One million Americans vow to boycott Target over transgender bathrooms

[RoxyBlue]

*Shrugs* I'm not really sure why this matters... :|

Because it does, if it dont matter then why not make all bathrooms unisex?

[Wyrt]

What if the baker believes fully that homosexuality is a lifestyle and worldview and not a state of being? What if the same baker would refuse services to a polygamous marriage, or refuse to make an adultery cake, or a housewarming cake for an unmarried couple? What if that baker has nothing against Gay people themselves and would happily make them a birthday cake, but just does not want to be a party to celebrating that aspect of their life? Things like this are not black and white, which is why the legal system should be kept out of it. The punishment for not providing a service, is not getting the money.

It's irrelevant what they believe.

You are correct, it is a bakery, owned by religious people. We say "jewish bakery" for ease of conversation, not to imply the bakery is a religious institution. I'm so glad we spent time clearing this up.

If it's not a religious institution then why is it allowed to use religion as a basis for discrimination?

There has never been a case where someone has pretended to be transgender and attacked someone in a bathroom. Ever.

I'm sure there's some obscure case someone can dig up from the bowels of the internet somewhere, but it's certainly not a common thing. Probably a better chance of getting hit with lightning.

[judgementofantonidas]

I dunno, who is right here isn't exactly crystal clear.

On one hand you don't want to discriminate against transgendered people. On the other, you don't want to open up women and children to perverted dudes who will exploit the rule.

There's really no good answer here.

listen. we as a culture have to stop making excuses up for people who want to act out of the ordinary. what is next? special priveledges for people who feel they don't identify with wearing clothes in public? we keep loosening the moral rules on what is found to be acceptable and then something will come along that we really know we should not accept, but our hands are tied because "hey we did it for all the other degenerates".

[Darsithis]

listen. we as a culture have to stop making excuses up for people who want to act out of the ordinary. what is next? special priveledges for people who feel they don't identify with wearing clothes in public? we keep loosening the moral rules on what is found to be acceptable and then something will come along that we really know we should not accept, but our hands are tied because "hey we did it for all the other degenerates".

Someone not wanting to wear clothing can't be compared to gender identity or sexual orientation. One is intrinsic, one is belief. They're not comparable.

[Wyrt]

listen. we as a culture have to stop making excuses up for people who want to act out of the ordinary. what is next? special priveledges for people who feel they don't identify with wearing clothes in public? we keep loosening the moral rules on what is found to be acceptable and then something will come along that we really know we should not accept, but our hands are tied because "hey we did it for all the other degenerates".

If you want a religious government might I suggest moving to a country that has such a government?

[Prokne]

How about this, instead of referring to them as "men's room" and women's room" there's just a sign that says "if you have a penis, go into this room" and on the flip side "if you have a vagina, go into this room". This way, a former man, that is now transgendered and believes they are a woman, but hasn't gotten the sex change done, can go to the men's room to use the bathroom, without fear of being referred to as a man. Would this appease you folks?

That's just calling the same thing by a different name. And it's no one's business to know what genitalia other people have. Besides, how are you going to tell who has a penis and who has a vagina? Especially when the people going into either bathroom can look like either sex with their clothes on.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Accurate church burn. 10th, despite your diligent regurgitation of the Wikipedia page on logical fallacies, you don't seem to have internalized any of them. You're basing your argument on some fabricated hypothetical world in which your female subservients are under some new threat. Again, trans people have been in the bathroom with your wife. Trans men have been in the bathroom with your daughter. Trans people have been in the bathroom with you. It is literally a non issue.

And along with your continued use of those Wikipedia outlined fallacies, you have refused to acknowledge that my complaint is not about the one and a million trans people that might find their way into a bathroom with my wife and daughters, but rather to common perv who would use this rule to his advantage to gain access to a place where they should have some privacy.

You can mis-characterize my argument all you want, but it doesn't mean you've addressed it. It just means you've ignored it.

[Xar226]

This is 1 million people who aren't going to shop at Target in the same way that an MMO champ poll meant 40% of people aren't going to buy Overwatch because of Tracer's booty. Ain't happening. People just like to feel important.

[judgementofantonidas]

I'm confused why this ever became an issue. What's wrong with gender segregated bathrooms? Or just using the bathroom of your biological gender?

Nothing. Nothing at all. But the pro Gay posters are turning it into a shit storm of bigotry claims.

[Eviscero]

I do, but guess what, I wouldn't let Father into the girl's bathroom there either. Now go take your selective hatred elsewhere.

''Selective hatred"? Seriously, holy hypocrite, Batman! The difference is evidence and past experience. Rampant isn't even too strong a word to describe Priest sexual abuse scandals while 'non existent' is an accurate description of pedos pretending to be transgendered to gain access to children.

[Merkava]

I wasn't talking about birth certificates. What I proposed is basically a permit issued by a doctor that allows someone to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity that would be pretty easy to get for someone who is actually transgender but not for pretenders. Of course some people will be questioned when they go to the bathroom (a lot are now), but then they could just show they have a right to be there and no one who thinks there is some law preventing transpeople from using the bathroom can legally bar them from the bathroom or call the cops.

I think I know what you're talking about. You're saying that the law should be changed to allow to people to use the other bathroom if they have a note from a doctor or therapist? Why not just cut out the doctor alltogether?

[Wyrt]

So what law should we pass to stop the common perv now then? I mean bathrooms must be under siege? How will I ever go out in public!

Clearly restricting bathrooms based on birth gender will stop the pervs. They'd never dare break the law.

[Hooked]

Target stock price is down $4.00 in the last 24 hrs. Keep up the pressure and they will cave!.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

If we could only go back to those wonderful morals of the 1950's! Where women were in the kitchen, blacks could not vote and the icky bad gays were treated like outcast. What a great idea!

Umm, I could be splitting hairs here, but I'm pretty sure the 15th amendment preceded the 1950's by about 80 years. You really aught to give Wikipedia more credit. It can save you from these little trip-ups.

[Prokne]

I gotta be honest I've never seen a female in the men's room pretty much ever, is this a regular thing from where you are at? Which country are you from? Same for the opposite too... I will admit, I walked in the women's restroom by accident once at a bar lol, everyone was looking at me and I turned around and left. If females are so comfortable with that type of thing, why did they stare at me? lol.

I get that you think republicans hate gay and transgendered people. Some do, but not all of them, I don't really think it's that kind of issue though. I'm sure for some it is. I personally do feel bad for transgendered people and think that a solution is going to be needed here, whether it's unisex bathrooms, or coming up with a third type of bathroom, I dunno. But for a lot of people this is something that they are accustomed to. Having a member of the opposite sex makes them feel uncomfortable and it feels like a violation of privacy. That doesn't mean these people hate transgendered people though, after all, they don't want *anyone* from the opposite sex in their bathroom, transgendered or not.

I live in the US and I've seen a lot of women go over to the men's room. I've never seen a man in the women's room, but the reaction you got is likely just surprise at something they did not expect. I wouldn't think my privacy is being violated by a man being in the bathroom any more than another woman as long as he keeps to himself, but maybe I'm weird.

[judgementofantonidas]

What if the baker believes fully that homosexuality is a lifestyle and worldview and not a state of being? What if the same baker would refuse services to a polygamous marriage, or refuse to make an adultery cake, or a housewarming cake for an unmarried couple? What if that baker has nothing against Gay people themselves and would happily make them a birthday cake, but just does not want to be a party to celebrating that aspect of their life? Things like this are not black and white, which is why the legal system should be kept out of it. The punishment for not providing a service, is not getting the money.

here here. well put. but be prepared to be shouted down as a bigot on this forum if you say ANYTHING in opposition to these stupid "laws" being passed.

[Eviscero]

And along with your continued use of those Wikipedia outlined fallacies, you have refused to acknowledge that my complaint is not about the one and a million trans people that might find their way into a bathroom with my wife and daughters, but rather to common perv who would use this rule to his advantage to gain access to a place where they should have some privacy.

You can mis-characterize my argument all you want, but it doesn't mean you've addressed it. It just means you've ignored it.

I did address your argument. But let me repeat myself: It's a terrible one because it's based on a hypothetical scenario that you have no evidence will come to pass. Moreover, there is a ton of evidence that it WON'T come to pass, in particular the fact that perverts have always had the option to pretend to be female and use the women's bathroom to abuse kids. It simply does not happen. And there are simple reasons why it doesn't happen. These reasons continue to be true even if we enact laws which say you cant expressly discriminate against people because their biology doesn't make sense to you.

[Lakrin]

Seems to me you can only know what genitals people using the restroom have if you are looking... sounds like harassment to me.

[judgementofantonidas]

Someone not wanting to wear clothing can't be compared to gender identity or sexual orientation. One is intrinsic, one is belief. They're not comparable.

ok. I beleive that wearing clothing in public is not only against how my (put a religion in here) but is unhealthily because it hinders my absorption of vitamin D. Shouldn't I be protected as my saggy old nuts go flapping down the street? I pose no harm to your little children. I promise, they are of no interest to me. I am highly offended that you would compare me to a child molester just because I choose to do my jumping jacks and touch my toe stretches in front of the elementary school.

exaggerated for effect. but it is where things are headed.

- - - Updated - - -

If we could only go back to those wonderful morals of the 1950's! Where women were in the kitchen, blacks could not vote and the icky bad gays were treated like outcast. What a great idea!

funny you should mention it. I should show you my deed. It still has some of those bylaws on it.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

''Selective hatred"? Seriously, holy hypocrite, Batman! The difference is evidence and past experience. Rampant isn't even too strong a word to describe Priest sexual abuse scandals while 'non existent' is an accurate description of pedos pretending to be transgendered to gain access to children.

Priest sexual abuse, while horrible, occurred at no higher rates than any other institutions, such as the boy scouts, boarding schools, protestant churches, etc. that had similar access to children unsupervised from their parents. To be honest, children are not even safe in the home, as the overwhelming amount of sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members and friends. But, yeah, let's just blame Catholics because it's convenient for your worldview. Like I said, I'm as protective of my kids at church as anywhere else. I don't drop them off at Sunday school. I sit right outside the classroom door in the hallway.

As to this scenario the ladies room scenario, it wouldn't have worked well until just very recently. Your arguments are emotional, irrational and hate-filled.