orthohawk:

Christa627:For those asking for specifics on what I said about GLBT special privileges, I am not so much talking about what is now, but what would be if they could,

oh, do you know what every one of us WOULD do in such cases? How do you know this? Have you talked to every one of us? I, for one, don't ever remember telling anyone anything of the sort.

Obviously, I can't make any claims as to what "every" one of any group would do or say. Nor do I claim to.

orthohawk:

Christa627:For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Thee is talking about transgenered folks, not gays and lesbians.

Which is included in GLBT.

Christa627:

orthohawk:

Christa627:For those asking for specifics on what I said about GLBT special privileges, I am not so much talking about what is now, but what would be if they could,

oh, do you know what every one of us WOULD do in such cases? How do you know this? Have you talked to every one of us? I, for one, don't ever remember telling anyone anything of the sort.

Obviously, I can't make any claims as to what "every" one of any group would do or say. Nor do I claim to.

orthohawk:

Christa627:For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Thee is talking about transgenered folks, not gays and lesbians.

Which is included in GLBT.

1. But that's exactly what thee did do when thee said "...what would be if they could. "they" without any qualification usually means everyone of that group.
2. included yes. but the other sectors of "GLBT" do not do what thee mentioned.

Thee really needs to learn to say exactly what thee means.

orthohawk:
Thee really needs to learn to say exactly what thee means.

If I wanted to always say exactly what I mean, I would learn Lojban. Otherwise, normal languages allow for a degree of ambiguity and generalization.

Christa627:

orthohawk:
Thee really needs to learn to say exactly what thee means.

If I wanted to always say exactly what I mean, I would learn Lojban. Otherwise, normal languages allow for a degree of ambiguity and generalization.

yes, they do, but here, it's very easy to avoid being thought of as a bigot by just being clear: "....would be if they want" if thee wants "they" to mean just the "fanatics" then say so, otherwise don't be surprised when thee gets called out on it.

Same with that women's restroom thing; the way it was said originally, it was very easy to understand it as meaning all GLBT wanted ALL GLBT to be able to go into women's restrooms and that is not so (I, for one, am just fine with using the men's room and have no desire whatever to use the women's room); it's just the transgenders' going into "opposite" restrooms that is advocated for........and on this note, thee doesn't say a word about "male" transgenders (female body but ID as male) wanting to go into men's rooms..........just sayin'

orthohawk:

Christa627:For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Thee is talking about transgenered folks, not gays and lesbians.

I still do not get why biological men has to go to a different bathroom that biological women. For privacy, each stall, booth or however they are called in English has doors. If it is for a sexual arousal thing, then people should understand that there are gay/lesbian/bisexual people who are attracted to other people of their same gender. And at the end a public bathroom is for releasing a biological urge other than sexual. Am I wrong?

Christa627:
For those asking for specifics on what I said about GLBT special privileges, I am not so much talking about what is now, but what would be if they could, and sometimes does happen in real life. Also, not so much what is legally, but what is practically.

For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Talking of discrimination in employment...

Again, I am not talking about what is nice, I'm talking about what should be mandated by law.

As I believe I mentioned earlier, you are judging the group based on the actions of the vocal minority. Robb's comment about those willing to perpetrate violence against gays is as valid as your assertion, because there are definitely fanatical individuals who would do so who claim to be Christian. I do get what you mean, though, and it is a fine line between allowing certain rights to GLBT people while protecting people from abusing those rights (i.e. a predator who gets registered as gay/transgendered to be able to use women's restrooms/showers/etc.).

I'm pretty certain it is not legal to refuse to hire someone for the reasons you mention, but I personally do somewhat feel like it should be legal in some scenarios. It's pretty easy to come up with absurd cases, like a Buddhist being hired to teach a Catholic Sunday school class, an obese middle-aged male being hired to be a waiter at Hooters, etc. Even if they are fully qualified, there are obvious reasons why someone wouldn't want to hire them for that specific job (or the "qualifications" are in and of themselves discriminatory). If instead of a simple wedding cake what if you get two lewd individuals who want to put obscene images on the cake? Is the business then not allowed to refuse service? What is the legality of a church refusing to do marriage ceremonies for a gay couple?

These laws are definitely well-intentioned, but they can easily be used to infringe the rights of others. However, the courts have consistently held equal access rights above individual liberties, and I would agree that this policy produces far more justice than injustice, but it is far from perfect.

It is very easy to get carried away in trying to assert your own rights that you forget that you might be infringing those of someone else. A good example from my state is the carrying of firearms. Some people will open carry (as a form of activism) in large groups into establishments (Buffalo Wild Wings is one) that have policies prohibiting customers from carrying. It is not illegal to do this, but if they ask you to leave and you refuse then you are trespassing. These people don't even consider that they are trampling the individual liberties of the business owners while asserting their own.

I personally vote with my money, and ultimately society itself needs to enforce just treatment of all.

orthohawk:

Christa627:

orthohawk:
Thee really needs to learn to say exactly what thee means.

If I wanted to always say exactly what I mean, I would learn Lojban. Otherwise, normal languages allow for a degree of ambiguity and generalization.

yes, they do, but here, it's very easy to avoid being thought of as a bigot by just being clear: "....would be if they want" if thee wants "they" to mean just the "fanatics" then say so, otherwise don't be surprised when thee gets called out on it.

Same with that women's restroom thing; the way it was said originally, it was very easy to understand it as meaning all GLBT wanted ALL GLBT to be able to go into women's restrooms and that is not so (I, for one, am just fine with using the men's room and have no desire whatever to use the women's room); it's just the transgenders' going into "opposite" restrooms that is advocated for........and on this note, thee doesn't say a word about "male" transgenders (female body but ID as male) wanting to go into men's rooms..........just sayin'

Okay, I see I was making unclear generalizations. Sorry for any confusion. As for the last point, I was giving an example; I can't reasonably be expected to give every possible situation!

kaŝperanto:
It is very easy to get carried away in trying to assert your own rights that you forget that you might be infringing those of someone else.

I personally vote with my money, and ultimately society itself needs to enforce just treatment of all.

+1
People need to remember that with every right comes the responsibility to respect this right for others.

> he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom!

Why ? | Kial ?

> How did a thread called "One world government" end up in a discussion about gays?

I don't know. But what's the problem? Both nationalism and sexism do equally suck.

Mi ne scias. Sed kio estas la problemo? Ambaux naziismo kaj seksismo same fias.

Clarence666:> he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom!

Why ? | Kial ?

Because the law about restrooms and gender legally has nothing to do with sexuality. Unless he is physically a she, he belongs in the men's restroom because he is a man.

Cxar la legxo pri necesejoj kaj genro legale ne rilatas al sekseco. Krom se li estas fizike "sxi", li apartenas en la vira necesejo cxar li estas viro.