Destino Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 We can talk about the actual law that is being challenged - the one that says transsexuals are free to take a piss in the bathroom of their choosing. Or, we can go into some endless, ill-informed debate about the separation of church and state (or whatever freaking direction Alexey inevitably takes any thread about religion). Ok. What is the standard for a male to be legally considered a woman and thereby gain access to spaces reserved for women? Who even gets to have this conversation at the policy level? I think this is an important question because of the threat men can pose to women. Men are less concerned typically with women gaining access to their areas unless we are taking about Freemasons or snooty golf courses. Bathrooms are a stepping stone to the acceptance of transsexuals in all areas reserved for specific genders. I have no problem with this at face value but I think there have to be standards or at least an honest dialogue about what we're getting into. Women have fought long and hard for some of the access to facilities they currently enjoy and can think of such areas as safe spaces, to a degree. Safe from men, which unfortunately can be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 This should be pretty simple. If you have a penis, you use the penis bathroom, if you have a vagina, you use the vagina bathroom. Gender Identity problem solved. Bathrooms/showers are about what equipment you possess, not about gender. If I had a daughter, I know I would not be comfortable with a male showering in the same locker room and useing the same bathroom as her, just because he identified himself as a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Just go to church and record the sermon. My Pastor record his sermons on podcast, available to the public. This is just a gender whatever mayor trying to flex his/her muscle. (Illegal) I have a feeling this is going to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 or we can talk about the Mayor's attempted Inquisition of the opposition.....let me guess which ya prefer Sorry, I had to do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I've finally gotten my brain around this. Hooray. 1. Parker is saying that they will re-do the subpoenas, which is not surprising. 2. City Attorney is saying that he never reviewed the subpoeanas - which people are going to claim is spin but is something I find to be 100 percent credible. (This is also what I said probably happened and - once again - it's exhausting being right about everything all the time). It also didn't come from his office. They seem to have local counsel working the case. 3. Here is the subpoena: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf They probably should have just gone with Item 4: "All communications with members of your congregation regarding HERO or the Petition." But the tendency in these things is to ramble. Anyway, the lawsuit is built around the signatures on a ballot petition. What the City seems to be seeking is the knowledge of the requirements and the strategies used in getting the signatures. Communication between the pastor and his congregation is a perfectly legitimate request in that circumstance. The language was certainly too broad. Anyone who reads this and sees the Lesbian Mayor trying to shut down churches probably shares an email account with his or her spouse and sends a lot of "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: Secret Muslim Obama...." emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 issued under the authority of the city supported by both the city attorney and mayor publicly TILL the **** hit the fan....then it is Sgt Schultz act typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Texas AG calling on the city attorney to withdrawal subpoena's. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/fort_bend/news/ag-abbott-asks-houston-city-attorney-to-withdraw-subpoenas-seeking/article_5db4f998-9c7b-5197-90d5-f019fdcbf88b.html This should be pretty simple. If you have a penis, you use the penis bathroom, if you have a vagina, you use the vagina bathroom. Gender Identity problem solved. Bathrooms/showers are about what equipment you possess, not about gender. If I had a daughter, I know I would not be comfortable with a male showering in the same locker room and useing the same bathroom as her, just because he identified himself as a woman. Gender is one of those things that, if its divorced from biology, becomes something purely subjective. So, when a male who thinks he's a female wants to use the ladies room and is challenged, he can complain because "I dress and act like a woman", but my answer is then "what is a woman? What is feminine?" Its so subjective at that point, its useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Houston withdrawing the subpoenas. "The goal of the subpoenas is to defend against the lawsuit and not to provoke a public debate," Parker said. She is ordering the subpoenas removed for the sake of Houston, not because the request were in any way illegal or intended to intrude on religious liberties, Parker said. "I didn't do this to satisfy them," Parker said of critics. "I did it because it was not serving Houston." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 defend against the lawsuit my ass let a little sunshine in mayor and there would be no lawsuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Kinda amusing, throwing the "let a little sunshine in" line at the one who isn't trying to hide something that they said, if you'll pardon the expression, in front of God and everybody. Although also admiring the Mayor's "I'm not admitting I did anything wrong. I'm just changing my mind.", too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 the lawsuit in question is from the city petition signature counting methodology.....kinda odd they need sermons to defend petition signature counting. or are they claiming the sermons made them cheating liars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Although also admiring the Mayor's "I'm not admitting I did anything wrong. I'm just changing my mind.", too. It really is a beauty. Gender is one of those things that, if its divorced from biology, becomes something purely subjective. So, when a male who thinks he's a female wants to use the ladies room and is challenged, he can complain because "I dress and act like a woman", but my answer is then "what is a woman? What is feminine?" Its so subjective at that point, its useless. You know this is actually a pretty interesting point to think about. If gender is entirely cut off from biology and gender roles are all just harmful social constructs, then how do we define male and female? Should we just abandon the notion entirely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 1. It amazes me so many people have a problem with this legislation. It isn't at all clear to me what the objection is about. 2. I thought we had separation of church and state. Don't we? I always found tax exempt organizations with political agendas a little distasteful. 3. In fairness, it seems there are some due process and free speech issues here. 4. The Christianity as victim meme is tiresome. Christians have been running the world for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 1. It amazes me so many people have a problem with this legislation. It isn't at all clear to me what the objection is about. 2. I thought we had separation of church and state. Don't we? I always found tax exempt organizations with political agendas a little distasteful. 3. In fairness, it seems there are some due process and free speech issues here. 4. The Christianity as victim meme is tiresome. Christians have been running the world for centuries. 1 I blame women, men are usually alright with women in the bathrooms 2 separate would include the govt leaving them alone, I do agree though the Social Justice crowd always irritates me and politicians in church really rubs me the wrong way 3 certainly seems a abuse of govt power 4 they certainly seem the victim/injured party in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 1 I blame women, men are usually alright with women in the bathrooms 2 separate would include the govt leaving them alone, I do agree though the Social Justice crowd always irritates me and politicians in church really rubs me the wrong way 3 certainly seems a abuse of govt power 4 they certainly seem the victim/injured party in this case 1. This seems an appeal to intuition, but the reasoning remains unclear to me. 2. Fair enough on the politicians in church. I'm not sure how social justice is connected exactly. 3. Agreed. 4. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf for me at this point. Christians seem to me more the persecutors than the persecuted, but they seem to always feel like they are under attack, when usually they're not. It's odd to see a majority group acting like an oppressed minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 2. I thought we had separation of church and state. Don't we? I always found tax exempt organizations with political agendas a little distasteful. Literally every non-profit/tax exempt organization has a political agenda. As do most businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Literally every non-profit/tax exempt organization has a political agenda. As do most businesses.regular nin-profits have to file a tax return disclosing everything and they have to justify their tax free status. Churches do not have to do that. Give up priviledges or at least play by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Literally every non-profit/tax exempt organization has a political agenda. As do most businesses. Is there some kind of prize for most bombastic overstatement in Tailgate given out at the end of the year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Is there some kind of prize for most bombastic overstatement in Tailgate given out at the end of the year? I liked it, sounds pretty spot on...I think we need less non-profits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.