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.
Urinals will be in women's restroom soon. You know so trans can pee standing up?
Look. While I understand how frustrating it must be when your husband misses the toilet, in the real world, traditional toilets can be used by anyone. Regardless of genitals. Urinals are not being installed in women's restrooms.
Also~! Fun Fact: Many dick-wielders will typically urinate while they defecate. Which, if you don't understand what that means: Having a penor does not actually require said person to urinate standing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
I have never seen a bidet in American restrooms.
AKA: The places that would have them are probably out of your paygrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
It's not a place to clean up, just to pee, wash hands, then leave. We are in America not Europe. I guess you are saying restrooms in Europe are places where transits clean up, like the whole body?.
... That's not how bidets work. At all.
Protip: Bidets are for genitals what sinks are for hands.
I have fears about Christian schools as well. I worry about the effects on children from the brainwashing and teaching of bigotry that goes on in some of these schools in the name of God.
Obviously, Hillary would have appointed another Guinsberg and we'd have a liberal court.
However, I'm going to point out something that happened decades ago, and, considering that the Left applies the Civil Rights Act to the gay/trans stuff, where it could have lead.
Years ago, some students were sent to Bob Jones University from Apartheid Africa. The school, wanting the students to get a good Christian education and thus agreed to block interracial dating at the school.
This ran afoul of the Civil Rights Act and eventually the Supreme Court and the IRS stripped them of their tax exempt status (which they just got back a few years ago) and made them pay YEARS in back taxes as punishment.
Now imagine that Hillary had won, the bathroom mandate had remained, and now schools that didn't teach the Gay Agenda or let men in the women's room would have their tax exempt status revoked and be forced to pay years in back taxes as punishment for nonconformity with the tyrannical edict.
Do you think that is what would have happened or do you think it wouldn't have?
(BTW, for those that agree with the feds doing such a thing: congratulations, you're what's wrong with America. )
Before reading even the whole thread (just answering yours immediately, so much material) , four things.
One thing : thank you, I had never heard about that "university", so i researched and now know a little, at least more than what you said. Never believe what is written at first glance.
Second thing : I don't understand the bolded ?
Third thing : how are these far-fetched projections EVEN comparable ?
Fourth : what interesting/intellectual answer do you exactly expect with a question that presumes of a situation that isn't there with suppositions that never were ? as in "what may have happened if, considering those situations have nothing in common but still, do you fear the same result might have happened, even though nobody argued in the favor of it, but they might have"? Wow. Great imagination, or fearful mind !
If not bias confirmation that you were looking for, I'd like an honest answer please. Very curious
Short personal answer (still interested in yours) : at WORST, tax exemptions should only go to those who abstain from meddling with laws and are neutral. Ideally, no organization that makes money should be tax-exempted. I'm not talking about associations who "raise" money to redistribute through volunteers. Any other kind of taw exemptions is flirting with immorality, when they actually don't redistribute the cash (yes, the WHOLE cash, except for organisation costs).
During the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s, Christian evangelist Bob Jones, Sr. grew increasingly concerned about the secularization of higher education and the influence of religious liberalism in denominational colleges. Children of church members were attending college, only to reject the faith of their parents. Jones later recalled that in 1924, his friend William Jennings Bryan had leaned over to him at a Bible conference service in Winona Lake, Indiana, and said, "If schools and colleges do not quit teaching evolution as a fact, we are going to become a nation of atheists."[4] While he himself was not a college graduate, Jones.....
But I'll be nice to you and just quote BJU from their own website :
Throughout his travels, Dr. Bob Jones Sr. saw students whose faith was shaken during college, and he recognized the need for a thoroughly Christian college that stood on the absolute authority of the Bible to train America’s youth.
Very curious to hear from you.
Last edited by personne; 08-01-2017 at 03:50 PM..
Reason: mispelling, might have missed others
Obviously, Hillary would have appointed another Guinsberg and we'd have a liberal court.
However, I'm going to point out something that happened decades ago, and, considering that the Left applies the Civil Rights Act to the gay/trans stuff, where it could have lead.
Years ago, some students were sent to Bob Jones University from Apartheid Africa. The school, wanting the students to get a good Christian education and thus agreed to block interracial dating at the school.
This ran afoul of the Civil Rights Act and eventually the Supreme Court and the IRS stripped them of their tax exempt status (which they just got back a few years ago) and made them pay YEARS in back taxes as punishment.
Now imagine that Hillary had won, the bathroom mandate had remained, and now schools that didn't teach the Gay Agenda or let men in the women's room would have their tax exempt status revoked and be forced to pay years in back taxes as punishment for nonconformity with the tyrannical edict.
Do you think that is what would have happened or do you think it wouldn't have?
(BTW, for those that agree with the feds doing such a thing: congratulations, you're what's wrong with America. )
"You kids over there! No dating if you are a mixed couple. It will hurt your grades. Those of you dating withing your race, carry on."
What a lame excuse for blatant racism.
Talk about what's wrong with America... Take a good look in the mirror. There is one of the worst problems.
Well they are installing urinals in women's restrooms. So if women with the DNA of a woman goes into the woman's restroom be prepared to see a women born with the DNA of a man use the urinal. Get over it or face the PC police. Little girls will be confused I am sure.
What is it with this absolutely stupid urinals argument? Do you have a urinal in your home ? I'm pretty sure any gender can do their business in a closed stall, and those exist in both genders bathrooms, don't they ?
Well yes, I'll give to you that some men have trouble not pissing all over, but then some women have the tendency to use too much toilet paper, so there, no problem that can't be overcome or that we wouldn't know everyday with any gender partners
No bidet in public restrooms, although they do still exist in older hotels and sometimes to-rent flats or houses (i'm in the middle of removing one in my new home, a 1890's building), but in public restrooms?
Look. While I understand how frustrating it must be when your husband misses the toilet, in the real world, traditional toilets can be used by anyone. Regardless of genitals. Urinals are not being installed in women's restrooms.
Also~! Fun Fact: Many dick-wielders will typically urinate while they defecate. Which, if you don't understand what that means: Having a penor does not actually require said person to urinate standing up.
AKA: The places that would have them are probably out of your paygrade.
... That's not how bidets work. At all.
Protip: Bidets are for genitals what sinks are for hands.
Given the appropriate ridicule her shallow-end-of-the-genepool" posts have gotten, I'm sure that poster hightailed it out of this thread faster than a communist on Wall Street!!!
Urinals will be in women's restroom soon. You know so trans can pee standing up? I have never seen a bidet in American restrooms. It's not a place to clean up, just to pee, wash hands, then leave. We are in America not Europe. I guess you are saying restrooms in Europe are places where transits clean up, like the whole body?.
Wow!
As much as your posts are unrestling by their naivety, people are messing with you ! Or you don't know much, I can't know. Or maybe it is me who is messed with, who knows !
But so you know...
One doesn't pee in a bidet, a bidet is a piece of cleaning resembling a small sink that was actually invented under Queen Victoria (you'd think! well it seems you wouldn't). NOT meant to pee in it, in terms of mistake it's as if one drank the rince doigt (the small cup with luke warm water mixed with lemon, to rinse your fingers after eating some messy food).!
Obviously, Hillary would have appointed another Guinsberg and we'd have a liberal court.
However, I'm going to point out something that happened decades ago, and, considering that the Left applies the Civil Rights Act to the gay/trans stuff, where it could have lead.
Years ago, some students were sent to Bob Jones University from Apartheid Africa. The school, wanting the students to get a good Christian education and thus agreed to block interracial dating at the school.
This ran afoul of the Civil Rights Act and eventually the Supreme Court and the IRS stripped them of their tax exempt status (which they just got back a few years ago) and made them pay YEARS in back taxes as punishment.
Now imagine that Hillary had won, the bathroom mandate had remained, and now schools that didn't teach the Gay Agenda or let men in the women's room would have their tax exempt status revoked and be forced to pay years in back taxes as punishment for nonconformity with the tyrannical edict.
Do you think that is what would have happened or do you think it wouldn't have?
(BTW, for those that agree with the feds doing such a thing: congratulations, you're what's wrong with America. )
You're not off to a good start by defending a ban on interracial relationships.
Twist that all you want, the court decision was about ensuring that people are not stripped of their agency. You can't just do whatever you want and say religious freedom. That does not entitle you to take the rights or agency of others away. Consider a Muslim wanting to impose Sharia Law on you? Would you accept that? No. Simple.
As far as trans bathroom issue goes, I say don't pass laws on it in either direction. Allow individuals to make their choices. Most people will use the restroom that makes the most sense. In situations where it's unclear, such as a locker room, the individual should speak with the owners of said establishment to determine what makes the most sense.
As far as a gay agenda... whatever. I won't ask Christian schools to teach acceptance of it, but if they start making crap up, they can't be called a school. Anything that resembles explaining homosexuality as a choice or a mental illness is a no-no.
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.
)
