Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

[jmotivator]

You do realize transgendered people have been using the bathroom they themselves associate with their sex for years and years and years and years?

You do realize that transgender access to the bathroom of their choice is only a small part of the logistical nightmare that you SJW types are demanding, right? This idiotic crusade makes bathroom choice available for everyone through the same equal rights argument, ushering the age of unisex bathrooms. This will give nobody what they really want.

Before this stupid tipping of the apple cart the transgender people at least had to imitate the opposite sex to use the opposite sex's bathroom, under the new idiotic policy there can't even be that much consideration because to do so denies equal protection under the law.

What happens when a middle tier tennis pro realizes he can win Wimbledon simply by wearing a skirt? As long as teh SJWs fiorce the idiotic notion that male and female are purely immaginary constructs they will march us down that stupid road, hurting women more than helping transgender people.

 

[jmotivator]

Can't gay people get a cake from people who WANT to make it for them? Oh, right, they're abject agitators.

Right? My rule of thumb is never eat something you made someone cook for you under duress.

 

[jmotivator]

And you mean children weren't always being molested?

I keep hoping that DP's own conservative transgender member will weigh on this.

So you are saying children aren't always being molested? Do you think it is OK to let a child molester into a bathroom with children?

I'm not saying that the transgender person would be the child molester so stop your furious typing, I'm only saying that this dumbass crusade opens the door to child molesters to use the bathroom that gives them easy access to their prey.

 

[VanceMack]

I read the article before it was posted here...and I must have missed the 'chaos' part. A bunch of liberals ****ting themselves because the vote didnt go their way? Hell...thats the established 'norm' these days...its not chaos.

 

[rocket88]

So you are saying children aren't always being molested? Do you think it is OK to let a child molester into a bathroom with children?

I'm not saying that the transgender person would be the child molester so stop your furious typing, I'm only saying that this dumbass crusade opens the door to child molesters to use the bathroom that gives them easy access to their prey.

The majority of molesters are men, and most of their victims are boys. Always been in the same restroom.

These silly laws won't prevent any of that. It's "feel good" legislation for the right wing.

 

[jmotivator]

The majority of molesters are men, and most of their victims are boys.

False. The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Good job throwing gays under the bus.

 

[sangha]

So you are saying children aren't always being molested? Do you think it is OK to let a child molester into a bathroom with children?

I'm not saying that the transgender person would be the child molester so stop your furious typing, I'm only saying that this dumbass crusade opens the door to child molesters to use the bathroom that gives them easy access to their prey.

because we all know that men who will ignore the law and molest a young girl will be stopped by a law which says they can't go into the ladies room.

 

[jmotivator]

because we all know that men who will ignore the law and molest a young girl will be stopped by a law which says they can't go into the ladies room.

It means that a business can police their restrooms without getting sued by the federal government, and restroom users can report people who shouldn't be in the bathroom.

Good job re-purposing an NRA talking point, though!:clap:

 

[sangha]

It means that a business can police their restrooms without getting sued by the federal government, and restroom users can report people who shouldn't be in the bathroom.

Good job re-purposing an NRA talking point, though!:clap:

Umm, federal laws and regs do not require that businesses allow TG's to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. The feds don't sue businesses for that.

Stop drama-queening the thread.

Oh wait!!! If righties didn't drama-queen this issue, there would be no issue

 

[Fenton]

Read more @: Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

This is pretty ****ed up. Whole lot of arm twisting went on to ensure that a motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. This is a pretty big low for those who switched their votes. Shame on them. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Lol ! " Chaos " Really ??

Discriminatory is ignoring the concerns and rights of tens of millions of women and girls because the Democrats have made pandering and identity politics their priority

 

[Mr Person]

Can't gay people get a cake from people who WANT to make it for them? Oh, right, they're abject agitators.

I'm sorry if it bothers you that businesses who hold themselves open to the general public do not get to refuse to serve people who they are bigoted against.

 

[jmotivator]

Umm, federal laws and regs do not require that businesses allow TG's to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. The feds don't sue businesses for that.

They're threatening to sue schools and suing NC for passing a just such a law.

Oh wait!!! If righties didn't drama-queen this issue, there would be no issue

LOL. The Left are the drama queens on this issue, as they are with most issues.

 

[sangha]

They're threatening to sue schools and suing NC for passing a just such a law.

Umm, schools are not businesses and the feds are not suing NC

LOL. The Left are the drama queens on this issue, as they are with most issues.

says the gut who thinks schools are businesses that are going to get sued. :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

Umm, schools are not businesses and the feds are not suing NC

Shows how much you know.

says the gut who thinks schools are businesses that are going to get sued. :lamo

Schools have been threatened with lawsuits, and NC is being sued, and there is no reason to think that this SJW crusade will go any differently than the gay marriage crusade where businesses were put out of business for refusing to follow these kinds of government dictates.

 

[Anthony60]

:lamo I forgot if Obama is for it then everyone has to be against it no matter the substance! And in this case the substance was motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. And also, offering an amendment is not "sneaky".


Damn Obama! Being for something! But 30+ odd Republicans were for this amendment before the arm twisting began.

I like what Ryan said. "This is federalism; the states should do this. The federal government shouldn't stick its nose in its business”. That is thr problem with Obama, whatever he is for he wants it to be done, and damn the Constitution.

Also, I really hate when they try and add this crap to a defence authorization bill, trying to get votes that it would normally never get.

It also says...

The failed amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can't be discriminated against on the basis of religion.

So it's an amendment that would allow the government to discriminate on the basis of religion? Doesn't sound very good to me. Seems like it is the democrats in all this that are being underhanded.

 

[sangha]

Shows how much you know.




Schools have been threatened with lawsuits, and NC is being sued, and there is no reason to think that this SJW crusade will go any differently than the gay marriage crusade where businesses were put out of business for refusing to follow these kinds of government dictates.

Let's look at what you said

It means that a business can police their restrooms without getting sued by the federal government,

Neither NC nor its' schools are businesses.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I like what Ryan said. "This is federalism; the states should do this. The federal government shouldn't stick its nose in its business”. That is thr problem with Obama, whatever he is for he wants it to be done, and damn the Constitution.

Also, I really hate when they try and add this crap to a defence authorization bill, trying to get votes that it would normally never get.

It also says...



So it's an amendment that would allow the government to discriminate on the basis of religion? Doesn't sound very good to me. Seems like it is the democrats in all this that are being underhanded.

THIS IS ABOUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. Not state policy or state policies. This is about FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS and ensuring that those employers do not discriminate against those based on sexuality...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Lol ! " Chaos " Really ??

Discriminatory is ignoring the concerns and rights of tens of millions of women and girls because the Democrats have made pandering and identity politics their priority

What does this have to do with women and girls specifically?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You do realize that transgender access to the bathroom of their choice is only a small part of the logistical nightmare that you SJW types are demanding, right?

This idiotic crusade makes bathroom choice available for everyone through the same equal rights argument, ushering the age of unisex bathrooms. This will give nobody what they really want.

Before this stupid tipping of the apple cart the transgender people at least had to imitate the opposite sex to use the opposite sex's bathroom, under the new idiotic policy there can't even be that much consideration because to do so denies equal protection under the law.

What happens when a middle tier tennis pro realizes he can win Wimbledon simply by wearing a skirt? As long as teh SJWs fiorce the idiotic notion that male and female are purely immaginary constructs they will march us down that stupid road, hurting women more than helping transgender people.

What we are essentially "demanding" is a upholding of the status quo. It was until recently that many on the right invited a problem that needs to be "solved" (damn, many on the right do that a lot. Like when it comes to "voter fraud).... There is no need to enforce such "bathroom laws to protect little girls" when its not even problem...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

95%? I'm ignoring it completely.

Good for you. And I thought this was a debating site. Silly me :usflag2:

 

[apdst]

The Republicans got one right for a change. This is why they were elected: to stop this stupidity.

 

[Fenton]

What does this have to do with women and girls specifically?

Lol !! No surprise there

Their opinions, concerns, rights and or objections to having to share a public restroom with a Man are being drowned out by the people who supposedly stand for " equal rights " and diversity

Talk about a war on women.

Question, do you have any problem with a grown man in mens clothing following a 10 year old girl into a Women's restroom ?

What about a strange grown man in Mens clothing following a women into a restroom ?

 

[jmotivator]

Let's look at what you said

Not to keen on looking at what you said, are you? "The Federal government isn't suing NC" ... LOL.

Neither NC nor its' schools are businesses.

That statement was regarding the NC law and the federal lawsuit trying to change the law. The Federal lawsuits against businesses is a prediction given the existing threats of suits from the DOJ and the Obama administration.

 

[sangha]

Not to keen on looking at what you said, are you? "The Federal government isn't suing NC" ... LOL.

Still trying to avoid looking at what said, are you?:lol:

That statement was regarding the NC law and the federal lawsuit trying to change the law.

There is no federal lawsuit against any business relating to that law.

 

[jmotivator]

What we are essentially "demanding" is a upholding of the status quo.

No, no you are not. You are making an argument whose only logical end is ending sexually differentiated bathrooms and changing rooms. These rules had always been for the sane and logical differentiation by biological sex, not the idiotic and un-police-able psychological gender. By arguing for the free choice based on psychological gender you create an environment where there is no standard, forget maintaining the status quo.

It was until recently that many on the right invited a problem that needs to be "solved" (damn, many on the right do that a lot. Like when it comes to "voter fraud).... There is no need to enforce such "bathroom laws to protect little girls" when its not even problem...

NO, people had forever had the status quo of differentiating bathrooms based on biological sex. It is only recently that the left has pushed the absurd argument that psychological gender is more important than biological sex.