GOP House leadership makes it clear that gay equality is NOT tolerated in their party

[Benvolio]

Meanwhile, the head of the Georgia ACLU, Maya Dillard Smith, resigned because of the ACLUs position, saying in part: "She said she’s had misgivings about the bathroom debate since her young daughters shared a restroom in Oakland, Calif. with three transgender women with deep voices.

“My kids were visibly frightened. I was scared. And I was ill-prepared to answer their questions,” she said. “I’ve been asking those same questions, and now I want to raise an honest conversation about them.”
She also point out that women who have been raped and abused cannot feel comfortable either.

 

[rareboy]

Still off topic.

 

[Benvolio]

Still off topic.

This thread is about the restroom issue. Ms. Smith also said this:"In a statement obtained by Atlanta Progressive News, she accused the ACLU of being “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights. In that way, it is a special interest organization not unlike the conservative right, which creates a hierarchy of rights based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.”

A hierarchy of rights is a good way to to describe the problem. Liberals think the newly discovered "right" of a tiny few trans people outweigh the rights of the much larger number of girls and women to privacy and security.

 

[rareboy]

Look again.

This thread isn't about the restroom issue.

Pay attention.

This is pretty absurd.

There was a vote today on a proposal to bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

The measure had enough support to pass but once the vote count showed a majority in favor the GOP leadership went into action twisting arms of enough of their members to change their vote so that it would fail. They held open the vote until they had changed enough votes for it to fail by one vote.

If there was any doubt that equality for gay people is still 100% anathema in the GOP, this is pretty strong evidence.

This is your problem. You wander so far into the weeds in every thread that you don't even know what the topic is half the time. It is just another excuse for you to rant.

 

[kallipolis]

Liberals think the newly discovered "right" of a tiny few trans people outweigh the rights of the much larger number of girls and women to privacy and security.

The rights of every human being should be respected no matter how few in number.

I as a gay man am part of a small minority who expects my human rights to be respected.

Womens' restrooms have lockable cubicles ensuring privacy, and security.

You are proposing Fascism.

Ideologies are largely defined by their view of the individual and their relationship with society.

The death cult element of fascism is that the individual human person is expendable. The reason for that is not that their death is an end in itself, but because fascism prioritises the destiny and glory of the state. If individuals happen to die in the realisation or service of that then so be it. The end result is not the death of a human being, but the heroic rise of the state and the achievement of the form of society to which a totalitarian ideology aspires.

 

[Benvolio]

The rights of every human being should be respected no matter how few in number.

I as a gay man am part of a small minority who expects my human rights to be respected.

Womens' restrooms have lockable cubicles ensuring privacy, and security.

You are proposing Fascism.

Ideologies are largely defined by their view of the individual and their relationship with society.

The death cult element of fascism is that the individual human person is expendable. The reason for that is not that their death is an end in itself, but because fascism prioritises the destiny and glory of the state. If individuals happen to die in the realisation or service of that then so be it. The end result is not the death of a human being, but the heroic rise of the state and the achievement of the form of society to which a totalitarian ideology aspires.

The question actually is one of democracy v. dictatorship. Is the matter decided by an imperial edict from the leader and his bureaucracy, or by the state legislature. Calling it fascism is not helpful. Communism is even more destructive of rights. You are concerned about the rights of the trans person, but you forget that the women are individuals as well. And the taxpayers are individuals too. You really saying that some individuals count but all the other individuals do not count. Some restrooms have lockable cubicles but they also have a common area and lavatories as well. Also involved are dressing rooms and showers, especially in schools.

 

[kallipolis]

The question actually is one of democracy v. dictatorship. Is the matter decided by an imperial edict from the leader and his bureaucracy, or by the state legislature. Calling it fascism is not helpful. Communism is even more destructive of rights. You are concerned about the rights of the trans person, but you forget that the women are individuals as well. And the taxpayers are individuals too. You really saying that some individuals count but all the other individuals do not count. Some restrooms have lockable cubicles but they also have a common area and lavatories as well. Also involved are dressing rooms and showers, especially in schools.

The POTUS does not possess dictatorial powers.

Totalitarian regimes whether they be Communist, or Fascist always render the human rights of the individual human person, inferior to the rights of the state, and its ideological aspirations.

In womens' restrooms ones privacy defecating, and/or urinating is done behind locked cubicle doors.

Common areas are used for washing ones hands, not for undressing.

Schools provide individual shower cubicles for gender transition pupils.

 

[Kabluey]

...Calling it fascism is not helpful. Communism is even more destructive of rights. You are concerned about the rights of the trans person, but you forget that the women are individuals as well...

Communists sought to eliminate individual rights in what they described as the greater good of the majority.
You're using the same justification.

I had wondered if you might be communist.

 

[Benvolio]

Wow, you finally recognized one exception to your claim!

How long will it take you to include all my other exceptions to your claim? Like drugs, religion, and land use, just for starters?

I will always support "total government control" of people who want to restrict the liberty of others -- that's what being libertarian is about.

Land use? A day ago you were lambasting the right to property. Controling "people who want to restrict the liberty of others", may sound nice, but it is an invitation to tyranny. In practice it invariably involves restricting the rights of some and exaggerating the supposed rights of a the favored, and inventing new rights to justifty more control. What Maya Dullard Smith of the GA ACLU called a "hierarchy of rights" Protecting workers from the evil employers is the communist ideology. Democrats invent new rights for trans women in order to take control of the nation restrooms, showers and dressing rooms, brushing aside democracy with no actual regard
for the rights of any. We actual libertarians remember Jefferson's " that government is best which governs least."

 

[Benvolio]

The POTUS does not possess dictatorial powers.

Totalitarian regimes whether they be Communist, or Fascist always render the human rights of the individual human person, inferior to the rights of the state, and its ideological aspirations.

In womens' restrooms ones privacy defecating, and/or urinating is done behind locked cubicle doors.

Common areas are used for washing ones hands, not for undressing.

Schools provide individual shower cubicles for gender transition pupils.

Obama exercises dictatorial power and gets away with it.
You are arguing that a few individuals rights control over the rights of other individuals.

 

[rareboy]

Thread derailment.

 

[TX-Beau]

heh - Ben thinks he has a "right" to shit all over other people...

What a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Thread derailment.

At some point the regular posters are responsible for taking the troll seriously.

 

[Kulindahr]

We also have elderly people holed up in their houses thinking they shouldn't be paying for things they don't use.

They also demand responsibility when something like a bridge fails, without recognising that whenever they vote down proposals to maintain infrastructure, they're part of the cause.
Some are also selfish enough to be offended when they see gays, immigrants or non-white people gainfully employed in any way.

It's pretty evident when you're in the states where these people dwell. There's nothing exceptional about people like you.

We have a batch of these here. They fought to defeat a 3 cent per gallon county gas tax to fix our roads and bridges, then whined when nothing got done. So the county tried for a 2.25 cent per gallon gas tax, and they fought and defeated that. The county tried again, at 1.5 cents per gallon, and they managed to get that defeated.

Finally people got fed up at seeing a gas tax measure on the ballot, and guess what finally passed? An increase in the property tax -- so now they whine that they can't afford that and it will ruin their retirement or farm or whatever. If they'd just gone with the original gas tax proposal, they'd be paying less -- and they can't be convinced that they're the ones who dug the hole they're whining about.

 

[Kulindahr]

You might want to check out the condition of earthen levies. Many are a rain drop away from failing. Who gives a shit? Not Republicans. They're to busy sucking Koch dick.

And now the Repukes in the House are cutting housing for ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE PERSONNEL. Every single time I hear a repuke say that they support the troops, I want to ram a ton of horse shit down their throats.

But if the levees fail they can blame Obama, then get voters to support them when they vote new money to fix the levees.

Yeah, by the record, the GOP loves the troops only when they're overseas being shot at.