Sweeping Federal LGBT Rights Bill Will Be Introduced This Week

Umm. Here's an idea that might solve the 'dilemma' of--at what point in a man's "shift" is it ok for a man to go into the women's restroom and vice versa. This is easy: if you have a Y chromosome, you use the men's bathroom. If you have an X chromosome you use the women's bathroom.

 

let's let the middle age men use the female changing room at the public pools and water parks. Let's see who is the first mom to bash a trash can over his head protecting her little girls.

of course she'd be a transphobe in Democrat la la land.

 

men who choose to have sex with other men

have a higher rate of HIV
have a higher rate of suicide/attempted suicide
have a higher strike ratio of pedophilia

the numbers support your theory

 

GOP House, GOP senate. This bill will obviously be dead on arrival.

 

This was debunked the first time you made the claim.

 

Pretty much. But one can hope.

 

Gosh, nobody told me that. I'm 48 and quite healthy, and I'm gay. I've only been to the hospital once and that was for a broken foot. Who knew?

Oh, and homosexuality is legal already. Has been for quite a while.

 

No it isn't. If the right is available to everyone, it's not a special right.

It's not any more of a special right than straight marriage was.

 

A NEW right, available to everyone much like marriage has always been, before it was expanded. Since when has a gay person been unable to marry someone of the opposite sex? The law had to be rewritten to expand the definition. They were never DENIED rights because marriage didn't say PEOPLE. It said man and woman. They had the exact same rights. They wanted new rights. NEW is special. And now straight men can marry straight men, if they choose. BY your definition, someone who believes rape should be legal is being denied his rights, until enough people agree with him. Just like polygamy will be legal as soon as enough people create enough pressure. I would hope you will support the rights of this group that have been denied for so long.

And YES, if a large man dressed as a woman followed my 7 year old into the woman's bathroom, I would worry because I don't know if its really harmless or just some nut dressed as a woman. If all they have to do is identify in their own head....do they have to look like a woman or just think they're a woman? And looking like a woman is subjective anyway. Some of them aren't fooling anyone. I'd have to barge in the bathroom instead of waiting outside. You can't know for sure.

 

How can something be "special" when everyone else has the right to the same thing?
Marriage would only be "special" for gay people if heterosexual people could no longer marry.

 

let's not lose sight of the right of a middle age man to now freely enter the female locker rooms and dressing rooms

All the man need say is that he identifies as female. If you deny him access, you are breaking the law.

those who choose gay sex brought on this slippery slope and I believe it was intentional

 

That does not explain how it is a special right. Special to who? You will be able to do everything they can do.

Who said you cannot marry someone of the same sex as well?

It is not special if it is not exclusive. The "new" rights do not exclude anyone.

That being said. no new rights have been added. The court simply said the existing rights apply to more people.

So what? Who is losing? Who is being harmed?

By definition, rape takes rights away from some individuals. That is why your analogy is invalid. Gay Marriage is not removing rights from anyone.

But if a large effeminate gay man followed him into the mens bathroom you would not be worried? Lets not by hypocritical here.

I guess we'll find out. But I don't see how this is any better for you than the current solution. Homosexuals are already using the same bathrooms as you anyway. Your example could only be disturbing if the Tranny was heterosexual.

 

Traditional marriage was a special right for heterosexual couples as the only couples with the potential of procreation. Just as gay marriage is a special right for gays, so they can feel equal to heterosexual couples. As long as any two consenting adults are prohibited from marriage, it continues to be a special right. Discrimination by design.

 

Like Bruce Jenner.

 

So if there is precedent for it, whats the problem? Why were you people not protesting heterosexual marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

It would depend on Jenner's sexual orientation. Is he into men or women?

 

so the reverse of that would be their rights end where my life begins... your words essentially... why am I still forced to change because someone else doesn't like it?

this should be a republic... one voice has the right to say no... but today we're only allowing certain voices to say no... all others must comply...

gay marriage should be legal, every conservative should agree, but nobody should ever be forced to participate in it... religious reasons or not... I shouldn't need religion to have the right to say no to forced participation in something... I should just be able to say no thank you... end of discussion...

gays can still find a place to marry, they can still find a place to get a cake, they can still find a photographer, they will have no problem doing this...

I've refused to allow many couple to have a ceremony/reception on my property (after 3 awful weddings I learned my lesson), as far as I know they were straight, I just hate weddings crowds trashing my property once they get (*)(*)(*)(*) drunk and wild... according to these new laws and proposals, I could now be sued for discriminating against a gay couple, but not that straight couple... why shouldn't I have the right to refuse service? and why should only the gay couple now be able to sue me?

 

please do not lose sight of the other part of the proposed bill. Nobody can deny access to specific restrooms, changing rooms, saunas, showers etc.

If a man claims that he identifies as a female, then he must be allowed into the woman's dressing room.

Teenage girls who change into/out of their bathing suits at beaches/water parks changing rooms can now rest easy because there will be strong capable men in there with them.

 

In the case of the photographer, you might have a point as they would have to be at the wedding. There is no reason for not making a cake though.

You refused service because they damaged your property. You could do the same if a gay couple damaged your property.

Also, you do realize that you can be sued for anything, right?

 

I think you forgot to read everything I said about refusing weddings... I said I've refused weddings, as a result of my past experience, from property damage during those types of events... you seem to think I am psychic and could predict any couple would damage my property and therefor I can refuse service ahead of time?

basically, now that I no longer host wedding events at my property... according the laws being proposed, a gay couple could sue me, while a straight couple would not be able to sue me... thats the problem with the laws being proposed... if I say no to a gay couple, I can now be sued despite the fact I refuse to host ANY weddings now... many of these "feel good" laws have unintended consequences... they don't necessarily take into account the fact I no longer host any weddings, they will only take into account the fact I refused service to this gay couple... thats not good law, which is why many of these proposed laws are dumb...

P.S. you said theres no reason someone can't make a cake for them... do you also think its wrong for gay bakeries to refuse service to anti-gay cakes... I'm sure you can google the video of the guy calling a dozen bakeries who refused to make him a cake... is that illegal and he should sue for millions also?

 

Can I ask you do you believe in a "gay gene?"

 

I seriously doubt it. NOBODY can sue someone for refusing to sell to them, a product or service they don't sell at all. Of course, this must be legitimate. In the 60s, business tried the stunt of "going out of business" when a black customer showed up, and "going back into business" when that customer left. The idea was, it wasn't discrimination because they didn't offer to sell to anyone while "out of business". The courts ruled this was a pretext. If you don't host ANY weddings for anyone, you must establish this is the case for some reasonable period of time, and you're fine.

I believe courts have ruled that the cake itself cannot be unreasonably offensive. The bakery can legally refuse to decorate the cake with messages offensive to them. They can NOT legally refuse to sell a generic cake because they don't approve of the occasion the cake is being used to celebrate.

 

I have a question for you; with regards to the changes to marriage legislation, what are gay people legally now able to do which straight people are not?

 

There is some very indirect evidence that sexual orientation is at least influenced by some constellation of genes during development. Orientation is not directly inherited. However, statistically there is some tendency for it to run in families, and also statistically those families tend to have slightly more offspring than average.

- - - Updated - - -

Many people have asked this same question. He won't answer.

 

Let me be the next. With regards to the changes to marriage legislation, what are gay people legally now able to do which straight people are not?

 

Which would mean that all non-veterans have a right to veterans benefits, all city dwellers have a right to farm subsidies, and all rich people have a right to food stamps.