Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Today's Bad News (Read 117654 times)

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #225 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on

Tennessee thought it was necessary to pass a bill that would allow mental health counselors  turn away clients for “sincerely held principles.” This is just embarrassing. What therapist really wants to turn away clients for being gay, Muslim, or whatever else ridiculous reason? At this point, the GOPers are just low and spiteful are the ones in need of therapy.

What if the effect of the law is that only GOPers can get mental health counselling? (i.e. by future statistics, they will be the only crazy section of the population)

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #226 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Tennessee thought it was necessary to pass a bill that would allow mental health counselors  turn away clients for “sincerely held principles.” This is just embarrassing. What therapist really wants to turn away clients for being gay, Muslim, or whatever else ridiculous reason? At this point, the GOPers are just low and spiteful are the ones in need of therapy. My theory is that somewhere in the Republicans' rottening brains, they know laws allowing country clerks denying marriage certificates to people that can get legally married won't stand, so they're resorting to this stupidity. Frankly, if a mental health counselor is really doing this (and that's a big theoretical) they need their professional organizations to revoke their licenses, especially in light of the frightening LGBT teen suicide statistics.  
I see they are trying to outdo MS eh, @midnight raccoon?
Geez.

They should never bloviate about saving their various states money, ever again, as both the TN and MS laws will cost loads of money to defend, and they will lose.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #227 –
I heard that Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams cancelled their concerts in North Carolina and Mississippi respectively due to some toilet laws concerning transgenders in those places. Is this so?

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #228 –
Quote from: ersi on
I heard that Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams cancelled their concerts in North Carolina and Mississippi respectively due to some toilet laws concerning transgenders in those places. Is this so?
Halfway correct, but not fully. Yes, both the singers you mention did cancel both their concerts in both states, but it was more related to the fact that, at least in MS's case, businesses and churches now have, momentarily-speaking, the right, by state law, to deny them (LGBTQ) their services because of their sexuality. So it's not just the transgender lot, it's the entire LGBTQ contingent.

What I have wondered is if the metrosexuals will be affected to?

I have sent the Governor's office repeated emails asking when, in the history of this state, have Christians ever been persecuted and henceforth need his often-repeated phrase "protection from the government"?

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #230 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
their services
Which are they?
The usual; baker's can opt not to make a cake for a gay couple (true story, that's actually mentioned in the law), clerks can now refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples (a la like that fat, thrice-married heifer from Kentucky), pastors can refuse gay ppl communion, and the list goes on.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #231 –
Hm...
Businesses: I can understand.
Churches: I don't understand. Which "services" would a gay couple (or whatever) ask from a church that has objections to his sexuality?
(At least in this country, marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one.)
 

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #232 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
at least in MS's case, businesses and churches now have, momentarily-speaking, the right, by state law, to deny them (LGBTQ) their services because of their sexuality.
How is it formulated so that it can be applied like this? The source I read talked about that it's not allowed to go to the toilet of the opposite sex - opposite to what's indicated in the person's birth certificate. This is quite simple to formulate and to enforce. And it's reasonable too, if the punishment is not something like death penalty or cutting off body parts...

In contrast, the things you say are over the top and don't translate to a legal regulation easily.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #233 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Hm...
Businesses: I can understand.
Churches: I don't understand. Which "services" would a gay couple (or whatever) ask from a church that has objections to his sexuality?
(At least in this country, marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one.)
Can't say for not knowing.

Here is a link to the bill:

Section 3:C has already been applied once, even though the law hasn't taken effect yet, and had disgusted much of the state:  interacial couple evicted from their home because of "sincerely held religious beliefs".

ETA: Not sure how it happened, but the first sentence above links to the law's text. The second sentence links to the eviction of a couple because of the owner's "sincerely-held religious beliefs".

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #234 –
Quote from: ersi on
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
at least in MS's case, businesses and churches now have, momentarily-speaking, the right, by state law, to deny them (LGBTQ) their services because of their sexuality.
How is it formulated so that it can be applied like this? The source I read talked about that it's not allowed to go to the toilet of the opposite sex - opposite to what's indicated in the person's birth certificate. This is quite simple to formulate and to enforce. And it's reasonable too, if the punishment is not something like death penalty or cutting off body parts...

In contrast, the things you say are over the top and don't translate to a legal regulation easily.
From Section 3 of the law:

"5)  The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person has provided or declined to provide the following services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration, or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act:
          (a)  Photography, poetry, videography, disc-jockey services, wedding planning, printing, publishing or similar marriage-related goods or services; or
          (b)  Floral arrangements, dress making, cake or pastry artistry, assembly-hall or other wedding-venue rentals, limousine or other car-service rentals, jewelry sales and services, or similar marriage-related services, accommodations, facilities or goods.
     (6)  The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person establishes sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming, or concerning access to restrooms, spas, baths, showers, dressing rooms, locker rooms, or other intimate facilities or settings, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act."

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #235 –
Thanks, that's an irrational formulation indeed, but at least it's openly so, not hypocritically irrational like the Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science thing.

And I still stand by that the idea behind the toilet law is sound. In a sensible world you would not need a law to fine misclothed men for intruding in women's bathrooms. It would be self-evident.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #236 –
Quote from: ersi on
And I still stand by that the idea behind the toilet law is sound. In a sensible world you would not need a law to fine misclothed men for intruding in women's bathrooms.
Larger businessess such as Walmarts and Targets, have gender neutral "family" restrooms. But the thing about the transgendered people is that with a lot of them, you can't tell. This renders the law unenforcable and if they're far enough along, you can make them strip naked and you still can't tell. I can see business owners and manager not wanting to enforce this, regardless. You have more masculine-looking woman who are not in transition (the term for changing from one biological sex to another), but who wants to create a scene and negative publicity by accusing someone of "not really being a woman?"
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #237 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Which "services" would a gay couple (or whatever) ask from a church that has objections to his sexuality?
Probably none at all. The misconception is that being against equal marriage is the Christian position, when in reality Christians have different viewpoints. The Metropolitian Community Church a few minutes down the road from my house has a completely different point of view than a deeply conservative Baptist church.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #238 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Quote from: ersi on
And I still stand by that the idea behind the toilet law is sound. In a sensible world you would not need a law to fine misclothed men for intruding in women's bathrooms.
Larger businessess such as Walmarts and Targets, have gender neutral "family" restrooms. But the thing about the transgendered people is that with a lot of them, you can't tell.
You can't tell what? You can't tell who is transgendered? Then they cannot be discriminated against. The transgendered can't tell the difference which restroom is which?

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
This renders the law unenforcable and if they're far enough along, you can make them strip naked and you still can't tell.
Ah, you mean you can't tell who is transgendered. Then they don't exist, as far as you can tell, and it's impossible of you to make an argument in their favour.

"Strip naked" is no uncertain way to determine sex, even though according to my information the decisive point would have been the birth certificate. Such a law would be easily enforceable.
 
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
I can see business owners and manager not wanting to enforce this, regardless. You have more masculine-looking woman who are not in transition (the term for changing from one biological sex to another), but who wants to create a scene and negative publicity by accusing someone of "not really being a woman?"
The law would precisely bar people from deliberately making a spectacle of themselves. To enter the wrong restroom and to make a scene by one's over-the-top demands offending a whole gender in the process should be considered a misdemeanour. Making a spectacle of themselves is what the whole LGBTQ(etc.) thing is about, nothing else.

My reason to oppose the law Colonel quoted would be the same. The law makes a silly spectacle of "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". With businesses it should be simple - you either get a deal or you don't. The quicker and safer way to get a deal is to do some homework what the business is about and not to make a spectacle of yourself when placing your order.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #239 –
Quote from: ersi on
Strip naked" is no uncertain way to determine sex, even though according to my information the decisive point would have been the birth certificate.
Unless the birth certificate itself has been changed. Instructions by state . If the certificate has been replaced, they are legally considered the operative sex. By the way, sex is not the same as gender. Sex is basically what you have between your legs. Gender is how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. Usually they match, of course, but not always. For instance, I had transgendered co-worker that everyone considered female by appearance and how she acted, but still had a penis. So trying to determine her sex on the spot for restroom purposes would have most likely required stripping to reveal her sex to be male, but her gender to be female. If an establishment tried to do this, she could sue big. In case of loose (ie the local court finds the establishment acted in accordance with a given state law), she could than sue the state and we have the makings of another Supreme Court case. And for what? She has no sexual interest in women, and would have been humiliated for no reason. Further, she would have just been trying to use the restroom and all the spectacle would be on the other side. Fortunately, this happens to Las Vegas where we usually don't trip seeing someone of the opposite sex in the restroom with us. I was just trying to demonstrate how this would play out using a real-world example and legal definitions of male and female (which is what counts in the courts, not personal opinions.)
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #240 –
Quote from: ersi on
The quicker and safer way to get a deal is to do some homework what the business is about and not to make a spectacle of yourself when placing your order.
Yes, and there are sites for transgendered people to do that. The problem is on the GOP side, always trying to pass silly laws like this and thereby forcing the LGBTQ people into legal battles over restrooms of all things. The American right doesn't seem to understand they're the ones that started all this. Most people took for granted that marriage was between men and women (including a lot of queer people.) But the Right had to push for state constitutional amendments on the subject, not having the foresight to realize this would open up a legal and constitutional question about the subject, given the rights and protections offered by marriage. Having lost that legal battle, the GOP is going after laws about restrooms, trying to give government officials the right to discriminate, etc. By not knowing when they've lost, the Republicans are inadvertently expanding LGBTQ rights.

Don't want transgendered people using what you consider the wrong restroom? Actually, leave it alone. Most will use the family restrooms (which people of either sex can use) or hold it. By passing state laws about restroom use, the likely end result will be people using any restroom they please. Yes, the Republicans are their own worst enemies and accidently the LGBTQ's best friend.
  
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #241 –
Just get rid of the segregated toilet nonsense already.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
By passing state laws about restroom use, the likely end result will be people using any restroom they please.
Everybody already does that unless the options are directly side by side. Only weird prudes will go scouring the area for a bathroom that happens to have some stupid symbol of their preference on it.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #242 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Just get rid of the segregated toilet nonsense already.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
By passing state laws about restroom use, the likely end result will be people using any restroom they please.
Everybody already does that unless the options are directly side by side. Only weird prudes will go scouring the area for a bathroom that happens to have some stupid symbol of their preference on it.
I didn't realise that preferences apply to oneself only, selfishly. Where I live, you can be sure of this:

1. Enter the toilet designated for the opposite sex in e.g. a shopping centre.
2. Observe the inevitable riot and arrival of security personnel.

Further consequences involving police may follow.

The preference here has nothing to do with you. It has to do with those who are already there in the toilet. You must consider other people's preferences, you see. This is evidently an impossible point for LGBT folks, but that's life and it's better this way.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #243 –
So if one of them is closed for cleaning Estonians go loping around the mall in search of another toilet? Ils sont fous ces estoniens. :lol:

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #244 –
Quote from: ersi on
1. Enter the toilet designated for the opposite sex in e.g. a shopping centre.
2. Observe the inevitable riot and arrival of security personnel.

Where do you live that this happens? Like I said, with a trans person, without an embarrassing inspection, you usually can't tell anyway. You're using the restroom and trans man comes in (that's a person going from female to male.)  You do your business, wash your hands and leave none the wiser and he does the same. In the case of a transwomen that still has male anatomy, if she's sitting in the stall with the door locked, who knows unless they're the pervert looking under the stall?  Remember, we're not simply talking about people dressed in non-sex appropriate clothing. These are people that consider themselves male or female, regardless of the set of genitalia they born both, and tend to be considered by others to be that gender.

I'll elaborate a little on what Frenzie said. It's fairly common in certain circumstances to find the opposite sex in the restroom with you. Women will often complain that their assigned restroom is full. So some will use the men's room. In that situation, you can use the urinal and she can use the stall or you both use the stall and move on with your respective lives.  Frenzie's example is more common. Only someone with issues to begin with be traumatized. I wonder if the GOP took these factors into account when they codified their bizarre laws.

My guess would be that gender specific restrooms will eventually become a thing of the past. Privacy concerns are easily rectified by adding opaque flaps under existing stall doors and doors that go all the way to the floor in future construction. This way the Republicans can have better things to do besides pass moronic laws, such as picking their noses.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #245 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
So if one of them is closed for cleaning Estonians go loping around the mall in search of another toilet? Ils sont fous ces estoniens. :lol:
You close toilets for cleaning in malls? Am I reading right? This doesn't happen here. Cleaning happens, closing for cleaning doesn't. And even if it were closed for cleaning (which doesn't happen), this doesn't grant you access to ladies' restroom. A matter of both culture and law.

Funny how we are so far away.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #246 –
Quote from: ersi on
this doesn't grant you access to ladies' restroom.
You realize it goes both ways, right?

Apparently even in the prudish Anglo-Saxon countries, there's a generational divide (source).


Meanwhile younger French people are apparently influenced too much by Anglo-Saxon culture:


Of course, the obvious question is whether they asked whether or not these people are comfortable in public restrooms at all. I mean, I don't care for 'em; I just don't see what the gender of the person standing next to you at the washbasin has to do with anything.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #247 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Like I said, with a trans person, without an embarrassing inspection, you usually can't tell anyway.
If you can't tell, then you can't tell whether you are dealing with transgender or not, so all points concerning this are immaterial. You could be talking about anybody, everybody, or nobody, we just can't tell.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
I'll elaborate a little on what Frenzie said. It's fairly common in certain circumstances to find the opposite sex in the restroom with you. Women will often complain that their assigned restroom is full. So some will use the men's room.
And they simply go in and expect "equal treatment" and they can threaten to call the police if "equal treatment" is not granted? I suspect it goes more like this: They complain that theirs is full and they peek in apologisingly and they ask permission and, if permission is granted, they do their necessary thing and leave as quickly as possible.

It's not a citizen right. It's an out-of-the-ordinary situation where an exception may be granted, if nicely asked. Or not. There's no compulsion to grant the exception.

Anyway, thanks for telling that I can walk into ladies' restroom over there and yell "Injustice!" when somebody tries to deter me. I will keep this in mind. May come in handy.

Quote from: Frenzie on
You realize it goes both ways, right?
I made this point earlier. Good you occasionally think both ways too.

As to unisex toilets, yes there are those. Different rooms, different rules. Not the same rules all over the place. For example, you cannot shit on the floor in the room where mothers diaper their babies. This applies even to the babies.

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #248 –
Quote from: ersi on
Anyway, thanks for telling that I can walk into ladies' restroom over there and yell "Injustice!" when somebody tries to deter me.
Are you transgendered? Of course not. That being the case, give your explanation if someone tries to deter you. There's a fair chance the woman will understand having been in the same situation. Yes, restrooms are often closed for cleaning here.
Quote from: ersi on
If you can't tell, then you can't tell whether you are dealing with transgender or not, so all points concerning this are immaterial. You could be talking about anybody, everybody, or nobody, we just can't tell.
Hence why the laws are unenforceable. It does occur to me that if the transperson in question is somehow known, is forced to use the "correct" restroom and gets bashed as a result, they can sue the crap out of the state and not just for money but to get the law repealed.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: Today's Bad News

Reply #249 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Quote from: ersi on
Anyway, thanks for telling that I can walk into ladies' restroom over there and yell "Injustice!" when somebody tries to deter me.
Are you transgendered? Of course not. That being the case, give your explanation if someone tries to deter you.
How does this parse, "that being the case"? You mean "In case you are transgendered, give your explanation [namely, tell that you are transgendered so everybody will pull away from your path]"? You don't see why this cannot and should not work this way? Of course you don't see it. As you say, you can't tell...


Quote from: midnight raccoon on

Quote from: ersi on
If you can't tell, then you can't tell whether you are dealing with transgender or not, so all points concerning this are immaterial. You could be talking about anybody, everybody, or nobody, we just can't tell.
Hence why the laws are unenforceable.
Luckily you are not the one who should be enforcing the law. Law enforcement officers can take a look in the birth certificate. You cannot. So, you can't tell, but they can. It's their job.