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.
The Government tells me I must accept that a hairy man in a flannel shirt and 6' tall, who feels pretty that day, can walk into my women's dressing room at the gym or at the department store and I can't do anything about it. Screw government's view of morality. Reality under Obama has become unreality. Government is risking women's safety.
Who said hairy men in flannel shirts can walk into a women's dressing room? Trump may have made a habit of walking in on beauty contestants in their altogethers, but this behavior is pretty much off limits everywhere else.
I've been using women's bathrooms for decades. Never had a minute's worth of trouble. I go in, close the door on the stall, and don't give moment's thought to whether the person in the next stall has the same equipment I do. What possible difference would it make?
Before this bathroom nonsense became such a RW cause, I never heard of anyone having any trouble whatsoever. Only problems I've heard of have been since the law passed and has been men confronting lesbians about using the women's bathrooms. Women don't care.
Now I imagine a male who dresses as a female and is forced to use the men's facilities might well have some problems. They stand a good chance of getting beat up in my neck of the woods.
It's ridiculous to pass laws that you can't enforce anyway.
The small government Republicans are constantly trying to expand government control over our lives. With regard to birth control and abortions, my medical decisions are mine, not the government's.
Imagine the hue and cry if we all voted that Viagra could only be used within the confines of marriage?
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 01-05-2017 at 04:08 PM..
The government prevented gay people from getting married. The government shouldn't have that type of control.
There is no such thing as a federal marriage license - just as there is no federal drivers license, either. The federal government doesn't actually have that kind of control.
This is a state issue. The Supremes are the ones who got the feds involved in this - not the government itself.
Who said hairy men in flannel shirts can walk into a women's dressing room? [snip]
Current law, thanks to Obama and our Federal Government. Are you so uninformed?
A man can use the women's locker room if he says he is a "woman". He doesn't have to prove he is a "woman", by driver's license or appearance. His assertion of his gender identity is all that legally matters for easy entrance into a women's dressing area likely filled with naked, vulnerable women.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 01-05-2017 at 04:11 PM..
Only a government with the power to dictate when you can drink a beer, who you can marry, what you can say or where you can live can implement such laws.
We need to reduce the power and scope of government.
If you look around, it tends to be Democrats wanting a bigger and more powerful government.
What nonsense. The most liberal societies have powerful and democratic governments while third world hellholes have weak, corrupt governments where such laws are commonplace. Living in a society where elected officials are unable to implement laws is pure lunacy.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,335 posts, read 54,455,929 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats, which is why I didn't vote for their Orange wonder.
The difference is that Republican voters tend to not be calling for larger government nearly as much as Democrat voters.
Uh, it seems it's usually Republicans calling for MORE! MORE! MORE! spending and growth for the military and admit it or not, the military IS part of government. I see no difference, I think Democrats and Republicans are two sides of a cheap slug masquerading as a coin of value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative.
Conservatives may have some good ideas but when was the last time we saw one shrinking the size of government and reducing spending? Access to other peoples' $$$ seems to corrupt anyone who gains that access.
As much as I think the orange wonder is a jackass I would have voted for him had he run as an (I) with the potential for giving both major parties the smackdown they so richly deserve.
Current law, thanks to Obama. Are you so uninformed?
A man can use the women's locker room if he says he is a "woman". He doesn't have to prove he is in any way a "woman", by driver's license or appearance. His assertion of his gender identity is all that legally matters for entrance into a women's dressing area used by naked, vulnerable women.
What are you talking about? Obama didn't change any laws on who could use which bathroom.
Republican nuts in North Carolina passed HB2 which did away with the right for people to sue for discrimination in NC courts. Now one has to go to the federal courts to file a lawsuit for discrimination.
HB2 also specified which bathroom one could use. That's the part that got everyone's attention.
The state has lost millions and millions in revenue. Businesses have abandoned plans to expand and/or locate in NC. Sports tournaments have been cancelled. Companies are unable to recruit top notch IT folks.
A Virginia paper endorsed Republican governor McCrory for reelection in NC. Said McCrory been great for the Virginia economy. Sigh.
NC is still trying to figure its way out of this goat rope, but no laws have changed on the federal level.
As to naked, vulnerable women in dressing rooms, ask Trump beauty contestants how they handled it. As far as I'm aware it has always been legal. No change recently.
Except in NC.
And at the rate NC is losing business revenue and sports tournaments, I bet it gets repealed before long.
Why do you post such nonsense? How is it that you are so uniformed on this matter?
While I agree with the OP's examples I must state that nearly all laws are based on morality. Laws against stealing, raping and killing are based on morality.
On a issue where morals greatly conflict the best solution is for government to stay out of the picture. Victimless crimes are an example.
Let me add that all of us take our moral values into the voting booth. The position a woman has a right to choose is just as much a moral stand as the position that life is sacred from the moment of conception.
My moral stand that money forcibly taken from one individual for the sole purpose of enriching another is immoral conflicts with the moral stand of many that redistribution of wealth is moral and even neccesary.
There is no such thing as a federal marriage license - just as there is no federal drivers license, either. The federal government doesn't actually have that kind of control.
This is a state issue. The Supremes are the ones who got the feds involved in this - not the government itself.
So, which state do you live where they refer to the group that makes laws and run state business as a herd instead of a government?
It must be in another country since every state in the US is ran by state GOVERNMENT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
What nonsense. The most liberal societies have powerful and democratic governments while third world hellholes have weak, corrupt governments where such laws are commonplace. Living in a society where elected officials are unable to implement laws is pure lunacy.
Yes, countries with exceptionally powerful governments like North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are such paradises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Uh, it seems it's usually Republicans calling for MORE! MORE! MORE! spending and growth for the military and admit it or not, the military IS part of government. I see no difference, I think Democrats and Republicans are two sides of a cheap slug masquerading as a coin of value.
Conservatives may have some good ideas but when was the last time we saw one shrinking the size of government and reducing spending? Access to other peoples' $$$ seems to corrupt anyone who gains that access.
As much as I think the orange wonder is a jackass I would have voted for him had he run as an (I) with the potential for giving both major parties the smackdown they so richly deserve.
You might want to start reading the posts around here. More conservatives are calling for us to bring the troops home, drop out of NATO and resign as the UNs police force.
I must have missed the rallies, or even criticism, of Obamas ME bombing campaign.
Governments are inhabited by some of the immoral people ever known to man and at its very foundation is funded by theft and retains its hold through violence. I'll go as far as to say that govt service and politics attracts deviants them like a magnet. So govt should stay out of morality biz ( along with every other thing) and not legislate what it can never be.
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.
Women don't care.
