(04-10-2016 10:32 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.

I left for 6 months or so. No need to deal with people that trade in insults rather than ideas.

He wasn't lying. The bullying did drive me away.

(04-10-2016 09:26 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, the reason for this is that the anti-Gays cannot stop non-discrimination ordinances unless they appeal to anti-Trans hysteria. The number one goal for the anti-LGBT groups is to ensure that it remains legal for state actors (contractors) and private businesses to fire or harass or not serve persons for not being LGBT.

For most people the number one reason for these laws is to protect the rights of people to raise their own families, speak as they wish, and assemble freely in a manner they want.

Everything the LGBT community is attacking.

Speech, assembly, religion....

Yep. That's the Gaystapo for you.

"For most people the number one reason for these laws is to protect the rights of people to raise their own families, speak as they wish, and assemble freely in a manner they want."

I don't see what that has to do with bathrooms, or taking away a NC cities ability to have NDOs that ensure someone can't be fired simply for being gay.

(04-10-2016 11:00 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  "For most people the number one reason for these laws is to protect the rights of people to raise their own families, speak as they wish, and assemble freely in a manner they want."

Evidently you are like the rest of the leftists and ignored this link posted earlier

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/1...urism.html

Quote:I don't see what that has to do with bathrooms, or taking away a NC cities ability to have NDOs that ensure someone can't be fired simply for being gay.

In regards to NC cities, the laws they passed were not allowed under the NC Constitution so they would be unenforceable anyway.

(04-10-2016 10:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:32 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.

I left for 6 months or so. No need to deal with people that trade in insults rather than ideas.

He wasn't lying. The bullying did drive me away.

If you come here with a list of lies/talking points, and we point out how they are not true, that is not bullying.

If you try to blame republicans for the problems you are having with Obamacare and we call you out on it, that is not bullying.

You do not have the right to lie and not be called out on it. And when you are, thats not bullying.

Its reality, something some of you need to learnt to start living in.

(04-10-2016 11:40 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:32 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.

I left for 6 months or so. No need to deal with people that trade in insults rather than ideas.

He wasn't lying. The bullying did drive me away.

If you come here with a list of lies/talking points, and we point out how they are not true, that is not bullying.

If you try to blame republicans for the problems you are having with Obamacare and we call you out on it, that is not bullying.

You do not have the right to lie and not be called out on it. And when you are, thats not bullying.

Its reality, something some of you need to learnt to start living in.

Bullying is a targeted attack on someone. What happened back then was bullying. It had nothing to do with anything other than my status as a Gay man and the fact that I am a liberal. Repeated use of insults, pejoratives and other forms of cyber bullying. No content to criticism.

Has nothing to do with Obamacare. I still think that my situation is the fault of the GOP, who allowed Texas BCBS to sock away 12.2 billion in reserves (an amount considered by just about everyone as shocking in scope), pay its' executives hundreds of millions of dollars, at the same time they were 'losing money' on one plan (the plan where just about every person with assets who has any preexisting condition was enrolled in). I've got a work around now. And due to the mutual holder lawsuit in Illinois, we're actually able to see some of the records that the insurance monopoly has tried to hide from public view, including its own mutual holders. If they're losing money, they're looting the company.

You confuse "I disagree with you with being a liar". When you say "youre a liar", it seems to mean to me that you have no rebuttal for the others' assertion, or a rebuttal that is unclear, and wish to end the debate.

I have no idea how long I'll bother in here. This thread is mildly interesting to me so I'm commenting on it.

If there's too much 'bottom feeding' in here, I'll bail again. Not because I'm piss$d, but because I have no desire to wade through a sewer of slurs, obvious trolls, and bullying. Right now, my interest in the particular topic is greater than my revulsion at the tone of some of the posters

---

Back to the OP. What do you think the status of the NC and MS bills will be in a year.

Here's mine

1) Courts will strike down all of Mississippi's bill
2) Courts will strike down all parts of NC's bill related to Transgender restroom access.
3) The Dems will win the NC Governors mansion, the AG office too.
4) NC will face a massive fight over non-discrimination, with the Feds and the business community aligned with the Dems.

Its even worse for NC if the courts only strike down the Transgender restroom access portions. As that would still leave the repeal of non-discrimination standing. And that will continue the calls for action/boycotts against North Carolina. And they'll be no 'bathroom scare tactics that can be used to defend the rest of the bill.

Watch out for the jiujitsu move. This is backfiring on the GOP. Badly.

---

By the way John Kasich just came out against the NC bill.

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bullying is a targeted attack on someone.

So we are redefining words now? Any "targeted" attack is bullying?

(04-10-2016 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bullying is a targeted attack on someone.

So we are redefining words now? Any "targeted" attack is bullying?

Getting dragged on a message board is not bullying Tom.

(04-10-2016 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bullying is a targeted attack on someone.

So we are redefining words now? Any "targeted" attack is bullying?

Getting dragged on a message board is not bullying Tom.

You define bullying and hate speech far differently than most people. You can't seem to avoid using slurs or demeaning people in your posts.

But congratulations on posting a 10 word posting that didn't contain

1) racial/homophobic/transphobic slurs
2) inflammatory speech designed to insult and demean groups of people
3) general insults (although you did post an insult photo)

From what I've seen, that's pretty rare for you. Here's hoping we see more posts free from insults and slurs from you! Maybe at some point in the future, you'll be able to contribute something to a discussion with someone you disagree with using ideas (and no, a string of offensive pejoratives is not an idea)....Maybe I'm asking too much. LOL.

Tom is in a quandry. He's trying to figure out how to proclaim the Mississippi law is discriminatory to LGBT, without having to show in the law where it is discriminatory.

(04-10-2016 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bullying is a targeted attack on someone.

So we are redefining words now? Any "targeted" attack is bullying?

Getting dragged on a message board is not bullying Tom.

You define bullying and hate speech far differently than most people.

And you define it as disagreement and things that hurt your fee-fee's

(04-10-2016 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bullying is a targeted attack on someone.

So we are redefining words now? Any "targeted" attack is bullying?

Getting dragged on a message board is not bullying Tom.

You define bullying and hate speech far differently than most people. You can't seem to avoid using slurs or demeaning people in your posts.

But congratulations on posting a 10 word posting that didn't contain

1) racial/homophobic/transphobic slurs
2) inflammatory speech designed to insult and demean groups of people
3) general insults (although you did post an insult photo)

From what I've seen, that's pretty rare for you. Here's hoping we see more posts free from insults and slurs from you! Maybe at some point in the future, you'll be able to contribute something to a discussion with someone you disagree with using ideas (and no, a string of offensive pejoratives is not an idea)....Maybe I'm asking too much. LOL.

Dear Lord Tom you are a grown a s s Man. How do you get bullied on a message board where NOBODY even knows who you are? You are acting like a cyber bullied pre teen or teenager, but NOBODY knows who you are.

You were off of here for 6 months so how do you know what I post? Have you been stalking me. BTW you can call me anything and it won't offend me. I am a grown a s s Man.

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 11:40 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:32 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.

I left for 6 months or so. No need to deal with people that trade in insults rather than ideas.

He wasn't lying. The bullying did drive me away.

If you come here with a list of lies/talking points, and we point out how they are not true, that is not bullying.

If you try to blame republicans for the problems you are having with Obamacare and we call you out on it, that is not bullying.

You do not have the right to lie and not be called out on it. And when you are, thats not bullying.

Its reality, something some of you need to learnt to start living in.

Bullying is a targeted attack on someone. What happened back then was bullying. It had nothing to do with anything other than my status as a Gay man and the fact that I am a liberal. Repeated use of insults, pejoratives and other forms of cyber bullying. No content to criticism.

Has nothing to do with Obamacare. I still think that my situation is the fault of the GOP, who allowed Texas BCBS to sock away 12.2 billion in reserves (an amount considered by just about everyone as shocking in scope), pay its' executives hundreds of millions of dollars, at the same time they were 'losing money' on one plan (the plan where just about every person with assets who has any preexisting condition was enrolled in). I've got a work around now. And due to the mutual holder lawsuit in Illinois, we're actually able to see some of the records that the insurance monopoly has tried to hide from public view, including its own mutual holders. If they're losing money, they're looting the company.

You confuse "I disagree with you with being a liar". When you say "youre a liar", it seems to mean to me that you have no rebuttal for the others' assertion, or a rebuttal that is unclear, and wish to end the debate.

I have no idea how long I'll bother in here. This thread is mildly interesting to me so I'm commenting on it.

If there's too much 'bottom feeding' in here, I'll bail again. Not because I'm piss$d, but because I have no desire to wade through a sewer of slurs, obvious trolls, and bullying. Right now, my interest in the particular topic is greater than my revulsion at the tone of some of the posters

---

Back to the OP. What do you think the status of the NC and MS bills will be in a year.

Here's mine

1) Courts will strike down all of Mississippi's bill
2) Courts will strike down all parts of NC's bill related to Transgender restroom access.
3) The Dems will win the NC Governors mansion, the AG office too.
4) NC will face a massive fight over non-discrimination, with the Feds and the business community aligned with the Dems.

Its even worse for NC if the courts only strike down the Transgender restroom access portions. As that would still leave the repeal of non-discrimination standing. And that will continue the calls for action/boycotts against North Carolina. And they'll be no 'bathroom scare tactics that can be used to defend the rest of the bill.

Watch out for the jiujitsu move. This is backfiring on the GOP. Badly.

---

By the way John Kasich just came out against the NC bill.

The restroom part is the most commonsense part of the bill and the most offensive to the non-gay community. It convinces many of us that the LGBT lobby needs to be strongly opposed as it wants to take away our rights.

(04-10-2016 03:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom is in a quandry. He's trying to figure out how to proclaim the Mississippi law is discriminatory to LGBT, without having to show in the law where it is discriminatory.

Its' discriminatory on its' face.

It enshrines three religious viewpoints. And only three. All of which are anti-Gay/Trans. And those viewpoints are not held by all religions.

Regarding LGBT persons, the only way you could find the law to NOT be discriminatory towards LGBT persons is if you don't define 'discrimination' as being denied medical treatment, service at a restaurant, public accommodations etc. as being the result of being LGBT as being discriminatory.

I would define a restaurant not serving a Gay couple celebrating their anniversary as being discriminatory. I would define a medical provider refusing to treat a Trans person as discriminatory. I would define the refusal to rent a facility open to straight persons for a wedding to LGBT persons for the same action as being discriminatory. The entire bill allows for discrimination. And the discriminatory actions involved here are in many cases, stated in the legislation.

The proponents of this bill aren't claiming that it doesn't allow for discrimination, but rather that discrimination against LGBT persons is somehow Constitutionally justified because the state wishes to place the majority religion's above anti-discrimination rules and norms. The quandry is how they can possibly do so, without 'establishing' evangelical Christianity as a de facto (or even de jure) state religion.

You and I aren't even speaking the same language, I'm afraid.

I'm actually not in a quandry. The courts will agree with me on the Mississippi law. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. I'd be VERY surprised if this law withstands judicial scrutiny.

And I think I understand your line of 'reasoning'. The only way you can come to the conclusion that the Mississippi law is not discriminatory is for you to dismiss the entire concept that discrimination against LGBT persons is possible.

I'm not puzzled at all here.

(04-10-2016 08:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 03:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom is in a quandry. He's trying to figure out how to proclaim the Mississippi law is discriminatory to LGBT, without having to show in the law where it is discriminatory.

Its' discriminatory on its' face.

It enshrines three religious viewpoints. And only three. All of which are anti-Gay/Trans. And those viewpoints are not held by all religions.

Regarding LGBT persons, the only way you could find the law to NOT be discriminatory towards LGBT persons is if you don't define 'discrimination' as being denied medical treatment, service at a restaurant, public accommodations etc. as being the result of being LGBT as being discriminatory.

I would define a restaurant not serving a Gay couple celebrating their anniversary as being discriminatory. I would define a medical provider refusing to treat a Trans person as discriminatory. I would define the refusal to rent a facility open to straight persons for a wedding to LGBT persons for the same action as being discriminatory.

You and I aren't even speaking the same language, I'm afraid.

Just for the record, unless you're in the ER, a physician doesn't have to take you as a patient. We do it occasionally at my office when someone hops from doctor to doctor. My mom's office does it all the time if a patient's BMI is over a certain limit.

(04-10-2016 05:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 11:40 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:32 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.

I left for 6 months or so. No need to deal with people that trade in insults rather than ideas.

He wasn't lying. The bullying did drive me away.

If you come here with a list of lies/talking points, and we point out how they are not true, that is not bullying.

If you try to blame republicans for the problems you are having with Obamacare and we call you out on it, that is not bullying.

You do not have the right to lie and not be called out on it. And when you are, thats not bullying.

Its reality, something some of you need to learnt to start living in.

Bullying is a targeted attack on someone. What happened back then was bullying. It had nothing to do with anything other than my status as a Gay man and the fact that I am a liberal. Repeated use of insults, pejoratives and other forms of cyber bullying. No content to criticism.

Has nothing to do with Obamacare. I still think that my situation is the fault of the GOP, who allowed Texas BCBS to sock away 12.2 billion in reserves (an amount considered by just about everyone as shocking in scope), pay its' executives hundreds of millions of dollars, at the same time they were 'losing money' on one plan (the plan where just about every person with assets who has any preexisting condition was enrolled in). I've got a work around now. And due to the mutual holder lawsuit in Illinois, we're actually able to see some of the records that the insurance monopoly has tried to hide from public view, including its own mutual holders. If they're losing money, they're looting the company.

You confuse "I disagree with you with being a liar". When you say "youre a liar", it seems to mean to me that you have no rebuttal for the others' assertion, or a rebuttal that is unclear, and wish to end the debate.

I have no idea how long I'll bother in here. This thread is mildly interesting to me so I'm commenting on it.

If there's too much 'bottom feeding' in here, I'll bail again. Not because I'm piss$d, but because I have no desire to wade through a sewer of slurs, obvious trolls, and bullying. Right now, my interest in the particular topic is greater than my revulsion at the tone of some of the posters

---

Back to the OP. What do you think the status of the NC and MS bills will be in a year.

Here's mine

1) Courts will strike down all of Mississippi's bill
2) Courts will strike down all parts of NC's bill related to Transgender restroom access.
3) The Dems will win the NC Governors mansion, the AG office too.
4) NC will face a massive fight over non-discrimination, with the Feds and the business community aligned with the Dems.

Its even worse for NC if the courts only strike down the Transgender restroom access portions. As that would still leave the repeal of non-discrimination standing. And that will continue the calls for action/boycotts against North Carolina. And they'll be no 'bathroom scare tactics that can be used to defend the rest of the bill.

Watch out for the jiujitsu move. This is backfiring on the GOP. Badly.

---

By the way John Kasich just came out against the NC bill.

The restroom part is the most commonsense part of the bill and the most offensive to the non-gay community. It convinces many of us that the LGBT lobby needs to be strongly opposed as it wants to take away our rights.

LOL.

The 'fix' made by NC and Mississippi is exceptionally stupid. It doesn't keep men out of ladies rooms. But it actually mandates that some men be required to use the ladies room. Men with male genitalia. Men with beards. In North Carolina, if the a person was born in 4 states (including neighboring Tennessee) they can NEVER change their legal gender, even after reassignment surgery. In Mississippi, the bill is even dumber. Mississippi allows persons to change their legal gender, but 1523 directly states that any change in 'legal gender' will have no impact on the requirement as to which restroom or changing facility a person shall be required by law to use.

---

You have the right and have had the right to hold religious services and to believe what you wish. That does not extend to the ability to discriminate in public commerce, contracting, provision of government services, etc. Removal of taxpayer subsidies or property tax offsets is not persecution either.

---

Both these bills were a huge miscalculation on the part of the anti-Gays. Adding all of the extra stuff made it about discrimination, rather than about the bathroom.

It was political malpractice on the anti-Gay's part as the politics fails. It was legislative malpractice on the anti-Gay's part as they crafted bills that appear to have serious Constitutional issues. And finally, it was a complete fail as to the bathroom provision as well.

(04-10-2016 09:05 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 08:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 03:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom is in a quandry. He's trying to figure out how to proclaim the Mississippi law is discriminatory to LGBT, without having to show in the law where it is discriminatory.

Its' discriminatory on its' face.

It enshrines three religious viewpoints. And only three. All of which are anti-Gay/Trans. And those viewpoints are not held by all religions.

Regarding LGBT persons, the only way you could find the law to NOT be discriminatory towards LGBT persons is if you don't define 'discrimination' as being denied medical treatment, service at a restaurant, public accommodations etc. as being the result of being LGBT as being discriminatory.

I would define a restaurant not serving a Gay couple celebrating their anniversary as being discriminatory. I would define a medical provider refusing to treat a Trans person as discriminatory. I would define the refusal to rent a facility open to straight persons for a wedding to LGBT persons for the same action as being discriminatory.

You and I aren't even speaking the same language, I'm afraid.

Just for the record, unless you're in the ER, a physician doesn't have to take you as a patient. We do it occasionally at my office when someone hops from doctor to doctor. My mom's office does it all the time if a patient's BMI is over a certain limit.

Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT. Everywhere else you'd get your license pulled. And rightly so. We should be past the days of 'colored hospitals'. Besides, there are very few doctors that didn't have the taxpayers subsidize their education or their practice in some way.

(04-10-2016 09:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT.

That is a lie. Nothing but a lie.

You are confusing "treat" with performing a sex change operation.

It is utterly amazing that the same group of folks upset about the NC law are the same folks that warn us about Islamophobia, support BLM, and attack Conservative women. So having some common decency standards in NC is a far more insidious crime than throwing fags off of roofs in the Middle east, rioting in support of completely false events in the name of some sort of thug retribution, and supporting those that favor Conservative pundits to be gang raped by a certain minority group with images posted around the world for all like-minded folks to see.

You have lost your ever-loving ******* minds.

(04-10-2016 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT.

That is a lie. Nothing but a lie.

You are confusing "treat" with performing a sex change operation.

To tom they are the same thing and like all good little SJW's he believes his way is the only way.