Can someone please Explain why this is not a breach of American Law?

[Llewelyn]

Do you still view them as the same thing?

Yes, I do. They are both discriminatory no matter the terminology you use.

 

[Gene2memE]

Which section of the population is Paypal discriminating against?

 

[Llewelyn]

It is opposing state endorsed exclusionary behaviour, which is a form of bullying.

That is double talk to me. We live in a society, behaviour has to be regulated. Let me share a discussion with my humanist friend Ros.

Ros proposed to me, "There should be no morals. If it is happening between two consenting adults it should be okay."

I asked, "But what if one is not consenting?"

She replied, "Then it doesn't happen."

So I asked her, "Have you ever known a rapist to ask for consent?" [the suggestion is ludicrous, I know. And don't tell me there would be no rapists if there were no morals because that is just a lie.]

Then I proposed to her, "Let's just say that I have a consenting relationship with someone and become infected with aids. I then go home to my wife who also consents and I pass the aids on to her. Have I done right by my wife, or wrong? Did she deserve to get aids?"

"Well, no, she didn't deserve it, but there's no right or wrong. Its just a terrible accident."

"An accident that could have been avoided if I had lived up to a moral standard. That makes it wrong. Do you think my wife is going to feel any better if I tell her it was just a terrible accident? Of course not. She's going to hate me and the person who gave it to me."

When you live on your own you only have to please yourself but as soon as you add one other person the values of society must take over from personal pleasure. The state did not endorse exclusionary behaviour, it endorsed protective measures. There is a huge difference. If the state had said that a people group was excluded from living in that state that would be exclusionary behaviour.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/05/technology/paypal-north-carolina-lgbt/

Firstly as the article states, Paypal has long been known to be a supporter of LGBTQ rights, so they don't need to pretend to be doing that.

Secondly, they announced their plans to open the premises weeks before the bill was signed.

It took me about 10 seconds to find this article. Just sayin'.

I was just sayin' also. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Llewelyn]

The title you posted implies that this is, or should be illegal, and you ask others to explain why it is not.

That sounds like you disagree.

Do you agree or disagree that is should be ollegal?

You have changed the original accusation which called me a "right wing bigot", which suggests that I only proposed the question because I am against lgbti [I think that's the abbreviation].

bigot a person who is intolerantly convinced of the rightness of a creed, opinion, practise, etc.

This seems better fitted to Paypal than it does to me. I'm not the one expressing intolerance. I am asking, why am I being used to express such intolerance?

I have neither expressed a view that is for or against unisex toilets, which have existed in some countries for a very long time btw. I recall my mother returning from Sth Korea in the late 1970s disgusted at the thought of having to use such a toilet at the airport. As I recall there were no booths provided either, it was just a series of "holes in the floor". She was certainly not accustomed to that.

Do I think it should be legal for Paypal to be so intolerant? No, I don't.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So I asked her, "Have you ever known a rapist to ask for consent?" [the suggestion is ludicrous, I know. And don't tell me there would be no rapists if there were no morals because that is just a lie.]

You'd be surprised at how often that happens: C'mon Baby... you know you want me....

"An accident that could have been avoided if I had lived up to a moral standard."

Which moral standard? Sex is bad? Unmarried sex is bad? Don't cheat on your wife?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I recall my mother returning from Sth Korea in the late 1970s disgusted at the thought of having to use such a toilet at the airport. As I recall there were no booths provided either, it was just a series of "holes in the floor". She was certainly not accustomed to that.

Same thing in China....holes in the floor no stalls.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I have neither expressed a view that is for or against unisex toilets, which have existed in some countries for a very long time btw.

You probably oughtta get around to that, and explicitly. This is a discussion board. Express your view. Doing otherwise is akin to trolling.

 

[PsychoeDial]

I was just sayin' also. Thanks for noticing.

Valid observation too. One that isn't dismissed by the CNN Money article that actually rehashes what was in the OP.

It's like Bruce Springsteen and Brian Adams canceling concerts due to their opposition to this measure.
It's a publicity stunt. Springsteen and Adam's both gave concerts in Egypt where Islamic law allows for beheading of Muslim women who were raped!
If they're all for human rights they should have canceled those concerts so as to show opposition to Islamic misogyny and murder of women and others.

Ticket sales now will likely be up in American venues because Springsteen and Adams canceled their NC concerts, while their fans won't see the hypocrisy in their protest argument.

PayPal claims to be a supporter of human rights but they're not supporting Christians and others opposed to this law's implementation and their rights to privacy.
If PayPal wanted to really show their opposition to the NC law they'd refuse to do any business in NC.

There's those that say it is wrong to conflate homosexuality and trangenderism as one and the same and yet that's what PayPal is doing when they make their argument against this NC bathroom bill.

I agree that all this can be a publicity stunt by these companies and all for the bottom line that arises when LGBTQ supporters patronize PayPal and the other companies that stand in protest. They're protesting NC on behalf of Transgender rights, and they're in opposition to the majority of others rights in the process.

 

[civilwarbuff]

From an earlier post.....

The PayPal European headquarters are located inLuxembourg and the international headquarters are in Singapore. Wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Singapore

Bit of a double standard here?

 

[Llewelyn]

You'd be surprised at how often that happens: C'mon Baby... you know you want me....

lol. That's asking for consent?

Which moral standard? Sex is bad? Unmarried sex is bad? Don't cheat on your wife?

Why does it matter? You choose. The most applicable to the example would perhaps be don't cheat on your wife. Today I hold to that. I think the Christian view is sex outside of marriage is sin. I hold to that.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Ok...let's flip it around and see what you all think.

I own a business and i'm thinking of relocating to say...Colorado. However, since Colorado has a certain law I don't like (legal weed), I refuse to relocate my business there. Is that legal?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

lol. That's asking for consent?

In the mind of a rapist, yeah, probably. I see that you and I are of one accord on that, at least.

Why does it matter? You choose. The most applicable to the example would perhaps be don't cheat on your wife. Today I hold to that. I think the Christian view is sex outside of marriage is sin. I hold to that.

I don't. Sex is fun! But not fun enough that it excuses betrayal.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Ok...let's flip it around and see what you all think.

I own a business and i'm thinking of relocating to say...Colorado. However, since Colorado has a certain law I don't like (legal weed), I refuse to relocate my business there. Is that legal?

Abso-freakin'-lutely.

And many have.

 

[Gene2memE]

That is double talk to me.

Opposing exclusionary behaviour is not double talk. Ostracism and exclusion are quintessential bullying techniques, that are shown to have greater long term harm effects than physical violence. By requiring trans-gender individuals to use public restrooms based on the sex they were born with, rather that the sex they identify with, the state is opening them up to bullying.

Trans-gender individuals already have a difficult time living in a culture that primarily operates on a binary gender scale. The actions of states like North Carolina only serve to magnify the difficulyt that trans-gender individuals have to go through.

We live in a society, behaviour has to be regulated.

Wild hypotheticals aside, why does behaviour have to be regulated? Who decides what behaviours are acceptable and those that are not? Who gets to regulate behaviour? How would you enforce it?

"Society" is not a monolithic whole. It is made up of groups, which are made up of smaller and smaller group. What I find perfectly acceptable behaviour, others may find offense at. What I find offensive behaviour, others may be fine with.

That why the US constitution (I'll assume you're American, despite the Welsh user name) and similar document enshrine rights and principles, rather than attempting to regulate behaviour. Similarly, courts adjudicate on whether behaviours violate those rights and principles, as expressed through the law.

 

[Llewelyn]

You probably oughtta get around to that, and explicitly. This is a discussion board. Express your view. Doing otherwise is akin to trolling.

I really don't see why I would need to and how it could be viewed as trolling as it is not the issue of the post. The issue of the post is why is Paypal allowed to make such a statement? And subsequently, Why are they using me to make such a statement?

However, since this bothers some of you, I see the practical sense in the ruling, but I have also used unisex toilets when none other are available [actually I must say I haven't looked to see if any others are available, when you got to go, you go]. Fortunately in Australia we have "booths" or "stalls" that are an advantage to privacy but a disadvantage if you're being molested because no one else can see. Do I prefer separate gender? Certainly. I am concerned about the attitudes of people who are likely to force their will on the disadvantaged.

I am certainly one who believes in and recognises the physical male/female gender and believe that science that promotes anything else is idolatry. You may disagree but that is not my concern. I believe that sex outside the concept of marriage and between husband [being male] and wife [being female] is sin. I hold to the Bible view - excluding some modern translations that have altered the Scriptures.

I must reiterate that this had nothing to do with my original post. My original post was, why is it legal for Paypal to withdraw business on the basis that it disagreed with a law to do with gender and toilet use, and why do they think its right to drag me, as a longstanding customer into this? It had nothing to do with my personal like or dislike of how we use the bathroom.

Since I do not believe a boy is a girl just because she thinks she is, I would not propose giving permission to such a deluded child. That is my opinion. You may disagree if you like.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Since I do not believe a boy is a girl just because she thinks she is

And now we can start a real discussion.

Men and women have different brains, right? Dudes are like this, chicks are like that. I think that science has shown this to be true--men are better at some things, women at others.

Now suppose that a man was born with a female brain--a brain (or, at least, some section of it) that told him that he is a female.

What then?

 

[Llewelyn]

Wild hypotheticals aside, why does behaviour have to be regulated? Who decides what behaviours are acceptable and those that are not? Who gets to regulate behaviour? How would you enforce it?

"Society" is not a monolithic whole. It is made up of groups, which are made up of smaller and smaller group. What I find perfectly acceptable behaviour, others may find offense at. What I find offensive behaviour, others may be fine with.

Behaviour has to be regulated where it adversely affects others. I do not propose regulation just to force everyone into a mould. I am not suggesting a monolithic whole. There is offensive behaviour that is subjective: that is to likes and dislikes; and there is offensive behaviour that is objective: that is directly impedes and harms others.

If your offensive behaviour is to go around stabbing everyone, you're going to have to be stopped. I think that's plain enough.

That why the US constitution (I'll assume you're American, despite the Welsh user name) and similar document enshrine rights and principles, rather than attempting to regulate behaviour. Similarly, courts adjudicate on whether behaviours violate those rights and principles, as expressed through the law.

No, I am not American, nor Welsh, I was born in Southern Africa. The trouble with rights and principles becomes this: who's right and principle do you defend? The defense must be made on how the behaviour condusive to those rights and principles affects other's rights and principles. Behaviour has to be regulated for the benefit of all.

 

[Llewelyn]

And now we can start a real discussion.

Men and women have different brains, right? Dudes are like this, chicks are like that. I think that science has shown this to be true--men are better at some things, women at others.

Now suppose that a man was born with a female brain--a brain (or, at least, some section of it) that told him that he is a female.

What then?

You need to start a new post.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You need to start a new post.

Yeah, that probably is off topic.