(04-11-2016 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:01 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. There are almost 10,000 LGBT Mississippians in same sex relationships. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant.

You do realize that 10K is 0.3% of the population right? So even if 66% of LGBT's in Mississippi are single you're still under 1% of the population of that state.

That's an insignificant number.

But you are right in that it would not matter if it's 1 or 10%. The point is how do we respect each others rights, not how do we roll over eachothers rights.

yeah...minorities shouldn't be protected in America!!!! how very GOP of you...thank goodness minorities have protections from people like you.

Maybe you can show me where I said that?

I already did...you called those people 'insignificant'

thank goodness for the courts...cause that's where this is headed...just like the state level gay marriage bans.

good luck!

(04-11-2016 11:06 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:01 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. There are almost 10,000 LGBT Mississippians in same sex relationships. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant.

You do realize that 10K is 0.3% of the population right? So even if 66% of LGBT's in Mississippi are single you're still under 1% of the population of that state.

That's an insignificant number.

But you are right in that it would not matter if it's 1 or 10%. The point is how do we respect each others rights, not how do we roll over eachothers rights.

yeah...minorities shouldn't be protected in America!!!! how very GOP of you...thank goodness minorities have protections from people like you.

Maybe you can show me where I said that?

I already did...you called those people 'insignificant'


good luck!

No I called their *numbers* insignificant, not the people. Nowhere did I say an insignificant number of people have fewer rights than a large number of people.

That's a fantasy you concocted in your own mind.

your words...you called them insignificant...it's really very telling.

As I believe sexuality is fluid for many people, I'm not sure that you're ever going to get a concrete number for a LGBT population. If you use the Kinsey method of asking, you'll probably get to 10 percent (or even more). If you use a more limited definition that involves either being exclusively LG sexually or being transgendered or self identifying as blsexual while identifying oneself as a member of the LGBT community, then the number is probably lower than 10 percent.

In Mississippi, the number is even lower. People just leave hostile areas. The numbers get lost in the huge drain of people leaving Mississippi for economic reasons, but most Gays leave at the first opportunity. And Mississippi doesn't get many LGBT immigrants from other states or countries. By the way, that's not an equitable solution for the LGBT community, to feel the need to flee in order to live their lives (And some LGBT Mississippians, usually for economic reasons, are stuck there). And it harms non-bigoted Mississippians who are denied the companionship and talents of their LGBT friends and family as well as having lower economic prospects as fewer companies will choose to locate in a state where a sizeable talent pool (not just Gays) will refuse to move to in order to work.

(04-11-2016 11:11 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  your words...you called them insignificant...it's really very telling.

Are you just trolling or stupid... You even bolded the word "number"

(04-11-2016 11:18 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:11 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  your words...you called them insignificant...it's really very telling.

Are you just trolling or stupid... You even bolded the word "number"

Don't waste your time with him. He's repeated demonstrated his uselessness here.

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:30 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

have you never heard of closeted gay people?

I'd say for every open gay person in America, there is also a closeted gay person...

Your brain has clearly melted. If this was true you would have 8% of the population as being gay. Basically you're saying you believe 1/12 people are homosexual.

I know it seems that way on TV and all as the agenda is pushed but honestly I think 3.8 is probably a bit higher than you would naturally see.

Why fight over numbers. For the record, the LGBT community wants the census to add the question "Do you self-identify as Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, or Transgendered?" to its questionaire. The right largely opposes that question. And we know there will be members of our community who will answer that question 'no' too. The census only tracks same sex couples living under the same roof.

Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. In the 2010 Census, over 7,000 Mississippians are listed as being a same sex couple living under the same roof. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant. My guess would be 20,000 out (or largely out) LGBT Mississippians. And probably an equal number that are closeted but active. The number of 1 for 1 is probably applicable to Mississippi. There is a LOT of societal disapproval and discrimination against LGBT persons in Mississippi. That drives the 'underground' demographic higher as a percentage as it might be in a more supportive state.

Oh, and same sex couples in Mississippi, skewing towards lesbians (which is usually the case in more rural or less supportive areas - I have no idea why) tend to have kids too. Of those 7,000 same sex persons that were identified by the census using a very limited definition...there are probably about a couple thousand kids being raised by those couples. And Mississippi's discrimination law could impact them negatively as well.

So this bill negatively impacts around 40,000 Mississippians at a minimum. Bigger than Tupelo. Bigger than Pascagoula and Moss Point combined. Roughly the same size as Biloxi or Meridian. Easily in the Top 10 in Population if they were a city. Close to top 5 too.

And this is what is so dangerous about your agenda. That is none of anybody's business, ESPECIALLY the government and our employers. What you or anybody else does in your own home is nobody's business and shouldn't be relevant.

The NC and MS laws have to do with actions like a marriage, not with people (other than the religious institution allowances).

One thing I think is ridiculous about the manufactured, artificial outrage from the left on this issue is that the ordinance Charlotte passed REQUIRED PRIVATE BUSINESSES to open their restrooms up to whoever/whatever wanted to use them, regardless of their sex.

Let's forget for a second that this has annnnnything to do with trannies, and look at it from a government overreach perspective...

What right does the city government have to tell a PRIVATE business owner what he/she can or can't do in regards to their restrooms? That is up to the BUSINESS OWNER. Period. It is in NO WAY similar to refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation, so don't even try.

I could understand the gay activists getting their panties in a wad (unintended pun) if House Bill 2 actually forced businesses to go either way on the issue... but it doesn't. Businesses can still designate men/women/unisex/family/whatever bathrooms at their discretion.

(04-12-2016 09:55 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  One thing I think is ridiculous about the manufactured, artificial outrage from the left on this issue is that the ordinance Charlotte passed REQUIRED PRIVATE BUSINESSES to open their restrooms up to whoever/whatever wanted to use them, regardless of their sex.

Let's forget for a second that this has annnnnything to do with trannies, and look at it from a government overreach perspective...

What right does the city government have to tell a PRIVATE business owner what he/she can or can't do in regards to their restrooms? That is up to the BUSINESS OWNER. Period. It is in NO WAY similar to refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation, so don't even try.

I could understand the gay activists getting their panties in a wad (unintended pun) if House Bill 2 actually forced businesses to go either way on the issue... but it doesn't. Businesses can still designate men/women/unisex/family/whatever bathrooms at their discretion.

Exactly. It applies only to 'public accomodations'.

(04-12-2016 09:55 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  One thing I think is ridiculous about the manufactured, artificial outrage from the left on this issue is that the ordinance Charlotte passed REQUIRED PRIVATE BUSINESSES to open their restrooms up to whoever/whatever wanted to use them, regardless of their sex.

Let's forget for a second that this has annnnnything to do with trannies, and look at it from a government overreach perspective...

What right does the city government have to tell a PRIVATE business owner what he/she can or can't do in regards to their restrooms? That is up to the BUSINESS OWNER. Period. It is in NO WAY similar to refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation, so don't even try.

I could understand the gay activists getting their panties in a wad (unintended pun) if House Bill 2 actually forced businesses to go either way on the issue... but it doesn't. Businesses can still designate men/women/unisex/family/whatever bathrooms at their discretion.

The city of Charlotte is fully to blame for this mess. There was no problem in Charlotte to fix to begin with. This is nothing more that a bunch of social warriors trying to make a statement. People had already somehow figured out which bathroom they needed to use and did it without the governments help. This whole thing was an over reach by those in power in Charlotte.

Again, what's wrong with an ordinance that addresses things like employment discrimination but doesn't say anything that could be construed as opening restrooms to whomever? Why can't both sides agree to that?

Why do you have to talk about bathrooms in order to address employment discrimination?

(04-12-2016 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, what's wrong with an ordinance that addresses things like employment discrimination but doesn't say anything that could be construed as opening restrooms to whomever? Why can't both sides agree to that?

Why do you have to talk about bathrooms in order to address employment discrimination?

Beats me.

(04-12-2016 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, what's wrong with an ordinance that addresses things like employment discrimination but doesn't say anything that could be construed as opening restrooms to whomever? Why can't both sides agree to that?

Why do you have to talk about bathrooms in order to address employment discrimination?

Because they can't pass a bill to remove employment protections against LGBT persons unless they scare people by scapegoating Trans persons. Pretty much all the anti-Gays have to work with.

Even in places where all Trans protections are removed, such as Plano, they gin up opposition using the Trans scapegoating tactic.

Well... McCrory just signed an Executive Order to address the national hissy fit.

"According to the governor’s office, Executive Order 93 does the following:

Maintains common sense gender-specific restroom and locker room facilities in government buildings and schools

Affirms the private sector’s right to establish its own restroom and locker room policies

Affirms the private sector and local governments’ right to establish its own non-discrimination employment policies for its own employees

Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

“After listening to people’s feedback for the past several weeks on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina,” McCrory said in a statement. “Based upon this feedback, I am taking action to affirm and improve the state’s commitment to privacy and equality.”"

(04-12-2016 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Because they can't pass a bill to remove employment protections against LGBT persons unless they scare people by scapegoating Trans persons. Pretty much all the anti-Gays have to work with.

How does that apply to, for example, the Houston ordinance?

The bottom line is that neither side can pass a law to do anything without having to talk about bathrooms. Because that's the only issue that they can get people riled up enough to care about. The reality is that employment discrimination against gays is pretty non-existent, so nobody on either side much gives a care about it. But bathrooms, you can get people worked up over bathrooms.

As I say, let's pass something that addresses employment discrimination and such, but leaves bathrooms up to the person who owns the bathroom. Some people will allow trannies to use the bathroom of their choice, and they will get the tranny business. Some people will require them to use the bathroom of their plumbing, and they will get the business of everyone else.

And don't go having a hissy fit about my use of the term tranny/trannies. I know some people who are trannies, and that's the term they use to self-describe.

Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

I just want them to repeal all the unrelated overreach in HB2 that strips control away from local municipalities.

What is best for Hickory isn't necessarily what is best for Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Asheville, and the other economic engines of the state.

(04-12-2016 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

Quote:Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

That should stop all the belly-aching.

(04-12-2016 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

Quote:Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

That should stop all the belly-aching.

It won't.

It's NEVER enough.

The left doesn't know how NOT to be outraged and victimized.

(04-12-2016 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Because they can't pass a bill to remove employment protections against LGBT persons unless they scare people by scapegoating Trans persons. Pretty much all the anti-Gays have to work with.

How does that apply to, for example, the Houston ordinance?

The bottom line is that neither side can pass a law to do anything without having to talk about bathrooms. Because that's the only issue that they can get people riled up enough to care about. The reality is that employment discrimination against gays is pretty non-existent, so nobody on either side much gives a care about it. But bathrooms, you can get people worked up over bathrooms.

As I say, let's pass something that addresses employment discrimination and such, but leaves bathrooms up to the person who owns the bathroom. Some people will allow trannies to use the bathroom of their choice, and they will get the tranny business. Some people will require them to use the bathroom of their plumbing, and they will get the business of everyone else.

And don't go having a hissy fit about my use of the term tranny/trannies. I know some people who are trannies, and that's the term they use to self-describe.

I'm sure they'd love to hear you talk about them that way. You probably haven't spoken with them in a while.

Employment discrimination against LGBT persons is more common than you think. Especially in healthcare, education and social work (even using taxpayer grants and funding).

The impact of your 'solution' of simply allowing businesses to deny Trans persons public accommodations is not really workable. Hey, you're at the mall..and need to pee. But the mall doesn't allow Trans persons to use the facilities there. I guess you can just wet yourself in the middle of the Food Court. No humiliation there, right? And how are Trans persons to know before wasting money on gas to go to a place that it is open for their business?

The state has an interest in having Trans persons employed and active in the economy. That is dramatically hampered if they can't function in society.