It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: NihilistSanta
The more I looked into it (and I first started looking into it because I was appalled), the more I realized this is a legitimate thing. I'm not hippy dippy and certainly not a fan of PC nonsense. It's an actual thing, nature isn't always perfect. it's not hard to accept that some people are born with webbed toes, or that some people are born crazy, if you look into it you'll see that there are actually marked differences between a normal person's brain and a transgender person's brain. They're not tom boys or fairies, the brain doesn't match the body, they're different.
I think it's freaking weird, and it makes me uncomfortable sometimes thinking about it, but that's the way it is. Those are my problems though, and I'd rather be a little uncomfortable on occasion and grow out of it than trample on these people's right to be who they are.
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Domo1
they already have the rights of heteros or any other group of CITIZEN. They want SPECIAL privileges and recognition that goes beyond the protections that all citizens already enjoy.
originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t
my point is there is no issue. if you are dressed as a female use the girls restroom. there is no problem . everyone is in a stall so whats the problem? same with chicks in a mens room. use a stall . seriously whats the point of putting these stand up piss machines in the mens room and if you did that then you would have to put urinals in the ladies room. so really whats the point if men can sit down to pee and mens rooms have toilets?
there is no point unless someone wants to announce their gender then use he opposite genders restroom. just do it and dont announce your gender. it really is that easy.
i dont really care . nor do i care where you piss . the question is why do you need to make an issue out of a non issue?
just a sjw in my opinion. and i dont care for those
originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Annee
Bs . I've seen many ladies that could pass for men and vice versa.
Again
No one checks to make sure that person peeing is doing it with a penis or a vagina. The only way to know is to peep
What you are saying is that if it looks like a man its a man. And thats simply not true. Not true at all
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Pinke
Religious rights? Is someone stopping me from practicing my religion? Is the government persecuting me? Pretty sure I and everyone else can practice religion all we want so what do you mean by "rights"? Oh you mean extra privileges created through legislature to enforce a view upon others? You wont see that from me.
In the United States, the view that has generally prevailed is that firing for any cause in general renders a former employee ineligible for unemployment compensation, but that this is no longer the case if the 'cause' is religious in nature, especially an employee's unwillingness to work during Jewish Shabbat, Christian Sabbath, or Muslim jumu'ah.
The University of South Dakota were charged with racial and religious discrimination when they forbade a university dormitory resident from smudging while praying. The policy at The University of South Dakota was later changed to permit students to pray while living in the university dorms.
In 2007, a federal judge confirmed that Asatru adherents in US prisons have the right to possess a Thor’s Hammer pendant. An inmate sued the Virginia Department of Corrections after he was denied it while members of other religions were allowed their medallions.[93]
With reference to the use of animals, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1]
The constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government was confirmed on February 21, 2006, as the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), which involved the use of an otherwise illegal substance in a religious ceremony, stating that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious conduct.
In Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional. As a result, Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well, passing the Equal Access Act, which prevents public schools from discriminating against students based on "religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings".
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I have gay relatives and had a gay roommate who often hung out with transsexuals. I worked at an adult store for a time in my early 20s and dealt with that community quite regularly. Have had gay coworkers, friends, and acquaintances. You equate disapproval/non-agreement with hate which is false.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Republicans pushed Thursday for Wisconsin to become the first state in the nation to prohibit transgender public school students from using a bathroom or locker room assigned to the gender with which they identify.
Opponents, including students who stood and sat on the floor in a packed hearing room, argued the proposal is a violation of federal Civil Rights law. The soonest that the state's GOP-controlled Legislature could act on the bill is January, and it's unclear whether the measure has enough support to pass.
The issue has roiled communities in Wisconsin, including in the district of the bill's lead sponsor, and across the country as more children identify as transgender at younger ages. Several school districts in Wisconsin have their own policies, but Rep. Jesse Kremer said a statewide law is needed to protect them from lawsuits and create a unified standard
But Leland Hilliard, a 15-year-old transgender student, said he prefers to use an all-gender bathroom at his Madison high school, which would not be allowed under the proposal. "I would feel my right to be safe and protected in public schools would be jeopardized," Hilliard said. "My mental health would be flushed down the toilet I'm not even allowed to use."
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Pinke
Religion doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
You are trying to say that one view is tainting the other which isn't the case.
Some of those laws you are showing are necessary in order to keep the government from trampling on a constitutional right to practice religion. Otherwise PC movements like LGB/T would try to have church's shut down on grounds of hate speech for condemning homosexuality which is their right.
This is the real reason for these movements though to shut down views that don't conform to their flawed thinking by having dissenting opinions labeled as hate speech.
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Anyways this is becoming tiresome. NO ONE has shown in this thread where Transgender people do not have the same "RIGHTS" as other citizens.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Pinke
So what is your point exactly? You feel its the "LGBTQ"s turn now? Kind of like the thread about the feminist teacher not allowing the males to play with Legos because she felt they prevented equal access for the girls?
NO ONE has shown in this thread where Transgender people do not have the same "RIGHTS" as other citizens. All we see are appeals to grant special recognition and privileges
Anyone care to address why these groups are being allowed to falsely shape public opinion? Why they can lie and omit without repercussion? Does anyone believe in a "cause" that has to resort to these tactics?
Anyone care to address why these groups are being allowed to falsely shape public opinion? Why they can lie and omit without repercussion?