One million Americans vow to boycott Target over transgender bathrooms

[Vurdah]

Chuckle, I don't usually masturbate to C-SPAN but I guess if you're into that it's fine. As to the passing of laws, I've not mentioned it once in this discussion. I was referring to a store policy and my decision not spend my money there.

You see, the difference between me and most of you, is I believe in private property and free markets. Target, being a private enterprise, has the right to do whatever they wish with their bathrooms. I, being a private consumer, have the right to do whatever I wish with my money. I don't need government to validate my personal morality. In fact, I'd prefer they didn't. I don't trust them with that kind of power.

- - - Updated - - -



Agree 100%. Most people are selective in their application of freedom however. They only want it applied to people and ideologies they personally support.

I don't care what you are or are not referring to. We had no prior discussion before you commented on my reply of sarcasm to another post.

And you can spend your money wherever you want. I won't stop you. I really don't care what you do with your money, it's your's.

And cute with the "difference between me and you" bit. You know nothing about me other than I'm a sarcastic asshole at best. I'm all for free markets minus being able to discriminate because someone's fairytale book tells them that others are living wrong.

And who said anything about the government validating their morality?

[Underverse]

That's alright in concept, but I'm talking short-term. We already have millions of bathrooms built for each "gender" (see urinals). You could just slap "Unisex" on both doors but I think that would get an even worse response than the current situation.

Undoubtedly; short term I would agree with you. But we should also begin considering long term solutions.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Not having anti-discrimination laws seems fine until someone is denied medical treatment based on the color of their skin or their religion. Why allow assholes to make life harder for people just because they don't agree with that person's lifestyle, race or religion.

You make a valid point, but these things are always applied subjectively when they are an exercise of government power. We'd never require a Jewish bakery to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding. We'd never require a black-owned catering service to serve at an antebellum-themed birthday party. We sure as hell will force a christian owned bakery to serve a gay wedding though. In the end it is better to let people use their wallets. If you want to punish a business for the worldview of its owners, don't shop there, give your money to someone more deserving. leave the heavy hand of government out of it.

[Eviscero]

I hate to have to break it to you ignorant fucks but transgender individuals have been using the bathroom that matches the gender they identify with forever and everywhere. You know why you didn't notice? Because it's a non fucking issue. Just because it's now been thurst into your tiny worldview and it makes you feel icky, doesn't mean there's some new grand conspiracy to force little girls into a lion's den of sexual deviants. Come up for air for five seconds you absolute waste of DNA.

[Verzen]

Newp, I've spent the entire thread pointing out that it is not bigoted to boycott a business that places my wife and daughters in an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation for a politically correct publicity stunt. You must be thinking of someone else.

Ever hear of Buck Angel? It's a person looks just like a man but was born female. Still has a vagina. You'd be more comfortable if that person used the womans bathroom?

[Wells]

1. Sure.

2. There need not be any rash of anything for me to know that it's bad policy. Is nothing to do with trans people, and everything to do with creating opportunities for people with ill intent to do harm by claiming that they're trans.

If you're going to pass a law forcing something on people you could at least demonstrate a reason grounded in real world events. This law has costs on the quality of life for a population that is already inordinately stressed. You're familiar with transgender suicide rates I'm sure. Yet you can't even point to an actual harm being addressed here.

Law is a serious thing. It should be wielded more judiciously than to appease moral panic. This law has more to do with enforcing phenotype and gender norms than it does protecting women and children.

[Wyrt]

You make a valid point, but these things are always applied subjectively when they are an exercise of government power. We'd never require a Jewish bakery to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding. We'd never require a black-owned catering service to serve at an antebellum-themed birthday party. We sure as hell will force a christian owned bakery to serve a gay wedding though. In the end it is better to let people use their wallets. If you want to punish a business for the worldview of its owners, don't shop there, give your money to someone more deserving. leave the heavy hand of government out of it.

I'm not seeing how that's subjective. You're comparing things people are to things people believe in. They're different.

[vindicatorx]

Most of these people probably don't shop at Target anyway. And the stock isn't dropping because of this 'boycott' - take a look at markets recently.

Yeah I mean the DOW was down 50 points today and Target's stock has been within a dollar for the past 2 years lol. Yet doofuses like the OP are going to try and blow shit out of proportion by claiming it's plummeting.

[Eviscero]

You make a valid point, but these things are always applied subjectively when they are an exercise of government power. We'd never require a Jewish bakery to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding. We'd never require a black-owned catering service to serve at an antebellum-themed birthday party. We sure as hell will force a christian owned bakery to serve a gay wedding though. In the end it is better to let people use their wallets. If you want to punish a business for the worldview of its owners, don't shop there, give your money to someone more deserving. leave the heavy hand of government out of it.

You really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a homosexual?

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm having a pretty good laugh at how half ass your efforts are if avoiding a store that doesn't actively discriminate against .3% of the US population is how you do it. I assume if you had a son though you'd have no problem with him using the men's room?

I'm frankly baffled though that people can be all like "man this public bathroom was so not awkward before Danny-now-Danielle walked in".

Reading comprehension isn't really your thing is it?

[Zergin8r]

1 million sounds like alot... but thats like .3% of the US population so I don't think Target cares much.

[Vurdah]

You are right, I would definitely draw a line at anything that requires medical attention.

Situations like this are the only reason I would support anti discrimination laws. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake because the don't agree with your lifestyle fuck it. Yeah they are being bigoted fucks and that sucks but I'm sure there are other places that would love to bake a cake for you. I't just not having the laws in place makes it possible and easy to discriminate on things that actually matter as I listed.

Personally I would make a wedding cake for a gay couple even if I didn't agree with their lifestyle. I mean have you priced a wedding cake? Just leaving money on the table if you ask me.

[Wells]

Reading comprehension isn't really your thing is it?

Generally if you have a more useful thing to say decorum would dictate that you write that instead.

[Underverse]

You make a valid point, but these things are always applied subjectively when they are an exercise of government power. We'd never require a Jewish bakery to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding. We'd never require a black-owned catering service to serve at an antebellum-themed birthday party. We sure as hell will force a christian owned bakery to serve a gay wedding though. In the end it is better to let people use their wallets. If you want to punish a business for the worldview of its owners, don't shop there, give your money to someone more deserving. leave the heavy hand of government out of it.

One of those things is not like the others. The idea is to enforce prevention of discrimination. Forcing Jewish bakeries to make Nazi-themed cakes does not align with this goal and as such would not be considered as part of a law requiring individuals not to engage in unfounded discriminatory practices. Moreover, national socialism and slavery represent ideologies founded on the intense discrimination and harm of others; homosexual behavior does not.

[Merkava]

If you're going to pass a law forcing something on people you could at least demonstrate a reason grounded in real world events. This law has costs on the quality of life for a population that is already inordinately stressed. You're familiar with transgender suicide rates I'm sure. Yet you can't even point to an actual harm being addressed here.

Law is a serious thing. It should be wielded more judiciously than to appease moral panic. This law has more to do with enforcing phenotype and gender norms than it does protecting women and children.

I'm sorry they're stressed. They can advocate for relaxed requirements regarding the laws in their state on getting the gender on their ID changed.

Here's the harm. http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/...12cd8f99a.html

There's more if you'd like.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

You really don't see the difference between a Nazi and a homosexual?

Either you are making a terrible strawman argument, or missed my point entirely. Sigh, for the sake of civility let's assume the latter. I'm not drawing moral equivalence between Nazis and homosexuals. I'm saying that in a free society, we must allow individuals to exercise their conscience regardless of weather or not that worldview is in vogue with the body politic. If we don't than we are not living under the rule-of-law, but rather the rule of the mob.

[Dsonsion]

Oh, come on. Public bathrooms are made to do the things one would rather do alone. None of that will change for people who don't like transgenders if a transgendered human being goes into the same time as them.
I just can't wrap my head around this silliness. This must be a joke, it has to be.

[Underverse]

Either you are making a terrible strawman argument, or missed my point entirely. Sigh, for the sake of civility let's assume the latter. I'm not drawing moral equivalence between Nazis and homosexuals. I'm saying that in a free society, we must allow individuals to exercise their conscience regardless of weather or not that worldview is in vogue with the body politic. If we don't than we are not living under the rule-of-law, but rather the rule of the mob.

You've got it backwards. Allowing the market to decide is the definition of rule-of-mob.

[Vurdah]

You make a valid point, but these things are always applied subjectively when they are an exercise of government power. We'd never require a Jewish bakery to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding. We'd never require a black-owned catering service to serve at an antebellum-themed birthday party. We sure as hell will force a christian owned bakery to serve a gay wedding though. In the end it is better to let people use their wallets. If you want to punish a business for the worldview of its owners, don't shop there, give your money to someone more deserving. leave the heavy hand of government out of it.

Big difference between having a jewish baker make a cake for someone who supports and agrees with a genocidal culture or asking black people to relive nightmarish time from their history and someone not agreeing with a lifestyle choice.

You're comparing genocide and slavery to to a disagreement in religion/lifestyle choice.

[unfilteredJW]

I share a bathroom with women at my work place.

They are super scared. /s