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.

 

Alabama city: Use bathrooms matching biological sex or face 6 months in jail.

page: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: network dude


Sevearance-Turner was arrested in 1998, when he was 20, and charged in Cherokee County, S.C., with a “lewd act, committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child under 16.”

A 2000 story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal said Sevearance-Turner had been a youth minister at a church in Gaffney. A jury there found him guilty of fondling a 15-year-old teenage church member while the boy slept.

So he fondled a boy.....seems like he would be more of a threat in a Men's room than a Ladies room.




but in 4 no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use 5 a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section 6 for a sex other than the student's biological sex



Actually, I was going more for the addendum that made provisions for special circumstances.

Actually the law is specifically blocking business and schools from making special accommodations based on individual circumstances. But it allows for building/designating single occupancy bathrooms- which renders the rest of the law moot anyways.


I'd say he is a threat no matter where he is, but then I am not an advocate for child molesters.

now, about this adendum:

Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of 2 education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing 3 facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances, but in 4 no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use 5 a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section 6 for a sex other than the student's biological sex


Could you explain how this is blocking the ability to make accommodations?




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

As I said, nobody seemed to notice. It's almost as if the original bill was pointless and needless.
No. Not really. But you know that was just one provision of the bill, right?


It seems this whole thing started for the very reasons those damn republicans were in an uproar.
I don't know about Republicans but I don't understand your point either.


Because making it alright to chose your bathroom removes the ability to prosecute that guy who stands in the corner leering at kids.
I don't think that leering is a legal offense. As offensive as it may be. Maybe we need a law to cover playgrounds too? With a no leering clause.



edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, the part of that bill that seems to be the main focus of the news, and my commentary.

being a creep isn't against the law, but then using hyperbole to make your point isn't anything new for some. I do it to. I just hate to get called out on it. You?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Sounds about right in Alabama... it's all being driven by religion and being scared of change. Honestly the best option here is a gender neutral bathroom or changing rooms. this way anyone who is transsexual or cross dresser can use these rooms. Anyone who's actually had a gender reassignment should be able to use the restroom based on their current gender.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
What hyperbole?

Who was called out for using it?
edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Okay, Phage, my position is weak and my use of hyperbole was instead meant to be factual.

Thanks for clearing that up. You have done fabulous work here today.

Again, pointing out a couple laws does not negate my use of hyperbole. Where you think that is a reality is beyond me...even in the land of caviar lovers, there would be more than one resident.

(Hyperbole is also used by people of intelligence to make a point that shouldn't have to be explained except to those who appear either incapable or unwilling of understanding said point)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

So, you tell me, who benefits the most from these laws or policies that open up male and female restrooms to all sexes? And then tell me if those of you who are pro-neutral-gendered bathrooms really think that the concern over such policies is really only based on bigotry.


I base my position on a Republic government.

Each individual's rights is equal to every other individual. It is not about majority.

Transgender is real. Just because it has an ick factor to some, does not give them the right to deny an individual who is "different".

I know what its like to be treated like a "disease". Prior to the disability act, many who had physical/mental afflictions were treated this way.

We were kicked out of restaurants for making other customers uncomfortable. Some people believed you could catch polio from someone who had it. We were denied entry into businesses, for various trumped up reasons.

There will always be predators. Predators look for opportunities, places they can get to a victim quickly, and get away quickly. Elevators, stair wells, parking structures, alleys, 24 hours convenience stores, etc, and isolated, low traffic restrooms.

Restrooms are for health reasons. To safely dispose of human waste. They are not a private sanctuary away from home - - which is how many women treat them. Be aware of your surroundings, do your business, get out.

My 8 year old grandson does not leave my side. He goes to the women's room with me. I dare anyone to challenge me because he's in the "ladies room".

This is more a mental fear of hysteria then a real one. People need to grow up and get over their genitals. We all have them.

This bill primarily came about because of transgender students. Something that could have stayed discreet until some self-righteous Paranoid Parent organized other self-righteous Paranoid Parents and with Bullying tactics descended on the school district.

I suggest moving everything (sinks, mirrors, etc) out of the toilet area into a common shared room.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The claim was that there were no "laws" about such. The claim is false.


No, that was your misinterpretation because you failed to understand the use of an exaggeration to make a point.

Admit that you were wrong and move on--why are you hyper-focused on this? It lacks any major relevancy to the thread.

But like Network Dude says, if you want to keep on nitpicking peoples' comments, even if they have clarified it to you more times that you are entitled and you still don't accept or get it (can't figure out which at this point), so be it.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Admit that you were wrong and move on--why are you hyper-focused on this? It lacks any major relevancy to the thread.

I'm not focused on it.
But I do point out falsehoods when I see them. Falsehoods, even small ones, tend to lead to further inaccuracies. Best to nip them in the bud.

edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I'm sorry, Annee, but after our back-and-forth in the abortion thread, I'm going to respectfully decline to discuss this with you.

I agree with some things you just said, and disagree with a major point, but I'll just agree to disagree on that major point and walk away.

I think that we need a little break to see other people for a while



edit on 2-5-2016 by SlapMonkey because: sink down to a different level for a minute



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Agreed...when they're false. Purposeful exaggerations used to make a point (that you still fail to accept) are called hyperboles, not falsehoods.

This is a fun experiment, as I'm testing to see if you always need the last word...



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Annee

I'm sorry, Annee, but after our back-and-forth in the abortion thread, I'm going to respectfully decline to discuss this with you.




Of course you are. Great excuse. This is not about a man telling me my rights on abortion.

I responded in full context to your post on this subject.

Denying to engage only reflects on you.


edit on 2-5-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You forget, I didn't use hyperbole in a way that Phage deems appropriate, so it was a falsehood.

That's why he's playing ignorant:

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
What hyperbole?

Who was called out for using it?


Just walk away, network, it's not worth the discourse.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
... So, he's the victim of domestic abuse and on top of that loses his job because of what gender his partner happened to be? That's BS. I'm all for the freedom of private businesses, but it's just wrong for someone to be fired for something like this that has NOTHING to do with their job or job performance, and it's especially heinous when the person is fired for being the victim of a crime.


Well, I agree that it's BS to fire (or hire) anyone for the sexual preference.

But at the same time, it sounds like this individual was fired because of sexual preference, not because he was the victim of a crime. Just because the crime is what let the employer know his sexual preference doesn't mean he was fired for being the victim. Semantics, maybe, but worth pointing out.

But either way, firing for either reason is atrocious.


The fact is: a man who identifies as a woman, and who dresses and lives his life as a woman could walk into a woman's restroom and do his business without anyone being the wiser. But now, with these laws he's going to have to walk into the Men's room- while dressed as a woman. It makes the situation painfully obvious to all involved and he's far more likely to become the victim of verbal harassment or an assault.


Agreed, and I never said that I support this law--in fact, I've made it clear that I don't support this law or the push for bathrooms to be open to all genders. There's a better solution out there, but it costs money if the facilities don't already exist.

I'm with you...leave well enough alone.



Pros to government intervention in this area: none.


Agreed, and that goes for both mandated restrictions or mandated open-gender facilities.


Transgender people are not flocking to Women's restrooms in droves and assaulting women and children. In fact, if you'll refer to my previous posts even the most conservative news outlets failed to find ONE verified case (in the US) of such a thing happening.


And that has not once been my argument against open-gender bathrooms. Not once.


Cons: Transgender people will now experience higher anxiety for doing nothing more than simply trying to live their lives. They will now be far more likely to be harassed and assaulted themselves. Their lives are hard enough and the government is going out of its way to make it more difficult for them.


Agreed--again, leave well enough alone. I think we agree more than you're allowing yourself to realize.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Of course it does...it's almost like you're forcing your opinion on me that I must engage in dialogue simply because you took time to respond to me.

This is exactly why I'm not going to continue discussion with you--you are so prepared with ad hominem attacks that it discourages most sane people from communicating on things with you.

A reason not to engage in conversation is not an excuse--you might as well and just go full-on middle-school playground bully and say, "What are you, chicken?"

Do you expect positive reaction from that?

Nevermind, don't answer that. And I retract my "respectfully decline" and change it to "decline."



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
"Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of 2 education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing 3 facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances, but in 4 no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use 5 a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section 6 for a sex other than the student's biological sex"

Could you explain how this is blocking the ability to make accommodations?


I'm not sure where you got this tidbit of evidence, but it seems to be mainly addressing school property, so that's what I'll address. The first half 'allows' single occupancy restrooms- in which case it doesn't matter what the gender of the occupant is. It also allows for accommodating faculty on a case by case basis, because they would be using restricted access, faculty only restrooms.

BUT...it specifically does not allow for such special accommodations when it comes to anyone else (students included) using public, multiple occupancy restrooms. So, if there were a transgender student- who was not a sexual predator threat to anyone- and said student requested permission to use the restroom they felt most aligned with their identity...the school would NOT be allowed by law to grant said student permission to use the restroom of their preference.

And if the wording of any of these goofy laws is anything similar, the same would go for private and public businesses.

So, they're basically only granting 'accommodations' to single occupant restrooms and restrooms that are not open to the public. Which isn't much of an accommodation and completely relieves those in control of the premises any ability to make decisions on a case by case basis.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well lookey there, we DO agree!


Hell hath frozen over.

Just kidding, I love debating and worthy opponents just make it that much more fun!



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is dumb. There are stalls in bathrooms for a reason, they are for privacy even from the same sex. There is no threat other than what is already present.



So by this logic, since there are stalls, we should just do away with men's and women's restrooms and simply go Unisex bathrooms across the board.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Look, if you're a passable Trans person, use the restroom you feel is your's.

BUT, if you're an Adam's Apple having, 5 o'clock shadow wearing, musclebound dude in a dress, then no ladies room for you.

This is the real issue isn't it?

If we make a law that says anyone who CLAIMS to be trans can use the restroom of their choice then we will have men doing just that.

Probably some women too.... I'm sure there are ugly chicks desperate to get some.... all they have to do is claim they're a man.

We do not need a law, we do need for private businesses to continue to do what they deem necessary, and the market will work out whether that was a good thing to do or not.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982




If we make a law that says anyone who CLAIMS to be trans can use the restroom of their choice then we will have men doing just that.

If we have a law that says you must use the restroom that matches your birth certificate you'll have people crapping in the hallway because even if there is no one in the womens room and the men's room has no vacancies you can be arrested for going into the empty restroom.



We do not need a law, we do need for private businesses to continue to do what they deem necessary, and the market will work out whether that was a good thing to do or not.
That's what triggered the law in Oxford. A store was doing what it deemed necessary. A law was written that said, "No. You can't do that."
edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join