Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think private property rights should be respected and that the respect given is a sign of a free society. And I believe that there should be no distinction between home and business. It is the right of ownership to make the rules within their respective domains.
I agree.
I don't agree with the bakers (for instance) who refuse to serve certain customers because of religious prejudices, but I agree with their right to choose whom they serve. Does that make sense?
I agree with Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen for "boycotting" North Carolina, but I also think NC made it's decision based on current laws (as I understand it) and safety factors. It's harder when it's a public entity. Personally, I have no issue with unisex bathrooms. It would make things easier.
It just seems like hypocrisy it tolerated no matter which side you are on.
A man wearing a dress isn't going to be who rapes your daughter, it is going to probably be someone she knows.
Such as a family member or a family friend. They know this, they just choose to put blinders on, plug their fingers into their ears & scream "LALALALALA, I can't hear you!" Ignorance is bliss with those types.
Nope. You have nothing on which to base that assertion. Especially when sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected class, and this case was tried in federal court.
Neither do you, you are just guessing based on what you want to believe. I on the other hand am guessing based on the actions of the school after the settlement....something you didn't even know about when you were trying to use this story to prove a point.
So you admit you have NO idea if money was a part of the settlement.
Meanwhile, how do you propose trans with penises who deliberately expose themselves in girls'/women's facilities (such as what happened in the IL school district case) get around indecent exposure laws?
Did you actually read the case? It pertains to a locker room, not a restroom.
You have NO idea what you're talking about...
Quote:
"One woman, speaking during the public comments portion of Thursday's regular Dist. 211 board meeting, and who is also a member of the D211 Parents For Privacy group, told the board of an alleged incident she had just learned of. A female student preparing for swim class two years ago in the girls bathroom at Fremd supposedly saw a male, who had requested access to use the female locker rooms due to being transgender, without clothes on. The female student was said to have been greatly disturbed by the incident.
“This female student came forward to say that back in 2013, ‘Student A’ (the transgender student) violated rules by entering the girls swimming locker room, got completely naked, exposing his male genitalia to her,” parent Barb Wilson told the board. “Exposure is a form of sexual abuse.”
Wilson continued: “The OCR (Office of Civil Rights) report dated Nov. 2 backs this up. The report clearly shows a pattern of breaking the rules over and over again. What leads our board to think this pattern of behavior won't continue? Why would they put children at risk knowing this pattern? How many other victims are there and how many more will there be?”
So you admit you have NO idea if money was a part of the settlement.
Meanwhile, how do you propose trans with penises who deliberately expose themselves in girls'/women's facilities (such as what happened in the IL school district case) get around indecent exposure laws?
So you admit YOU have NO idea if there was no money in the settlement.
The same way you handle women who deliberately expose themselves to other women. It isn't that hard of a concept. Don't expose your genitalia to others. In case you didn't know, other women and girls don't want to see your vagina.
Read the IL District 211 case. The MTF trans student with a penis deliberately exposed his genitalia in the girls' restroom.
That's BS.
Here is the OCR report, which you apparently didn't bother to try to find and read. No mention at all of the transgender student 'deliberately exposing genitalia'.
No mention at all of the transgender student exposing genitalia. In fact the student requested the use of a stall or privacy curtains in the locker room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially when sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected class, and this case was tried in federal court.
