If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Has ACLU hasn't taken him to court to force him to honor his contract?
The contractual situation is very different here: Springsteen does not have contracts with individual spectators, he has a contract with the organizer of the tour or of that particular concert. In principle the organizer of the tour can claim loss of income and damages, and I am sure there are stipulations to that effect in Springsteen's contract. (Of course, the organizer is not obliged to do so.) I don't think the actual reason for not playing makes a difference in the contracts here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"But for heaven’s sake, I was as good a kid as you can have growing up. I never drank alcohol till I was legal, never to, still, use an illegal drug. But in the seventh grade if the law had been that all I had to do was say, ‘I’m a girl,’ and I got to go into the girls’ restroom, I don’t know if I could’ve withstood the temptation just to get educated back in those days,” Gohmert said.
Sometimes you have to realize, some republicans don't pass legislation because they hate people, they pass legislation because they don't realize everyone else isn't the twisted ****s that would abuse the system at the drop of the hat like they themselves would.
Considering proponents of the bill claim that it’s necessary to protect women and children, one of its other sponsors, Rep. Jeremy Durham (R), has ironically been exiled from various House offices because of accusations of recurring sexual harassment. House Speaker Beth Harwell (R) announced last week that she was moving his office and limiting his access to committee rooms and the House chamber because of a “pattern of conduct” toward women that allegedly includes sexual comments and inappropriate physical contact.
The move follows an investigation of Durham’s conduct by Attorney General Slatery. “Representative Durham’s alleged behavior may pose a continuing risk to unsuspecting women who are employed by or interact with the Legislature,” said in his memo to Harwell. Durham denies any wrong-doing.
Though there continue to be zero cases of transgender women abusing their access to women’s restrooms to harm others, 34 women have expressed complaints about Durham’s behavior. Durham does not identify as transgender.
Ah, Rep Durham. I've met him, in passing. Since he's on the opposite side of the aisle we've not talked, but I've seen him. Supposedly he has mental (compulsion) problems and Turrets. So, that beggars the question, how did he get elected? Apparently there aren't many people in his district who want to be in politics.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If it wasn’t for double standards, some liberals would have none at all. That seems to be the lesson from the past few weeks, where liberals have displayed three distinct forms of hypocrisy.
Liberal governors and mayors signed travel bans to North Carolina and Mississippi, CEOs of major corporations pledged boycotts and relocations, and Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams have canceled scheduled concerts in those states.
At issue are a Mississippi law that narrowly and carefully protects the rights of religious charities, small businesses, and select public servants and a North Carolina law that reasonably protects privacy and safety in public restrooms, while leaving private institutions free to set their own bathroom policies. These laws, apparently, are now unacceptable to some voices on the left.
But are they really? The hypocrisy in their opposition suggests otherwise.
Big Money and Big Business in Politics Are Bad, Unless They Support the Left?
Liberals decry the influence of big business and big money in politics. They denounce, as a direct threat to democracy, the ability of corporations to engage in issue advocacy. They argue that politicians must answer to the people, not the highest corporate bidder.
Or at least that’s what they used to say. Liberals are now cheering Apple, PayPal, Salesforce, and countless other giant corporations threatening legislators and governors with boycotts if they pass popular laws that the left disapproves of.
These corporate elites didn’t win an argument about good public policy. Instead, they threatened to boycott and transfer jobs out of states if the politicians didn’t do as they insisted.
This economic coercion is a form of cronyism—cultural cronyism. Big businesses use their outsized market share to pressure government to do their bidding at the expense of the will of the people and the common good. And, hypocritically, the left cheers it on.
Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams Get to Follow Their Consciences, but the Baker and Florist Don’t?
Many of us think that what these corporate giants are doing is bad for representative democracy and self-government. But they have a right to do it. And yet, they want to deny the rights of bakers, florists, photographers, adoption agencies, and marriage counselors who only want the same liberty to follow their conscience.
Big business is using its market freedom to deny small businesses and charities their religious freedom. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Take the cases of Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams. They said their consciences require them to deny their artistic gifts and talents to citizens of states that have enacted policy they disagreed with. And, of course, they have that right.
Adams wrote: “I cannot in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights.”
He’s wrong about the laws—they don’t deny anyone civil rights. Instead, they protect civil rights. They protect religious freedom, which, as the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) once acknowledged, is a civil liberty.
So Springsteen and Adams are exercising their freedom of conscience by boycotting states that sought to protect the consciences of adoption agencies, religious schools, bakers, and florists. Do they not see the hypocrisy?
North Carolina and Mississippi Are Human Rights Violators, but Singapore and Cuba Are Great?
Finally, if these boycotts are really a matter of principle—and not just grandstanding—then why do so many of these same companies do business in foreign countries with terrible records on human rights in general, and for LGBT people in particular?
The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, pointed out this hypocrisy. After New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a travel ban for state employees to North Carolina, Gov. McCrory asked how it was consistent with Gov. Cuomo’s trip to Cuba—with state business leaders—to promote trade with that country.
Is Cuba better on human rights than North Carolina? Or is Cuomo being a bit hypocritical?
Others have pointed out the hypocrisy of PayPal. The CEO of PayPal announced that the company wouldn’t expand in North Carolina because of “PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”
Really?
Then PayPal might want to explain why its international headquarters are in Singapore, where people engaged in private consensual same-sex acts can face two years in jail. It might also want to explain why it announced in 2012 that it would open offices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While North Carolina placed some commonsense limits on public bathrooms, the UAE reportedly jails gay and transgender people.
What’s Next?
The left knows it can’t win on the merits in the debate about religious freedom and bathroom privacy. These bills enjoy strong public support—that’s why elected representatives are voting to pass them. And it’s why corporate elites have to target governors to veto them.
Missouri is likely the next state to move a religious freedom bill, and we can expect the same cast of characters to come out in opposition. But this time, the left and big business are entering the debate with one big disadvantage—they’ve been beaten. Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi and Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina have stood up to the bullies and shattered their aura of invincibility.
Koch Brothers baaaad, Rockefeller and Soros gooood.
Chongo, so short version: you need to be tolerant of our intolerance, because our intolerance is religious freedom, and it is Christian to be intolerant.
Yes, it causes harm in theory but contextually gay people have been interacting with the business public openly since, let's say, the mid-90s? So why did it take this long to legislate protecting the religious from moral injury? I would posit because its exceedingly rare and this is more of a general '**** you' for the gay marriage ruling.
Trying to pick up the thread here...
Your claim is a the philosophy I'm espousing would take a simple system and make it incredibly complicated.
I agree, which is why I keep it in the realm of the philosophical, and make sure to list a half-dozen practical issues with it right off the bat.
The importance of this, is even if what one thinks should be, would be impossible to implement for whatever reason, that idealized goal is going to influence where you aim with your policy.
My philosophy is "people should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone". How that affects actual policy is I'm going to make damn sure there isn't some alternative which hews closer to my philosophy while at the same time producing satisfactory results*.
This is different than the average libertarian, who just turns their philosophy directly into policy and damn the unintended consequences.
*In a general sense, libertarian policies tend to really **** over poor people. An example of a "satisfactory result" would be a policy which does not do this.
Koch Brothers baaaad, Rockefeller and Soros gooood.
The hypocrisy of it all reeks, that's true. They ignorant excuse is "it's their culture".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In most ladies changing rooms/locker rooms/pool restrooms I've seen, the changing booths are few and crowded. I don't like changing in a toilet stall, too cramped, plus you're holding up the stall for someone who needs to go.
People either make do in the general locker area with wrapping a towel around and trying to change while still wrapped (a challenge) or just drop the invisible cone of privacy (I can't see you, you can't see me, lalala) turn to the wall and change quickly.
It's the assumption that people of the same sex will respect the invisible cone of privacy. Even if someone was a lesbian I'd expect them to respect that, and have never noticed otherwise.
Then there's this clever thing... https://www.theundress.com/ I can see using something like this in places where there may not be a room at all (outdoor events).
Men's changing rooms are essentially the same, with the added angle of guys thinking that to see a penis makes them gay, however you do get a certain percentage of exhibitionists who need to put their leg up on the bench and dry their balls for 15 minutes. I imagine there's a similar contingent on the female side.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Ok, so the current of bathroom fear is seeing private parts. I'm wholeheartedly on board with that. So would the simpler legislative solution be to require changing be done in stalls? Easier to bust, too.
I thought everyone agreed they were uncomfortable just changing around their own gender? And is there something more traumatic about opposite gender parts? Aside from women's vaginas looking like a gash that needs immediate medical attention.
Your claim is a the philosophy I'm espousing would take a simple system and make it incredibly complicated.
I agree, which is why I keep it in the realm of the philosophical, and make sure to list a half-dozen practical issues with it right off the bat.
The importance of this, is even if what one thinks should be, would be impossible to implement for whatever reason, that idealized goal is going to influence where you aim with your policy.
My philosophy is "people should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone". How that affects actual policy is I'm going to make damn sure there isn't some alternative which hews closer to my philosophy while at the same time producing satisfactory results*.
This is different than the average libertarian, who just turns their philosophy directly into policy and damn the unintended consequences.
*In a general sense, libertarian policies tend to really **** over poor people. An example of a "satisfactory result" would be a policy which does not do this.
I appreciate your practicality, I just think the philosophy is inherently flawed. I find it hard to figure out how turning someone away for superficial reasons is beneficial. I realize there's a freedom argument here, but I also think by opening a business you're ceding some of your freedom to having customers you may not like 100%.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Ok, so the current of bathroom fear is seeing private parts. I'm wholeheartedly on board with that. So would the simpler legislative solution be to require changing be done in stalls? Easier to bust, too.
I appreciate your practicality, I just think the philosophy is inherently flawed. I find it hard to figure out how turning someone away for superficial reasons is beneficial. I realize there's a freedom argument here, but I also think by opening a business you're ceding some of your freedom to having customers you may not like 100%.
I'm not trying to protect the bad actor (someone who turns away customers they don't like), I'm trying to protect the good actor from getting hampered even though they're behaving in good faith.
An (imperfect) analogy is DRM. I'm not against DRM so I can protect pirates, I'm against it because it gets in my way despite me being scrupulously honest.
The archetypal example of protection laws hampering good actors are false discrimination claims. Each new protected class increases my chances of getting screwed by the law, even though I'm a scrupulously honest businessman.
Again... this philosophical stance isn't meant to be translated directly into policy, for the reasons stated earlier. I just wanted to clarify the "flawed philosophy" is the one which argues to protect assholes from the Asshole Police, that's not my angle. My angle is not to ignore the government propensity for the Asshole Police catch a bunch of innocents along the way. See: real police.
A 53 y/o dude wanting to be a 6 y/o girl isn't healthy, neither is a 55 y/o man who wants to be a dragon lady. Listen, whatever people want to do to themselves is up to them, but I refuse to accept the delusion that some guy has transitioned into a woman just by wearing a skirt and placing bows in his hair. They want me to use a different pronoun, fine, I'll play along, but they need to use the restroom that's correct for their genitalia.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
A 53 y/o dude wanting to be a 6 y/o girl isn't healthy, neither is a 55 y/o man who wants to be a dragon lady. Listen, whatever people want to do to themselves is up to them, but I refuse to accept the delusion that some guy has transitioned into a woman just by wearing a skirt and placing bows in his hair. They want me to use a different pronoun, fine, I'll play along, but they need to use the restroom that's correct for their genitalia.
There's a continuum here.
On one end you have genuine transgenderism, and most people with it prefer you don't know about it. The photo from earlier in the thread was a good example. It's ridiculous to tell that guy to go into the "ladies" door.
At the other end you have, for lack of a better term, "drag queens". They're about getting attention. Your example strikes me as fitting in this category.
The problem isn't with women transitioning to be men, they want to go to the men's room, that's fine, it's with crazy dudes who fantasize about being a Disney princess (or some type of dragon-lady-thing).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The problem isn't with women transitioning to be men, they want to go to the men's room, that's fine, it's with crazy dudes who fantasize about being a Disney princess (or some type of dragon-lady-thing).
Are there many recorded instances of these types haunting business bathrooms?
As an extension of rule 34, I'm going to say it's happened somewhere.
Yes, but the point is, is fake transitioning makes molesting little girls a real widespread problem, or is it a apocryphal fantasy masquerading as a threat to justify transphobic legislation dressed up as proactive laws?
Much like voter fraud, I'm not aware of (m)any cases of what these laws are aimed at preventing.
Edit: Further this presupposes that we have a group of clever pedophiles waiting in the shadows for a legal loophole to commit their (still!) crimes under.
That doesn't really change my argument, I only went with the FtM transition because the pic was available in the thread.
Should be required by law to use the men's bathroom?
Post-op? No. Pre-op? Yep. (If she really wants to make an issue of it and doesn't just go to the ladies room without raising a fuss.) It isn't society's job to accommodate everyone in every facet of their lives. That's a very rare bird that looks so close to being "naturally" female that she can pass, even under close scrutiny (though I imagine that changes dramatically without so much makeup and Photoshop).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yes, but the point is, is fake transitioning makes molesting little girls a real widespread problem, or is it a apocryphal fantasy masquerading as a threat to justify transphobic legislation dressed up as proactive laws?
Much like voter fraud, I'm not aware of (m)any cases of what these laws are aimed at preventing.
Edit: Further this presupposes that we have a group of clever pedophiles waiting in the shadows for a legal loophole to commit their (still!) crimes under.
Yes, but the point is, is fake transitioning makes molesting little girls a real widespread problem, or is it a apocryphal fantasy masquerading as a threat to justify transphobic legislation dressed up as proactive laws?
Much like voter fraud, I'm not aware of (m)any cases of what these laws are aimed at preventing.
Edit: Further this presupposes that we have a group of clever pedophiles waiting in the shadows for a legal loophole to commit their (still!) crimes under.
What about your fantasy? I didn't say anything about "fake transitioning", you're under the assumption that men transitioning to be women are attracted to men (Jenner, for example, is still sexually attracted to women). The way social media works, all it'll take is for ONE little girl to scream and say she was sexually assaulted by a trangender in a public restroom and their status as a protected class will be out the window. You think it's unfair now?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Post-op? No. Pre-op? Yep. (If she really wants to make an issue of it and doesn't just go to the ladies room without raising a fuss.) It isn't society's job to accommodate everyone in every facet of their lives. That's a very rare bird that looks so close to being "naturally" female that she can pass, even under close scrutiny (though I imagine that changes dramatically without so much makeup and Photoshop).
A narrower law can't accomplish the same goal?
If it can, the broader law should be rejected on principle.
What about your fantasy? I didn't say anything about "fake transitioning", you're under the assumption that men transitioning to be women are attracted to men (Jenner, for example, is still sexually attracted to women). The way social media works, all it'll take is for ONE little girl to scream and say she was sexually assaulted by a trangender in a public restroom and their status as a protected class will be out the window. You think it's unfair now?
The way social media works is the SJWs run the show.
Apparently there aren't many people in his district who want to be in politics.
Top