(01-13-2017 05:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wyoming's GOP Rep. gets on the 'abuse the Trans People' train....Bill hasn't been filed yet, but its coming...

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/...7f3aa.html

Deeply troubling that it mentions 'biological gender' as listed on the birth certificate. We will have to see what kind of bill he files.

Tom, in your eyes, what is the correct terminology for bathrooms and who gets to use a particular one?

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

No Tom.... You asked 'where he draws the line'. He said the Constitution. You then went right back to your silly point.,,, which is ABSOLUTELY based on your hypotheticals/opinions about what people are trying to do and why.

You refuse to answer very simple questions... because you know that to answer them defeats your hyperbole.

The TRUTH is that the Trans community needs A decision on which public bathroom they should use in the tens of thousands of public places where only two options exist. Without it, they can't use EITHER bathroom and be protected by the law. If I'm on the jury of someone who says the 'felt threatened' from this person in the wrong bathroom, I don't know how I would possibly decide. I know how I'd LIKE to decide, but the job of a jury isn't to write policy. I believe that women have a right to not expect men in their bathroom... and 'men' isn't defined by opinion. It is a legal or medical definition. I am less concerned with women in the mens, but under 'equal protection', if someone files charges, they are right. The judge would instruct us as to what the law says.

It is in the interest of trans people to have a decision, and you have your opinion on what it should be. I have mine and others have theirs. Even a BAD decision (in someone's eyes) is better than no decision. At least you know and can follow the law. Right now in many cases, you can't... no matter what you do. NOw is where you deflect by projecting what you think people might do anyway... but if you have so little faith in our courts, then what difference does it make if they pass a DIFFERENT law? It's not in the interest of 'the right' to have a decision. Right now you can do nothing right. I understand you don't like their solution and I agree... but YOUR side is the one asking for a rule. Why are you shocked that they look out for 'their' people when writing such a law and not 'your' people??

You're in the minority Tom... You don't make changes when you're in the minority by calling people (especially like me who generally would support your preferred bathroom rules) names and alienating us.

If you don't care about support from people like me then fine... no problem. Please do us all a favor and stop responding to the posts if you don't care what I/we think. You're not convincing anyone... in fact, you're alienating people.

(01-13-2017 05:32 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

Thanks for the response, are you talking about public or private employers or housing?

Public and private employment....if you can't do say 'no Baptists', then you can't say 'no Gays'. And by saying 'no Baptists' that means someone that doesn't follow any religious or ethical tenets.....no reason needed.

(01-13-2017 07:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:32 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

Thanks for the response, are you talking about public or private employers or housing?

Public and private employment....if you can't do say 'no Baptists', then you can't say 'no Gays'. And by saying 'no Baptists' that means someone that doesn't follow any religious or ethical tenets.....no reason needed.

Can you give me some examples of No Gays employers.

Tom recreating Pickett's Charge. It's a war afterall...

(01-13-2017 09:24 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 07:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:32 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

Thanks for the response, are you talking about public or private employers or housing?

Public and private employment....if you can't do say 'no Baptists', then you can't say 'no Gays'. And by saying 'no Baptists' that means someone that doesn't follow any religious or ethical tenets.....no reason needed.

Can you give me some examples of No Gays employers.

1 Billion a year in taxpayer grants...Salvation Army.....we can start there...

Good to see the Bigots kicking some Tranny Fanny in recent posts. Wars are fought to kill people and take territory, so let's have at it.

Bathrooms are the territory, so let's reclaim them in the name of decent, biologically-determined gender identification.

(01-14-2017 12:24 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 09:24 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 07:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:32 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

Thanks for the response, are you talking about public or private employers or housing?

Public and private employment....if you can't do say 'no Baptists', then you can't say 'no Gays'. And by saying 'no Baptists' that means someone that doesn't follow any religious or ethical tenets.....no reason needed.

Can you give me some examples of No Gays employers.

1 Billion a year in taxpayer grants...Salvation Army.....we can start there...

While the Salvation Army has engaged in discriminatory practices in the past, since a 2010 settlement, it no longer holds those they serve or those they employee to any religious standards while receiving taxpayer dollars. Their past discrimination wasn't limited to gays though, but also Jews, and gasp, Baptists and many others.

I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

(01-14-2017 02:24 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

(01-14-2017 02:34 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:24 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

(01-14-2017 02:46 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:34 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:24 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

No, actually there are not. There is male and female. That's it. Anything else is an anomaly. Some additional genders created in the minds of people wishing there were more doesn't make it so. It's a fiction.

(01-14-2017 04:04 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:46 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:34 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:24 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

No, actually there are not. There is male and female. That's it. Anything else is an anomaly. Some additional genders created in the minds of people wishing there were more doesn't make it so. It's a fiction.

So you agree its an anomaly, not everyday, just some. A fiction, as you so coarsely put it. Lets just make sure that in a free country we don't make laws that prevent those anomalies from being productive citizens that are free to create great things.

(01-14-2017 07:26 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 04:04 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:46 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:34 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:24 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  Its not that simple, you forgot about androgen receptor defects. Sometimes those xy humans turn into really hot girls.

case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

No, actually there are not. There is male and female. That's it. Anything else is an anomaly. Some additional genders created in the minds of people wishing there were more doesn't make it so. It's a fiction.

So you agree its an anomaly, not everyday, just some. A fiction, as you so coarsely put it. Lets just make sure that in a free country we don't make laws that prevent those anomalies from being productive citizens that are free to create great things.

Agreed. And the few intrusive laws got thrown out in the 60s and 70s by the courts.

(01-14-2017 08:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 07:26 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 04:04 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:46 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:34 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  case in point....

A rare, very rare, defect is not a gender..... And you still end up calling them a girl.

What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

No, actually there are not. There is male and female. That's it. Anything else is an anomaly. Some additional genders created in the minds of people wishing there were more doesn't make it so. It's a fiction.

So you agree its an anomaly, not everyday, just some. A fiction, as you so coarsely put it. Lets just make sure that in a free country we don't make laws that prevent those anomalies from being productive citizens that are free to create great things.

Agreed. And the few intrusive laws got thrown out in the 60s and 70s by the courts.

The allowance of beautiful gay marriage has helped. A few years ago, someone could end up in the hospital in a state to make no decisions, and the family that disowned them could trump the partner that loved them.

(01-14-2017 09:42 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 08:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 07:26 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 04:04 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 02:46 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  What would you call them?
There are more than two Genders.

No, actually there are not. There is male and female. That's it. Anything else is an anomaly. Some additional genders created in the minds of people wishing there were more doesn't make it so. It's a fiction.

So you agree its an anomaly, not everyday, just some. A fiction, as you so coarsely put it. Lets just make sure that in a free country we don't make laws that prevent those anomalies from being productive citizens that are free to create great things.

Agreed. And the few intrusive laws got thrown out in the 60s and 70s by the courts.

The allowance of beautiful gay marriage has helped. A few years ago, someone could end up in the hospital in a state to make no decisions, and the family that disowned them could trump the partner that loved them.

You guys just can't seem to stay on point, can you? YOU made the definitive, yet indefensible assertion that there "are more than two genders." There are only male and female -- that's it. But since you can't truly make a case for your own assertion, you shift gears to "beautiful gay marriage" and toss in the old hospital meme that was unrelated to your assertion. It's an aged old strategy that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. It appears that you and Tom have gone all-in on the baffling strategy, because to this point, it's all been BS.

Fix bayonets, Tom. We are going over the wall.

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)banker Wrote:  I can't understand how you guys can do this with Tom. I actually tried to read this thread on a boring evening and he never answers anything and waits two posts after he gets refuted on anything and then goes right back to the same discredited point.

It really comes down to the left's need to just keep parsing the population into smaller and small groups so everyone can achieve near individual victim status. My opinion is this is due to the fact that they can't point out whites being a majority any more. As heterosexual, white men continue to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, they have to make sure their group remains an even smaller percentage so they can blame us for all their ills.

The simple fact is there are only two Genders, men and women (with the occasional hermaphadite tossed in the mix, 1.7% on the high side of the data). Everything beyond that, what you chose to do with your equipment and how you chose to dress, is simply a matter of preference. You can't based law on preference, because preferences change and can't be legislated properly.

Again, you simply define things your way then use it to justify extreme persecution of LGBT persons.

(01-14-2017 11:15 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Fix bayonets, Tom. We are going over the wall.

Heading to Austin, going behind enemy lines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk