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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
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


Well, it's just like judges who don't receive national security briefings know more about national security briefings than the president, too.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The NFL issue aside , will Texans have to have their birth certificate on them to go to the loo . Who is going to enforce this bill .



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
19 states and over 250 municipalities already have anti-discrimination laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals to use the public accommodations consistent with their gender identity. It isn't a problem.

Just to point out the ridiculousness of these laws:

23 states will change gender markers on a birth certificate without requiring sex reassignment surgery. Several states will not change gender markers on birth certificates for any reason whatsoever.

You're still going to have the dreaded penis in the women's bathroom and vaginas in the men's room and be in complete compliance with these discriminatory laws.

Case in point: I was born in a state where it is impossible to get a corrected birth certificate. Because I was born male-bodied, my BC lists me as such but I was never much of a boy and I sure as hell have never been, lived as, worked as or paid taxes a man. Thanks to corrective procedures in my youth, I also have a vagina and have been legally married and divorced as a woman but these "bathroom bills" technically require me to use the men's facilities because of one stupid piece of paper.

That just ain't gonna happen but laws like this unjustly criminalize me for having to pee and I think that is just wrong.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

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.



The laws if there is going to be one maybe should fall on the tastes of the venue owner. Let them make whatever accommodations they want. Let them alone suffer or prosper for positions then the state is out and only the customer is accommodated accordingly in these non-product defining business infringements.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Freija

Reminds me of this thread i wrote a while back.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Freija

Reminds me of this thread i wrote a while back.


Yes, I remember that one.

What's even more ironic about these laws is they require transgender men to use the women's room. People seem to think predators are going to dress up as women to go in the women's bathroom. Why would they even need to bother?

Just walk into the ladies room dressed and looking like men and claim they're trans guys.

This whole things is really stupid and poorly thought out when you think about it. Obviously, those proposing these laws don't have the capacity to "think about it".



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Good, its this type of process that eventually brought down Apartheid. Corporations will act in their own interests. If we as customers refuse to participate/buy/attend then they will protect the brand because it is in their best interests.

That's the bottom line. As consumers we can and have made a difference and hopeful we will continue to do so.

It cost North Carolina, first in flight, and a pioneer in discriminatory bathroom rules, the NBA All Star game......



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Abysha

No the NFL just attached their name to it.


Nope. If the NFL said nothing and accepted discriminatory policy, they would then be attached to it since it affects their own fans/users/etc.

Think of it like this. If Target decided to stop carrying a product that was found it was made by slave labor, are they attaching their name to that product or are they distancing themselves.

It's obvious to me. They are distancing themselves from something that is harmful.


How many NFL fans/users/etc do you think this actually affects? Do you NFL, bro?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Freija

Of course not. These things aren't driven by logic. It's always through bias and stubbornly sticking to your misunderstandings over accepting that someone is different than you.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Freija

Reminds me of this thread i wrote a while back.


Yes, I remember that one.

What's even more ironic about these laws is they require transgender men to use the women's room. People seem to think predators are going to dress up as women to go in the women's bathroom. Why would they even need to bother?

Just walk into the ladies room dressed and looking like men and claim they're trans guys.

This whole things is really stupid and poorly thought out when you think about it. Obviously, those proposing these laws don't have the capacity to "think about it".


And people have pointed that out.

Now all the pervert needs to do is walk into the room and when he walks out he says he "felt like a lady that day" because gender fluidity works that way and he can sue anyone who questions him. The law is one his side.

You aren't helping yourself with that argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think that the behavior of a pervert versus an actual trans person would be easy to identify to the court.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

This whole things is really stupid and poorly thought out when you think about it. Obviously, those proposing these laws don't have the capacity to "think about it".


No, we think about it plenty. We empathize with the majority of men and women who are not comfortable with an opposite gender in their bathroom.

Transgenders seem to lack the empathy to understand that discomfort. They seem only interested in their own comfort at the expense of others. Yet another reason I say that transgenders really do not understand how the opposite gender feels and are living with a mental delusion.


(post by Bluntone22 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is it? Are you so sure about that?

Not only that, but you're basically saying that we need to allow people to be victimized.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Is it? Are you so sure about that?

I'd hope so, but I can't speak for all juries. Know of any cases off hand where such a thing was mixed up since you are questioning this?


Not only that, but you're basically saying that we need to allow people to be victimized.

Uh... No. I wasn't saying that at all. The point has and always HAS been that if a pervert were going to go into the bathroom, he'd do it anyways. Silly things like laws aren't going to stop them from sticking a camera under the toilet bowl rim or snorkeling in an outhouse. If a pervert walked into the bathroom wearing a dress and started doing inappropriate things like staring or grabbing people, then that is a crime. If a woman goes into a women's bathroom and does the same, that is a crime.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freija
19 states and over 250 municipalities already have anti-discrimination laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals to use the public accommodations consistent with their gender identity. It isn't a problem.

Just to point out the ridiculousness of these laws:

23 states will change gender markers on a birth certificate without requiring sex reassignment surgery. Several states will not change gender markers on birth certificates for any reason whatsoever.

You're still going to have the dreaded penis in the women's bathroom and vaginas in the men's room and be in complete compliance with these discriminatory laws.

Case in point: I was born in a state where it is impossible to get a corrected birth certificate. Because I was born male-bodied, my BC lists me as such but I was never much of a boy and I sure as hell have never been, lived as, worked as or paid taxes a man. Thanks to corrective procedures in my youth, I also have a vagina and have been legally married and divorced as a woman but these "bathroom bills" technically require me to use the men's facilities because of one stupid piece of paper.

That just ain't gonna happen but laws like this unjustly criminalize me for having to pee and I think that is just wrong.


So your regularly stopped when trying to use the bathroom?? Or could this be just a really bad analogy there isn't a bathroom on the planet where if your dressed as a woman they will stop you and ask for your papers. Your choosing to make more of this because you require recognition. Trust me when I say people don't care your transgendered and wouldn't even bother to ask unless you look like a bearded lady than maybe. But solution for that buy a razor.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Fixed it for you..


originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Transgenders seem to lack the empathy to understand that discomfort. They seem only interested in their own comfort safety at the expense of others. Yet another reason I say that transgenders really do not understand how the opposite gender feels and are living with a mental delusion.


Ah, I see the ol' doubleteam is back in business. Good times!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guys really don't have the same attitude a woman walks in a guys bathroom no one freaks out. In fact happens all the time at night clubs and concerts as the women get mad standing in a line while guys just walk in and out.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

So you are saying there is no such thing as a woman pervert then?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The point is that under the new bathroom policies, a man, dressed as a man, can go into the women's bathroom. He may be transgender. And that can give men who want to do other things cover whereas before, such things would be questioned.

And previously, those who were transgender and sincerely transgender did what the rest of us did. No one knew and no one really gave it a thought.

But now we have laws and ordinances that we must not question someone if he says he is "feeling feminine" today. So he can go wherever he likes. This is because there is no clear definition of what actually makes on transgender. In some circles, simply saying you identify as the other gender, without any other outward sign of transition, is enough.

So how do you know? And whom would you question?

That's why I say it means we can't know until someone is actually victimized.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join