muslims are tolerant & Americans aren’t?
Who offers free flying lessons to gays and trans people?
Missippi is literally bottom of the barrel economically and education wise. It can’t get any worse GDP wise, so a boycott isn’t going to have an effect. However, whoever wrote Mississippi’s law is an udiot as they used language from another law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 90s.
This law will get overturned to and the Mississippi taxpayer will be the one footing the bill.
This is wrong, and you know it’s wrong. Baking a cake for someone doesn’t endanger your soul, I don’t give a damn what religion you belong to. Your religion is meant for regulating YOUR behavior, not MINE. A business is supposed to be about offering a product or service to a community, not proselytizing. If the money is legitimate, then the customer is — or should be.
And you would feel the same about a Jewish tailor being required to provide robes and hoods for a local KKK organization?
Do you honestly believe the ACLU would?
I understand the sarcasm, but the ridicule of that comment leaves me no room to answer you. I’m hurt you think so little of me, as long as I’ve been on here, that you wouldn’t give me a viable point to discuss with you.
I will, however, ask you this: when has a gay organization ever burned a business and killed the owner because of owner’s religion, the way groups like the KKK have?
Nag, I’m sorry because I truly meant no sarcasm, was merely applying an oft-used rebuttal to the argument that Christian businesses should be required to participate in social events that violate their religious tenets. Actually I agree with you on the selling of the cake if the baker has no other requirement to be a participant. Just bake the damned thing, let the customers pick it up and keep quiet about it.
The viable point is not about the KKK vs. gays but about whose cultural, political and religious ox is being gored. We both know that the ACLU is quick to oppose actions offensive to Jewish and gay organizations while Christians and heterosexuals not so much.
Now what would be a truly interesting test for the ACLU would be if a Jewish bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage.
Again, sorry if I sounded like I was ridiculing you, Nag. That was not my intent. I am almost 100% in agreement with you on most issues. And for what it’s worth, I’m neither Christian nor anti-gay but I am most definitely free enterprise and free association; but I understand it cuts both ways. For instance, you can bet Ol’ Poe would not be readily acceptable to the country club crowd.
Truce?
Of course a truce. You’re one of my favorite people on here. 🙂
I’m glad you guys sorted this out…it’s no fun when you’re at odds…
Just to tweak you a bit Poe because you’re a good guy who can take it, I notice no one seemed to mind the ACLU coming to Rush Limbaugh’s aid with an amicus brief regarding the privacy of medical records from government scrutiny during Rush’s drug case….if Rush had a single ounce of character he would have refused their aid out of principle. I notice he didn’t…which speaks to his character more than the character of the ACLU.
The ACLU pisses people off because they step in for very unpopular causes on a regular basis, but they do an essential work even when we don’t necessarily like or agree with their methods.
The ACLU has been on the NRA’s side of more gun cases than opposing, for what it’s worth. They may take on liberal cases more often than not but where the Constitution is clearly violated they are rabid dogs.
“…if Rush had a single ounce of character he would have refused their aid out of principle.” An amicus brief is a friend-of-the-court brief, not an endorsement of a plaintiff or defendant. The decision as to whether an amicus petition is accepted by a court is for the court alone to decide. The parties are not polled and don’t get a vote. I am not a fan of Limbaugh’s any more than I guess members of the ACLU are, but that’s the way it works.
You’ll have to find someone besides Rush for tweaking me, VOV. Rush showed me his fallibility more than a decade ago when he pronounced unequivocally that atheists and agnostics cannot be conservatives. I rather expect you would take issue with that as well.
I still like the guy because he stands up to the MSM and pokes his finger in the eyes of a lot of the liberals’ sacred cows but since I quit business travel I rarely listen to him.
As for the TAH Gang getting along, it’s a bit like family arguments where we can all yell like hell at each other but in the end Jonn maintains a house big enough to contain a lot of varied opinions and attitudes. An image of a barracks platoon bay just popped into my mind, kid you not.
Of course there’s poor ol’ Lars. I seriously feel for that guy sometimes and have tried to reason with him or offer advice. Then the next piece I post, he’ll critique it with, “You’re fulla shit, Poe.”
I think I also pissed off CA_SGT today by using the term “sweetie” but then I thought he rather invited it by needlessly letting us know he has a husband so he’s playing the distaff role. I am not anti-gay but I get so sick of this in-your-face attitude. It’s worse than the old folks bragging about their bowel movements.
Live and let live works just fine for Ol’ Poe.
The ACLU has continually defended racist organizations including Neo-Nazi and KKK when it comes to their rights. So yes, I think they would.
FUCK SJWs and political correctness to death up the ass sideways with rusty tangled concertina wire wrapped in asbestos. We’re talking about the same crowd that shat all over Christian Business Owners that stood by their beliefs while backing up muzzie Truckers that got canned for refusing to haul booze because they said it compromised their religious beliefs. Liberals love to celebrate and promote perversity.
That’s because the Muslims will attack you for defying them, and the Xtians won’t. It has nothing to do with SJ and everything to do with cowardice.
SCREW the muzzies, they can eat bacon grease and die.
The other reason is that both the LGBT and Jewish communities are supported by strong anti-defamation organizations. For the most part, this is not true for Christians. To make a point, I am speaking in terms of targeting a group as I’m sure there are LGBT Christians.
I believe that when people feel there are no repercussions, their “bravery” is merely cowardice.
I’m hardly the textbook example of a “good Christian”, but I do believe. I believe in turning the other cheek. But only once. After that, it’s clobberin’ time.
When Jesus arrived at the temple and saw the nice little (blasphemous) racket the moneychangers had set up on the front steps, he got righteously pissed and started a riot.
I’m a Christian too. And Christianity is not pacifist. If it was, then God would not have bestowed the schematics for the finest firearms known to man upon his servant* Saint John Moses Browning!
* I’m not Mormon, but Browning did God’s work!
I’m also a staunch believer in Brother Browning*! I like to believe God would carry a custom 1911, if he had need for such a thing of beauty.
*Former Mormon. I developed a problem with organized religion as I grew older. ALL organized religions. They’re thinly disguised businesses.
Did you see the Kimber Centennial 1911? One of my firefighters saw a picture of it and immediately declared it to be God’s Gun. I do not disagree with his assessment.
bingo
Cripes. I wonder how many people have read the bill that was enacted? It is crazy what folks portray the law to be or to represent based on ignorance. Here’s the law, straight from the NC legislative website. What is so objectionable about its provisions? It is indeed common sense, that males should use male lavatories and females should us female lavatories, subject to the exceptions specified in the law. Pre-emption by the state in matters that would otherwise, or might otherwise, be subject to local ordinances is nothing new.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf
The only real issue is the people who don’t look like they “identify as” or have had a sex change. I saw an article from someone who was undergoing a sex change. Since she/he, um it, hadn’t completed the change it had to use the women’s restroom in NC because it looked like a man, but hadn’t completed the surgery.
I think if they made it say use the bathroom corresponding to whatever genitalia they currently have it would be simpler. And just have a neutral one or something for those who just can’t figure it out or have to be a ‘special snowflake’.
This law pertains to bathrooms and changing facilities and defines gender as that listed on an individual’s birth certificate. I am having difficulty trying to figure out an alternative definition that accommodates those who identify as a member of the other gender or those who have tits and a dick, to be brutally blunt. Should North Carolinians just leave it to the individual to determine their preference for which lavatory or changing area to use? Should it be a birth certificate or a court order reassigning a person’s gender? Is it far fetched to think that if it were left to the individual to decide, some males would choose to use the females’ changing room? If so, I can conclude that one who finds that far fetched was never a 16-year old American male. This is all so insane.
I agree it’s insane. And there are males taking advantage of it, at least in WA. http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
What I was trying to say is the law is flawed. As written, if a women gets a sex change to a man then she/he/it would need to still use the women’s restroom because it says female on it’s birth certificate. The law should be for current genitalia.
I am quite certain that discussion and debate focused on just that point in the NC legislature and the omission, or flaw, as you call it, was purposeful. The line had to be drawn and was at the birth certificate entry for gender. That’s damn definite. And there is beauty in that simplicity. If it goes to those who have undergone a sex change fully, then the next group will include those who identify as members of the other sex but can’t afford it or who are partially through the process, and so on.
Yea, as you’ve said before it’s insane. I still think we’re blowing this way out of proportion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that when an individual completes gender reassignment their birth certificate is likewise amended to match.
Well, well, well. Indeed, petitions to change a birth certificate after a sex-change op is a matter of state law. I checked North Carolina and baddabing!
Statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 130A-118(b)(4), (e) (2005).
Text: (b) A new certificate of birth shall be made by the State Registrar when . . .
(4) A written request from an individual is received by the State Registrar to change the sex on that individual’s birth record because of sex reassignment surgery, if the request is accompanied by a notarized statement from the physician who performed the sex reassignment surgery or from a physician licensed to practice medicine who has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery.
So, if someone changes gender in NC and files for a birth certificate change to reflect the new gender (and this is something all such people would do, having nothing to do with the shithouse and cabana law) the new he may use the men’s room and the new she the ladies’ room. Happy days are here again!
Well then I stand corrected. Either way I still say we’re blowing this out of proportion.
I’m going to answer that myself: very few. Instead of reacting to the law, people are reacting to what they hear or read about the law. It’s quite irrational.
When does the first person here argue that this is a classic case of Jim Crow? Remember, separate is inherently unequal! Your shitter may be identical to THAT shitter but the legal prohibition against your using THAT shitter is unconstitutional! (I am making myself chuckle.)
I’ve never met or known of a happy gay person, yet…they’re mostly angry(probably with themselves) narcissistic A-holes if you ask me.
Their outlandish behavior at their gay pride events seems to me, them trying to mask their inner depression over their abominable lifestyles.
It seems their political goal is to turn the world, not just the USA (the new Babylon), but the whole world into planet Sodom & Gomorrah. To justify to themselves and their UNnatural behaviors.
It seems the world is fast moving into the days of Lot or as it was in the days of Noah, X 1,000,000,000 because of these canyon yodeling fudgepackin’ clowns and their ignorant supporters. Big trouble is a coming it’s only a matter of time before Gods anger with us stupid humans is going to boil over, for ignoring all of his warnings and his WORDS(KGV Bible)that are their for all to read and become informed.
Let’s hear it for homophobic pride and standing up to these freakazoid fascist !!!!!
Sgt. V…Your comments make me proud to realize there are others out there that feel the same as I do. Fuck a bunch of the “We Don’t Want To Offend Anyone” crowd. Some people NEED to be offended. Here’s where API chimes in, since he knows how to preach it like few others. We’ll both be criticized by a few…but they can pucker up while I drop my britches.
Like I said earlier, FUCK the SJWs and political correctness to death up the ass sideways with rusty tangled concertina wire wrapped in asbestos. Liberal crusaders are more worthless than rubber lips on a woodpecker and more fucked up than a gay black Jewish transsexual NeoNazi in the KKK!
personally I think all of us heterosexuals should unite, like the homo’s have done and push back against their agenda, after all their are more of us than them. And we have the righteousness of God and his words on our side. If they get violent 1st then we get violent back at them, and we have the numbers.
I’m proud to be homophobic and having an excellent built in operating gaydar.
I want nothing to do with gay people.
So glad I served long before “don’t ask, don’t tell” which opened the door to the current asinine policy from the gay Obamabots in gubberment
I have no irrational fear of gays so I am not homophobic. I regard their sexual practices as perverse, but I have no interest in going militant on them. I just want then to STHU and get back in their closets. I don’t want to see them on TV. I don’t want to hear them on the radio. I just want them to shut up. But, nooooooooooo, it’s gay this and gay that and first gay this and first gay that. It’s sick and I am long ago sick of it.
I have no irrational fear of them either ,I’m just sic of their perverse agenda and prefer to push it back at them….I too am sic of gay this gay that, but if they get violent 1st, I’ll give it right back.
I have no fear of them either. I just don’t want my granddaughter having to share a restroom or locker room with a guy wearing a dress. p
Pretty simple I guess.
I personally don’t give two hoots of a half-assed moldy ratshit FUCK what someone’s sexual orientation is (pedophiles excepted, they’re better off dead) but I DON’T want them waving their “lifestyle” in my face telling me I HAVE to openly embrace and accept it because I never will. As for their grandstanding, I do my damnedest to ignore it, I wonder how quickly they’d be screeching and bawling about “hate speech” and “intolerance” the moment anyone started organizing a “Heterosexual Pride March? The same breed of roach shit liberals that consider disrespect of the American Flag as “Freedom of Expression” screched to prosecute someone for “hate crimes” for doing the same to a rainbow foo-foo flag.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
And here’s the proof that Xtianity is nothing more than another violent desert religion. Which is why I left it.
The righteousness of god indeed…PN I like your style m’lady.
I’m not advocating initiating the violence against LGBT perverts, but if they get violent 1st, like anyone else, I’ll counter them in my own self defense.
What I am advocating is not rolling over and surrendering to their perverse look at me I’m LGBT agenda.
I have no argument with you defending your personal space. Nothing wrong with that at all.
But I’ve known people in the LGBT community, and I’ve never seen them be violent. Have you been exposed to violent activists?
Nag, have you ever been to a gay biker bar?
Sorry, couldn’t resist, but I swear I DID NOT mean that snarkily.
Heh, heh…
I’ll put two bull dykes against any five gay biker boys and I will take the pot.
it seems you’re rolling over to the LGBT agenda & propaganda, PN & VoV, I feel sorry for you
No. I watch Muslim men in Europe terrorize women on the street because of their RELIGION, and I think ‘that could be me.’ And then I see a state in my own country pass a law to allow discrimination to mollify someone’s RELIGION, and I know I might be next. How can I draw that conclusion? BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING DONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘GOD’ AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CONTROL. And once you give someone that kind of control, the bus kind of loses it’s brakes — with a whole lot of unfortunates getting run over in the process.
What she said.
“And then I see a state in my own country pass a law to allow discrimination to mollify someone’s RELIGION, and I know I might be next.” So, let me see if I follow this. Men in foreign countries terrorize based upon religion and you fear that a North Carolina keeping genders apart in changing areas and bathrooms will give rise to the same sort of terrorism?
Tell us how you really feel, honey.
Ok, I gotta weigh in now. I’ll lance the initial boil now and state that I’m a submariner so we get all the gay jokes all the time. We’re used to it. I also have a gay brother, doesn’t bother me nor does it affect the fact that I like boobies.
I don’t know where you’ve encountered violent gay activists, I’ve never met any and I’ve met most of my brother’s friends (who all live in San Francisco). We also had many gay sailors on the subs, even before we could ask. We all knew who they were, and no one gave a shit or made a big deal of it. We cared about one thing: Did you do your job. That’s it. That’s all that should matter. Because I can guarantee you that when the shit hits the fan you really don’t give a shit who someone wants to fuck (except pedophiles, fuck those guys) you just want to know that they will do their job and watch your back.
But those are the gays who choose to serve, can’t say much about those who don’t. But I don’t care who they want to fuck, as long as it doesn’t interfere with who I want to.
“But I don’t care who they want to fuck, as long as it doesn’t interfere with who I want to.”
Adultery remains a crime in the military and a crime that is actually enforced. Why? If you want to screw someone’s wife and that wife wants to screw you, there is a law that will interfere with your mutual intentions. Why is that?
When did I mention someone’s wife? It’d be just as illegal (grounds for divorce) if a gay couple committed adultery.
You didn’t. I just used that as an example of illegal desire that meets your non interference requirement.
Well yes, then that would be an instance that would interfere with who I’d want to sleep with.
But it also has no bearing on the original point that whomever a gay person wants to bang (as long as they’re not raping them) does not affect me or who I want to bang. Your retort was nonsensical and had no relevance to the conversation. That’s like me saying you can’t bang your dog because that’s illegal too. While true, it has no relevance to conversation.
Okay, totally unrelated to the main topic, but I’ve had more of a 50/50 experience. The flamboyant, flaming, in-your-face, annoying activist types do seem to be miserable individuals externalizing their issues (not unlike a certain someone who occasionally pollutes TAH with his crap). But I also know a couple of folks who practice the alternate lifestyle but otherwise are more or less normal, and they tend to be happier people (and not annoying). One such individual is a gal I work with. Specifically, she’s one of my station Captains. We have worked together many times over the years, and I consider her one of my friends, as well as a station overhead I trust. We get along very well, and often compare notes on parenting (she and her girlfriend have two young boys). She knows my stance on the gay issue: I don’t approve of it (I’m a practicing, believing Roman Catholic, after all), but I don’t hold it against her either (hate the sin, but love the sinner, so to speak), and place it in the “none of my business” category. Sure, I don’t think her chosen lifestyle is the way to go, but that doesn’t mean I can’t genuinely like and respect her personally and professionally, or that we can’t be friends. She doesn’t hide her orientation, she just doesn’t wield it like a bat. She can’t stand gay pride events, because they tend to be “fucking disgusting” and she hates being “represented by public indecency” (her words). Her take on the “homophobic business” crap is that the “offended” parties obviously went looking for a problem, and she sympathizes with the small businesses. There’s another experience I had a few months ago with one of our reserve firefighters. She’s fairly new, but highly motivated, works her ass off, and has a great attitude. She impressed the hell out of me from her first day, and I have high hopes for her. But she came to me one day and asked if I had a minute to talk about a personal matter. She knew that I’m Catholic, and explained… Read more »
I was about to type something very similar. Thanks TOW, I owe you a cold one.
And this is why TOW is a favorite of mine. He speaketh truth in plain terms.
Completely agree, with one exception. I think we should be viewing the gay marriage from a non-religious standpoint. Married couples are afforded certain legal and financial advantages and it’d be unfair to deny them that. They don’t have to be married in a church, a justice of the peace would do just fine. But we shouldn’t deny them the same legal and financial protections and advantages of married couples. Just take religion out of the matter for this.
“I’ve never met or known of a happy gay person….” I hadn’t given that much thought but I suppose that I would not be happy either if someone were sticking stuff in my ass.
I get pissed at my doctor and that’s only once a year…
Ditto, but I didn’t yell “YAHTZEE” and got a free lollipop!
I accuse her of trying to channel Jim Henson.
And yes, I said her…I mean if ya gotta get handled like that, better a she than playing Star Trek (going where no man has gone before.)
Some days there seems to be a fair amount of miserable folks here as well…
Miserable. Sick and tired. Fed up. All of that and more.
I don’t care who you are, THAT shit’s funny right there!
I think a lot of the upset is over NC’s insertion of “biological” sex. The federal model of the nondiscrimination wording doesn’t have that distinction and can be interpreted as including, as DOE/DOJ has already done, various the sexual orientations, preferences, etc that the LGBT group embodies. NC removed the interpretive option. Interestingly, some of the Supreme Court justices pointed out there would be more problems with this issue due to the collision of religious freedom rights and LGBT civil rights. This bathroom situation adds a whole new issue in that now a male trans who feels uncomfortable in the men’s room and doesn’t want to use a single unisex bathroom because it makes the trans feel different and the trans wants to be in the bathroom of the gender he identifies as(there have been situations where a unisex bathroom has been rejected for this very reason)may be violating the rights of females (who are explicitly a protected class) by making them feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Whose rights matter more?
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/
Can’t seem to find the Federal law that bans discrimination against people based on who they have sex with or what sex they think they are.
It is illegal to discriminate based on religion, but we already know that (as long as it doesn’t affect someone’s political correctness).
Seems to me that the States are just clarifying Federal laws.
Is anyone actually going to check in the stall to make sure the guy with the beard isn’t actually a woman just sitting there peeing while seated?
Does anyone think a transgender male to female pre-op is going to stand there with their dick out in the middle of the room?
It’s far more likely some regular perv will be in there jacking off which was illegal previous to this, and remains illegal after this while not being addressed at all with the new legislation.
This law does no more to stop a pervert from using the ladies room than a restraining order prevents an abuser from beating the shit out of his ex or killing her.
Interestingly this is the kind of law were we discussing firearms that everyone here would be railing against as doing nothing to address the actual crime it’s perceived to prevent.
How many of you here were going to use the ladies room prior to this law just to get a whiff of a women taking a dump or a piss?
The number of course is zero.
This law doesn’t stop a perv from, it just makes it awkward for someone who looks like a man to use the ladies room or someone who looks like a woman to use the mens room because they weren’t comfortable with their originally issued equipment…that’s it.
That’s the end result of this utterly “do nothing but pretend we did” law.
First, well said.
Second, you’re right. It doesn’t do anything to stop someone who doesn’t care about looking like a perv. Case in point: http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
The law will not prevent highway deaths either. Where’s the outrage? Litterers will continue to litter. Parking meter violations will neither increase nor be reduced. Would you please explain why sexual crimes are a factor when, to me, they are as relevant to this state law as the other items that I mentioned?
I don’t think sex crimes needs to be a factor. But I’ll let VOV answer that since it looks like you were intending the question for him.
VOV, I believe the primary intent of the law, as it was here in Arkansas, is to prevent more liberal municipalities in North Carolina, like Charlotte, from passing their own ordinances which might be much more problematic.
By the way, your vivid description of the perv in the stall whacking off has me wondering, if he’s post-op what does he do, rub the stub?
Unless he edited it, it says pre-op not post-op.
You bring up a good point, VOV. I, for one, am not a meatgazer. Meatgazers make me uncomfortable, but only if they’re being so painfully obvious about it that I notice them meatgazing while I’m minding my own business (no pun intended).
What these bathroom “rights” laws mean is that if a man wants to go into the ladies locker room and look or get naked, no one can arrest them. Of course rape is still illegal, but do you really want men be able to share the showers with your wife at the Y and no one can kick them out? That is what the right to use women’s facilities means. No one can require a doctor’s note. One case involved a high school boy who insisted onshowering with thegirls. You ok with that?
Another good point.
It’s kind of like the male cheerleaders in high school. At first, the rest of us thought they were gay, and made fun of them mercilessly. After all, we were omniscient 9th graders in the throes of puberty, so OBVIOUSLY any dude on the cheerleading team MUST be a fag*, right? Then we noticed their proximity to, and success with, our attractive female classmates, and suddenly all of the non-cheerleading lads in the class experienced a mass epiphany: they’re not queers*, they’re fucking GENIUSES!
Had this “gender identity” been a thing in the late 90s, on any given day 50 young males would suddenly find themselves feeling “feminine” and therefore eligible for the girls’ locker room. Of course every single one of them would be a little perv bastard lying his ass off to get a look at unapparelled girls, and of course I would’ve been one of them. We would abuse that system straight to hell and gone. Any attempt to call bullshit would be met with cries of discrimination, after all. I think we can all agree that there’s few depths even the best of heterosexual 14-year-old lads wouldn’t plumb at least once for a chance to get a look at real, live tits.
Would that happen today? Well, given the absurd amount of hardcore pr0n that’s just a click away on any smartphone, maybe not as much. But mark my words: every school will have at least one little shit per year who tries it.
* Before anyone with fragile feelings tries to call me hateful or homophobic, keep in mind that I’m referring to myself and others when we were high school freshmen. I challenge you to find five kids in that age bracket who don’t use that language and worse in every sentence they utter out of earshot of their parents. The point was to demonstrate the immaturity of teenagers. Call it “hate speech” all you want, but that’s teenagers for ya. The fact that I actually feel the need to include this disclaimer stating the obvious is really fucking sad.
Two words ( Well Said )
I see your two words and raise you one: Huh? “Is anyone actually going to check in the stall to make sure the guy with the beard isn’t actually a woman just sitting there peeing while seated?” No, but if someone in fish-net stockings, sporting an Adam’s apple and a 5 o’clock shadow sashays into a ladies’ room, someone may rightfully call the cops. “Does anyone think a transgender male to female pre-op is going to stand there with their dick out in the middle of the room?” Yes, some changing areas are wide open; some have stalls w/o doors. So, yes, that is precisely what will happen. “It’s far more likely some regular perv will be in there jacking off which was illegal previous to this, and remains illegal after this while not being addressed at all with the new legislation.” Why would you even expect this law to address that? As you say, that sort of thing is all ready prohibited. “This law does no more to stop a pervert from using the ladies room than a restraining order prevents an abuser from beating the shit out of his ex or killing her.” Of course, most people honor restraining orders. The exceptions are the ones that make the news. As previously covered, the law does not target sex abusers so I don’t know why you raise it. “Interestingly this is the kind of law were we discussing firearms that everyone here would be railing against as doing nothing to address the actual crime it’s perceived to prevent.” From where in this bill do you get the idea that the law is aimed at preventing sexual crimes? I would expect that rationale to appear in the “Whereas” section but it’s not there. What I do see is the policy explanation—not some politician’s worthless opinion—that uniformity in the state’s laws is the target of the act. “How many of you here were going to use the ladies room prior to this law just to get a whiff of a women taking a dump or a piss?” I miss your point… Read more »
So what’s the cut off line (no pun intended) for protected classes? race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity. When/where does it stop?
Can we add polygamists, necrophylliacs, pedophiles and a category for ‘others’ to be defined at a later date but who have been historically discriminated against?
Left handed Eskimoes?
club footed circus performers?
Sailors?
Dungeons & Dragons geeks?
Left handed double-jointed red headed buck-toothed Latvian Circus Midgets?
Thank goodness you included left-handed. That lets me out!
Simple, it’s white males. They’ll never be identified as a protected class.
Correct. White males, especially Christian, are a class that it’s legal to discriminate against because according to the booger-eating thumbsucking bedwetting beta types in the PC crowd, we’re the ones responsible for all of this world’s ills.
Funny thing that, really. They believe the evil white males, something like 5% of the entire world population, oppress the entire rest of the world. Man, if they really could do that (especially with all the legal stuff arrayed against them today), well, they really would have to be amazingly superior.
Ain’t no racist like the modern day “anti-racist”!
Whoa back there a bit. You certainly tossed everything into the stewpot on that one!
Polygamists, necrophiliacs, and pedophiles are all criminals. Why? Because they all force themselves on someone who cannot, for one reason or another, say or do anything in their own defense. (Polygamy is a gray area; while there are polygamist unions that were accepted by the women, there are also documented cases of polygamist relationships that were forced, either by the parents or the society or the religion.) There is no rationalization for either necrophilia or pedophilia.
People that are left-handed, Native Americans, people who have physical disabilities (PARTICULARLY circus performers!), military personnel, and gamers, have ALL faced discrimination at one time or another; most have legal case law to prove it. (The two I cannot think of legal case law for are the left-handed folks and the gamers.)
As a nation, we are forcing our government to become a nanny state because our common sense has gone bye-bye. The idea is: leave people alone, stop messing with them because they’re different from you. But instead of applying the spirit of the law, again and again, we apply the letter of the law, and go after anyone who ISN’T protected, forcing the government to add them to the list of protected classes. That’s our fault, not the government’s. If we’d stop sniping at each other, these kind of laws wouldn’t be necessary.
“As a nation, we are forcing our government to become a nanny state because our common sense has gone bye-bye.” That’s an interesting, if mistaken, take. Government intrusions into our lives would be fewer if people would just be nicer and more tolerant of one another’s differences. Because we are not, your theory goes, it is necessary for our government, through statute, through regulation, and through judicial decision making to coerce us into compliance. There’s a problem. It’s this: the United States of America and our Constitution were not established to dictate interpersonal relations. In fact, I and others resent that the government does this–and it most assuredly does–whether from the bench, the Big Tit, or the Ovary Office. Leave me alone means just that–leave me the hell alone. If the government would just kindly keep to its duties as they are enumerated in the Constitution, I would be more than happy.
PN, we have to apply the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is different to everyone it covers. I’m open minded and I accept people as they are for who they are, I can respect them and disagree with them at the same time. However, when I’m told by a group that I MUST accept them and I MUST accommodate them and I MUST be tolerant, then they’ve gotten on the fightin’ side of me. I want some of the tolerance I MUST show them.
Two of Lars’ favorite topics and he is nowhere to be seen. Anyone but me find that odd?
Come on Lars. Come twist up some fellow veterans on purpose to conduct more research for your own interests. You know you want to.
Fuck Lars and the cheap whore that crapped him out.
The choice has been made by a few politicians in NC. If they are comfortable with losing business and jobs then I guess they won. However, there can be no hand wringing or crying about the lose of money or jobs by these same politicians. Corporations are also free to take their business to another state. Money talks, bullshit walks.
The intersectionality Olympics continue apace and the culture continues its headlong plunge into mere chaos. I wonder when the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” will start showing up and disrupting prayers at a Mosque. They won’t because the left has no higher moral structure than “who is the greater victim” and it is not clear that LGBT (QWERTY) would come out ahead in that one. So, the delusion that “gender is no more than a word” must be allowed to continue-at least for the time being-until the moral underpinnings of the west are completely destroyed and the “victim classes” can sort out who will inherit the rubble. I think the gender feminists and their allies are in for a rude surprise when that happens.
Maybe in a situation where no matter what is decided, somebody perceives a loss then the decision should favor the members of the community that are least able to protect themselves under that situation?
What I want to know is why do outdoor events have separate male and female porta-johns??
[…] And Not Coming In Fast Enough The Jawa Report: Buh Bye Hassan Hanafi Haji This Ain’t Hell: What Gay-Crusading Corporations In NC Don’t Get Weasel Zippers: Long Island HS Students Beaten, Bullied For Being White Megan McArdle: Obamacare […]
There are a few problems with what has happened here in NC. The first is Charlotte grandstanding in an election year by passing an ordinance that they knew was Un-Constitutional in this state but they wanted to make a scene and got one. The Trannys and LGBTEIEIO groups quickly got on the bandwagon demanding their rights which up to now never included using whatever restroom they identified with when they got up that morning. Dr. King is rolling in his grave to see what civil right outrage has degenerated to these days.
The biggest problem are these hypocrite businesses shouting about how awesome they are and how backwoods redneck racist etc hicks we are in NC. Paypal is a good example. They pulled a center from here that would have employed 250-300 people and claimed it would cost the state a few million bucks because we just didn’t agree with their corporate values. They forgot to mention that most of the money was in tax breaks from the state so nothing lost there. They also failed to mention that they established a Global HQ in Malaysia which bans homosexuality and gives it an auto prison sentence. They have no problem allowing Palestinian Terrorists use of their site to raise money without noting homosexuality is banned in PLO Land and ironically enough Palestinian Homosexuals have taken to fleeing to Israel for protection. They seemingly are fine with doing business in Saudi Arabia which just announced beheadings for homosexuals. But they are outraged at trannys not being about to use the restroom of their choice. Over 30 Micro Brewers have expressed outrage and banned together to brew a gay beer with procedes going to LGBT causes like a summer camp for gay youth. Hard to dig up the list of who is doing it as I would like to express my displeasure. If they are that distressed they can mosey up to VA. Brewers should stick to brewing legislation and stay out of this cultural stuff.
Five Beers will not be happy. Good read, jonp.
All of these stars and anti-NC businesses are doing exactly what they claim to be against:
Standing up for their beliefs.
Why are their’s more important than others?
Okay, stop. Let’s look at the practical end of this. In regard to restroom privileges, if you work where there is a key (for safety) to the restrooms, you generally use it, don’t you? However, if some birdbrain borrows the key to the women’s restroom and forgets to return it – goes home with it, and the only other key available is the key to the men’s restroom, what are you going to do when you get to work ahead of everyone else and the men’s room key is the ONLY key available to use? Happened to me. What do you think I did, use the wastebasket at my desk? No, I used the key to the men’s room and asked the idiot who took the women’s room key home in her purse if her brains were working. You can jump up and down and holler all you want to but this ‘same sex’/TG stuff is more of a threat to someone who feels threatened by someone else’s sexuality than anything else. I don’t care one way or the other. In Europe, the restrooms have walls floor to ceiling around the crappers. I don’t know if you guys are afraid someone’s going to stare at your junk and judge you, or what the deal is, but the majority of gay and TG people aren’t attention whores like these bellicose self-centered jerks who want everything THEIR way. I find that part a lot more disturbing than the idea that some GUY is going to be in my restroom when I’m relieving myself. And if I’m desperate enough to need to use the men’s restroom when the women’s is overcrowded (baseball stadium, anyone?), I’m certainly going to ask the GUYS if they mind if I use their restroom. That’s simply good manners. As someone has already pointed out, sex offenders are going to do whatever they do, regardless of door labeling. But I’d like to add that there are no changing platforms in men’s restrooms for fathers who have to do that job, are there? No. There aren’t, unless things have changed,… Read more »
[…] In which an excellent point in made: […]
“Aren’t these big corporations refusing to do business with my state simply because they consider our practices immoral, just as those bakeries, florists, and photographers see gays as immoral? Other than scale, I see little difference.
Okay all you smart readers: Tell me where I’m wrong.”
the general principle seems to be, accept us and everything we do totally or we reject you totally. logically it seems consistent to me.
What is forced upon certain small businesses is that they MUST do business with who wants to do business with them… and the way that will be enforced is by the people who want them to do so NOT doing business with people. That’s the point and the hypocrisy.
To make the point, “as seen on Twitter”:
Michael Moore: I have asked my distributor NOT to book my film in any theater in North Carolina due 2 their bigoted law against LGBTQ ppl. They have agreed.
Jon Swerens: Doesn’t it feel great having the liberty to decline doing business with people you disagree with?
They do not give rat’s ass about morality. If they did, PayPal would cease to do business in many countries that have codified immorality, inexcusable cruelty, and all fashion of practices from among its customers and clientele. These corps have made business decision that takes into account expected losses and gains and they have saved a bundle in free advertising. Right and wrong don’t enter into the corprate decision making. It’s all the rage nowadays to go lib, go green, and go gay.
Cripes. I sound Chinese.
Think of who are the buyers and who are the sellers in your final question.
Not buying something can’t be discrimination at least not yet). It’s being forced to sell something that is all the rage.
That’s confusing. You used the “all the rage” phrase I did but you referred to a final question. Who is your comment responding to?
[…] boys at This Ain’t Hell […]
the author is an nfl fan? the nfl supports every left wing cause and is the prime example of taxpayer theft and crony capitalism … they can do as they see fit
sorry son .. .watch the nfl and YOU ARE SUPPORTING the same causes ….. real Americans and people with morals would turn them off until they stop supporting the left wing, pay for their own stadiums and pay for their own security at ALL of their events…. the federal taxpayer should not foot the bill for the stupor bowl as we do now because of the patriot act and corrupt politicians and a stupid public who watches it to start with
a real adult would turn them off, tell them and all of the advertisers why and then change will happen.
do the same for any and all business that support the left wing and perverts
[…] are delusional about not having such) in the context of Steve’s great post here. From This Ain’t Hell (a mil-blog I frequent) is this from Poetrooper with a great […]