(April 15, 2016 at 7:31 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

With secularist mindset and being true to it, this seems to be the thing that makes most sense.  The norm of division comes from traditional mindset of religion.

Which is why I would never separate religion from politics, personally. It's eventually going to lead to even 6 people all being married to one another and all living in the same house as marriage...why not....from a secular perspective, why define marriage simply as 1:1, why not allow for example 3 men and 3 women to all be married to one another and share one another in the same house.

Why do you care who marries whom when it's none of your business and has no effect on your life or your religious beliefs?

(April 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's not like they're actively protecting the business they're just not forcing the private business to do anything in particular.

So, let's take a hypothetical case of say, not serving anyone being born in Portugal? That OK?

I'm sure it is, since you're all open for choice.

But rest assured, business ruins itself when being bigoted. The case of the bakery not serving gays proved that very well.

Where did I say I was open for choice? Whatever that means....

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

       A single locker room and bathroom with security cameras would be a terrible idea. I would not be comfortable people recording me taking a shower or using the restroom. Privacy is a very important issue, I close the door even when no one is home while using the toilet. How many of you feel that way as well?

(April 15, 2016 at 7:46 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

       A single locker room and bathroom with security cameras would be a terrible idea. I would not be comfortable people recording me taking a shower or using the restroom. Privacy is a very important issue, I close the door even when no one is home while using the toilet. How many of you feel that way as well?

Try re-reading my post and get back to me whenever you understand why your response made no sense.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:38 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:31 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: With secularist mindset and being true to it, this seems to be the thing that makes most sense.  The norm of division comes from traditional mindset of religion.

Which is why I would never separate religion from politics, personally. It's eventually going to lead to even 6 people all being married to one another and all living in the same house as marriage...why not....from a secular perspective, why define marriage simply as 1:1, why not allow for example 3 men and 3 women to all be married to one another and share one another in the same house.

Why do you care who marries whom when it's none of your business and has no effect on your life or your religious beliefs?

The people who care do so because they believe it will be detrimental to society as a whole.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:38 pm)Losty Wrote: Why do you care who marries whom when it's none of your business and has no effect on your life or your religious beliefs?

The people who care do so because they believe it will be detrimental to society as a whole.

Is that how you feel? I don't believe that every single person who cares cares for this reason. I'm certain that it varies vastly from one person to the next. And especially from one culture/society to the next.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:43 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: There = place: "over there"
Their = possession: "their store"
They're = they are: "they're coming soon"

      Sorry about the typo, I thought I proofread it fully. It would not be right to discriminate in any of these cases, how would you purpose to keep bigots out of businesses? While your thinking about that, let me ask you a other question. Would you classify a sex-change operation has cosmetic surgery? John who feels he is really a woman on the inside, this has been bothering him for a while and is affecting his work. He wants to get breast implants and hormone therapy, should his employers health insurance cover such a operation? A female employee could easy claim the size of her breasts are to small and is affecting her work performance. Should both be covered by there HMO or PPO? Their both trying to get "Cosmetic" surgery's. Should both be covered, or do both get denied there surgery's? Does the requests fall under a medical need? If you were the underwriter for the company's health plan, would you deny both of them, or approve both? Since both fall under "Cosmetic".

I think you're doing it on purpose now, so whatever.

I didn't propose to keep bigots out of business. They are there. Instead of protecting the business, you protect the people who are being discriminated against. The same arguments were used in the South in the 50's-60's when segregation was made illegal. More commonly businesses would lose patronage if a black person was seated at the lunch counter because the law protected that black person from being kicked out of the business for being black. So racist white people would come in, see the black people in the store, and leave for another place. This happened until it didn't.

Social change isn't always easy, but a lot of the times it's necessary.

As far as the example of the surgery, you have literally no understanding of the process for getting a sex reassignment surgery. You can't just walk into a plastic surgeon's office and ask them to turn you into a woman. It takes years of therapy, both hormone and mental/emotional, before a doctor will perform a SRS. At that point, it is medically indicated as the best treatment option. If your HMO or insurance options include certain elective options, then no, SRS shouldn't be excluded. The same would go if a person had serious emotional issues with breast size. If she went through years of therapy and her doctor recommended that an augmentation was medically indicated, then yes, that should be covered like any other elective procedure. If elective procedures are not already covered, then this is a moot point. Some companies just have shitty insurance. They can continue to have shitty insurance if they prefer that. The employee makes that decision when they join the company.

I wonder if they must also believe that they unlike their opponents are able to determine what is best for society and/or that only they but not their opponents are good people interested in the betterment of society.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:56 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I wonder if they must also believe that they unlike their opponents are able to determine what is best for society and/or that only they but not their opponents are good people interested in the betterment of society.

Both sides will fight for whatever they think is best for society, I suppose.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:38 pm)Losty Wrote: Why do you care who marries whom when it's none of your business and has no effect on your life or your religious beliefs?

The people who care do so because they believe it will be detrimental to society as a whole.

Even if that is why they care, that doesn't make it true...