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.

 

NFL warns Texas that its proposed ‘bathroom bill’ may jeopardize chances to host Super Bowls

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
2 years ago, men dressed as women and women dressed as men used bathrooms they felt most comfortable with.

And no one batted an eye.

Why can't that just continue??


Because the activists decided that we all had to know about it otherwise they were being oppressed by not having the world know about their transness or something.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
2 years ago, men dressed as women and women dressed as men used bathrooms they felt most comfortable with.

And no one batted an eye.

Why can't that just continue??


Because the activists decided that we all had to know about it otherwise they were being oppressed by not having the world know about their transness or something.



Why can't you just admit that regulating peepee is something that plays well with paranoid right-wing crowds?

Gonna start calling the GOP the Pee Paranoia Party. Shorten it to "P3".



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
2 years ago, men dressed as women and women dressed as men used bathrooms they felt most comfortable with.

And no one batted an eye.

Why can't that just continue??


Because the activists decided that we all had to know about it otherwise they were being oppressed by not having the world know about their transness or something.



Why can't you just admit that regulating peepee is something that plays well with paranoid right-wing crowds?

Gonna start calling the GOP the Pee Paranoia Party. Shorten it to "P3".


This all started with transgender kids in schools demanding to use the locker rooms of their choice and not being happy with single room accommodation. That isn't "regulating peepee" but that's where it went because it then become a Title IX issue somehow although how a piece of legislation designed to protect the female sex (not gender, sex) covers people who have a mental gender that doesn't match their biological sex (the language says sex) ... but that's beside the point ...

At that point, it spills out into the public because that's where the activists take it with activists demanding "restroom rights" everywhere.

It wasn't like conservatives got up one day and said, "Hey, today let's legislate bathrooms," because that's not how we operate. We simply like the status quo. Y'all are the ones who like to change that because ... CHANGE!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



Does the word coercion come to mind here at all for you?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
2 years ago, men dressed as women and women dressed as men used bathrooms they felt most comfortable with.

And no one batted an eye.

Why can't that just continue??


Because the activists decided that we all had to know about it otherwise they were being oppressed by not having the world know about their transness or something.


Why can't you just admit that regulating peepee is something that plays well with paranoid right-wing crowds?

Gonna start calling the GOP the Pee Paranoia Party. Shorten it to "P3".


Why is the GOP acting like trans people going to the bathroom they feel most comfortable in, is a new thing?

All of a sudden it's an issue? I really wish these idiots would stop making laws based on their own perverted thought processes. They realize a trans using the washroom, then they start imagining what they do in there...etc, move on pervs. LOL
edit on 10-2-2017 by cantthinkofausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.


And the NFL is basically like the baker, the nuns, and the photog. It's not their place to influence government.

Imagine what you would have said if the NFL had threatened to pull out of California if they hadn't passed Prop 8. It amounts to the same kind of thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.






That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.


no it doesn`t, the NFL will still allow regular season games to be played in Texas and allow transgenders to feel "unwelcome" at regular season NFL games in Texas.
This has nothing to do with business, this is strictly political.

one has to question the NFL`s commitment to transgender people if they only care about bathroom discrimination at the superbowl and not at any other NFL game in Texas.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

"The NFL embraces exclusiveness and want all fans to feel welcomed at their events"

....unless, of course, you hold any social beliefs different than the NFL's, in which case the NFL rejects you and your feels in favor of appeasing a very small, yet extraordinarily and curiously vocal subsection of a special interest group.

Haven't watched an NFL game (yes, including the SuperBowl) since I got sick enough of Roger Goodell to stop caring about the empty shell of it's former glory the professional game has become. I believe the last game I watched was sometime in mid October. It's amazing how easy it has been to not watch their poor product.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
2 years ago, men dressed as women and women dressed as men used bathrooms they felt most comfortable with.

And no one batted an eye.

Why can't that just continue??


Because the activists decided that we all had to know about it otherwise they were being oppressed by not having the world know about their transness or something.


I always assumed transgenders didnt use public restrooms until 2 years ago. You mean they just chose which one they wanted to use oh this is shocking in other words they made a really huge deal out of nothing is that what your telling me?????



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

....unless, of course, you hold any social beliefs different than the NFL's, in which case the NFL rejects you and your feels in favor of appeasing a very small, yet extraordinarily and curiously vocal subsection of a special interest group.



Use that same logic regarding trans people. You are asking the NFL to appease your backwards thinking.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

At that point, it spills out into the public because that's where the activists take it with activists demanding "restroom rights" everywhere.




Interesting. Because there aren't any activists around here demanding restroom rights. Know why? Because there aren't any bills being introduced here to instigate them.

We can go back and forth with the chicken vs egg but, bottom line, it's only a problem that can be created with backwards bills. Things were fine before and yeah, that issue with the locker rooms was stupid, but the ridiculous backlash is obviously not all because of that one scenario.

Again, none of this is an issue in most places. It's not an issue because nobody cares. Nobody cares because there aren't any stupid bathroom discrimination bills.

Chicken, egg, etc... it's getting old for everybody, I'm sure you can agree.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



Does the word coercion come to mind here at all for you?


No. But the words "free market" does.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cantthinkofausername

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

....unless, of course, you hold any social beliefs different than the NFL's, in which case the NFL rejects you and your feels in favor of appeasing a very small, yet extraordinarily and curiously vocal subsection of a special interest group.



Use that same logic regarding trans people. You are asking the NFL to appease your backwards thinking.


No, I'm expecting the NFL to appease the greatest common denominator, the expectations of the many, normalcy, call it whatever you wish.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



Does the word coercion come to mind here at all for you?


No. But the words "free market" does.



What you are talking about, to me anyway, is not free market. No, shoes not shirt no service option remains, venue prerogative is free market. Maybe keep a box of old shoes and shirts outside the 7/11 then?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



Does the word coercion come to mind here at all for you?


No. But the words "free market" does.



What you are talking about, to me anyway, is not free market. No, shoes not shirt no service option remains, venue prerogative is free market. Maybe keep a box of old shoes and shirts outside the 7/11 then?


How are they able to exercise their "venue prerogative" if there is a law preventing them from doing so? In that case, they can choose not to do business there. Again, free market.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Hell with all the craziness in the US when it comes to who have power to dictated laws it seems that anybody now have that power thanks to the 9 circuit court

Hell so the NFL can now tell states governments what they can and no do when it comes to laws and how to pass them.

Welcome to the new world



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

And maybe where you are at ... people are far more liberal than in other parts of the country too.

People on the left coast and in the NE are different that people in places like Texas. Maybe where you are at, people don't care so you wouldn't see it? And if that's how your part of the country wants to be, fine, but those standards do not necessarily need to be forced on the rest of us because we aren't necessarily like you.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically the NFL, which has no policy, is making threat to influence policy.



No, they are refusing to allow their policy to be made for them.


That's no excuse either. Government makes policy for business all the time. Ask some photographers, nuns, and bakers who found that out in recent years.



That's 100% correct. And those policies influence the decision to do business there.



Does the word coercion come to mind here at all for you?


No. But the words "free market" does.


I am sure the photographers, florists, nuns, bakers etc. of the world will be overjoyed to here that you have finally embraced their rights to operate according to their principles.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join