Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-10-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 21,006,712 times
Reputation: 3338

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peony321 View Post
a person who is gay is not a pedophile. power to the people regarding the bathrooms. dont like it use your own potty.
Duh, no sh*t...did you actually read the thread? This was already gone over...

This bill isn't a transgender debate, it's about a bad law that will empower criminals and stomp on the privacy of men and women.

You all have a good time, I've got more pressing issues going on right now than to worry about offending a bunch of cross dressers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Near the Coast SWCT
83,518 posts, read 75,307,397 times
Reputation: 16619
I'm beginning to think people are losing the entire point but thats typical in todays society to be clueless. A genetic "woman" cant be in the bathroom now without worrying a genetic "man" is inside it ... Think about it.. they see someone with a skirt come into the restroom, they turn around put their makeup on and then realize something is wrong when the man approaches her... Or better yet... someone on the outside see's a man enter the ladies room with a skirt on and say its ok, its the law.

I will repeat myself: What or Who is this law protecting??? Why should anyone be treated special? Use your own bathroom if you dont want to use the mens public bathroom!

It makes you wonder if legislators ever consider the ramifications of their actions. Let the discrimination lawsuits begin...

This law should be listed here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/connecticut

Kids in 5th Grade will also be exposed to teachers who go from being Mr. Smith to suddenly showing up as Mrs. Smith overnight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Near the Coast SWCT
83,518 posts, read 75,307,397 times
Reputation: 16619
Make calls to the following numbers and let them know how you feel as a parent, as a voter, and as a person who just believes in common decency:

House Democrats 1-800-842-8267
House Republicans 1-800-842-8270

Senate Democrats 1-800-842-1420
Senate Republicans 1-800-842-1421

The following derelicts supported this perverse bill
E. Coleman (Sen-02),
G. Fox (Rep-146),
P. Doyle (Sen-09),
G. Holder-Winfield (Rep-094),
J. Albis (Rep-094),
D. Baram (Rep-015),
B. Bye (Sen-05),
C. Clemons (Rep-124),
P. Dillon (Rep-092),
M. Flexer (Rep-044),
T. Gerrantana (Sen-06),
B. Godfrey (Rep-110),
E. Gomes (Sen-23),
A. Grogins (Rep-129),
G. Hamm (Rep-034),
E. Hewett (Rep-039),
D. Hovey (Rep-112),
T. Klairides (Rep-114),
E. Meyer (Sen-12),
B. Morris (Rep-140),
M. Olson (Rep-046),
K. Roldan (Rep-004),
J. Serra (Rep-033),
J. Taborsak (Rep-109).

Four people didn't think this vote was important enough to participate in or were afraid to go on record:
J. Berger (Rep-073),
M. Gonzalez (Rep-003),
A. Roraback (Sen-30),
W. Tong (Rep-147).


And the following individuals are credited with voting against state-sponsored perversion:
J. Kissel (Sen-07),
J. Hetherington (Rep-125),
A. Adinolfi (Rep-103),
C. Caprino (Rep-032),
M. Fritz (Rep-090),
D. Labriola (Rep-131),
M. McLachlan (Sen-24),
A. O'Neill (Rep-069),
T. Rowe, (Rep-123),
. Sampson (Rep-080),
J. Shaban (Rep-135),
B. Simanski (Rep-062),
R. Smith (Rep-108),
J. Welch (Sen-31).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 05:11 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 21,006,712 times
Reputation: 3338
Very nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium View Post
Make calls to the following numbers and let them know how you feel as a parent, as a voter, and as a person who just believes in common decency:

House Democrats 1-800-842-8267
House Republicans 1-800-842-8270

Senate Democrats 1-800-842-1420
Senate Republicans 1-800-842-1421

The following derelicts supported this perverse bill
E. Coleman (Sen-02),
G. Fox (Rep-146),
P. Doyle (Sen-09),
G. Holder-Winfield (Rep-094),
J. Albis (Rep-094),
D. Baram (Rep-015),
B. Bye (Sen-05),
C. Clemons (Rep-124),
P. Dillon (Rep-092),
M. Flexer (Rep-044),
T. Gerrantana (Sen-06),
B. Godfrey (Rep-110),
E. Gomes (Sen-23),
A. Grogins (Rep-129),
G. Hamm (Rep-034),
E. Hewett (Rep-039),
D. Hovey (Rep-112),
T. Klairides (Rep-114),
E. Meyer (Sen-12),
B. Morris (Rep-140),
M. Olson (Rep-046),
K. Roldan (Rep-004),
J. Serra (Rep-033),
J. Taborsak (Rep-109).

Four people didn't think this vote was important enough to participate in or were afraid to go on record:
J. Berger (Rep-073),
M. Gonzalez (Rep-003),
A. Roraback (Sen-30),
W. Tong (Rep-147).


And the following individuals are credited with voting against state-sponsored perversion:
J. Kissel (Sen-07),
J. Hetherington (Rep-125),
A. Adinolfi (Rep-103),
C. Caprino (Rep-032),
M. Fritz (Rep-090),
D. Labriola (Rep-131),
M. McLachlan (Sen-24),
A. O'Neill (Rep-069),
T. Rowe, (Rep-123),
. Sampson (Rep-080),
J. Shaban (Rep-135),
B. Simanski (Rep-062),
R. Smith (Rep-108),
J. Welch (Sen-31).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 06:28 PM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,462,379 times
Reputation: 12597
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
Duh, no sh*t...did you actually read the thread? This was already gone over...

This bill isn't a transgender debate, it's about a bad law that will empower criminals and stomp on the privacy of men and women.

You all have a good time, I've got more pressing issues going on right now than to worry about offending a bunch of cross dressers.
Empower them? Criminals are already empowered. They don't give a sh.t if they're breaking the law or not. Some bathroom law isn't going to stop them from whatever they want to do. Why do you think changing a law would have any effect on them? Criminals aren't concerned with the law to begin with. That's what makes them...criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,933 posts, read 56,945,109 times
Reputation: 11228
Please keep the discussion to the topic of the thread and stop the attacks or I will shut this thread down. JayCT, Moderator
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 07:54 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 21,006,712 times
Reputation: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
Empower them? Criminals are already empowered. They don't give a sh.t if they're breaking the law or not. Some bathroom law isn't going to stop them from whatever they want to do. Why do you think changing a law would have any effect on them? Criminals aren't concerned with the law to begin with. That's what makes them...criminals.
Yea, and I'm the "ignorant feeble minded one."

Hey why have a waiting period before buying a gun? I mean, the criminals will already get an illegal stolen weapon. So what's the point of a waiting period? Oh I know, so people with spur of the moment passion and emotion can't by LAW walk into a store, buy a hand gun and go get revenge, drugs or whatever their motive it.

This bill is no different. It opens doors and another avenue for sexual predators and perhaps entice those who were not motived into action.

I hope you realize, criminals are not "born that way". Why feed into the sickness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 09:16 PM
 
438 posts, read 1,197,263 times
Reputation: 275
You know, JViello, I'd have more respect if you just said that you object to transgendered people and the idea of transgenderism on religious grounds (or whatever), and so anything that helps them in any way -- i.e. the purpose of this law -- is automatically something to which you're opposed. I still wouldn't agree, but at least it'd be more honest than this nonsense about bathrooms.

(And it is complete nonsense -- there's zero room for discussion about that.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2011, 11:00 PM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,462,379 times
Reputation: 12597
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
Yea, and I'm the "ignorant feeble minded one."

Hey why have a waiting period before buying a gun? I mean, the criminals will already get an illegal stolen weapon. So what's the point of a waiting period? Oh I know, so people with spur of the moment passion and emotion can't by LAW walk into a store, buy a hand gun and go get revenge, drugs or whatever their motive it.

This bill is no different. It opens doors and another avenue for sexual predators and perhaps entice those who were not motived into action.

I hope you realize, criminals are not "born that way". Why feed into the sickness?
It's not feeding into sickness. I just think it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that criminals would obey a law that can't even be enforced to begin with. Something like a time limit on guns can be enforced. Something like people with the right equipment walking into a bathroom can't be enforced anyway.

This isn't adding an avenue for sexual predators. It's legalizing an avenue that was already there. If a man dressed as a woman and entered the ladies' restroom with the intention of assaulting someone a week before the bill was passed, no one would really be able to prove his maleness anyway, short of forcing him to strip on the spot, which is unrealistic for obvious reasons and also illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Hillsboro Beach
1,640 posts, read 1,645,551 times
Reputation: 1562
In the Roman times, everybody wore a toga to go everywhere and everybody were naked in the gyms and it was 2,000 years ago. I do not see anything wrong with that XX centuries after we have to worrie about a confused man peeing in the ladies room. I have to see almost everyday the woman next door walking all the time behind her husband in public. She is angloamerican and hi is a London britt ! Evidently to my eyes she is psicologically abused and mind controlled by her brit husband. What is worse? A confused man peeing in a ladies room or an abusive britt husband in America to his submissive american wife?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top