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

[Cearbhall]

Paypal are refusing to do business with the State of North Carolina on the basis of sexuality. The precedent has already been set in court of law. Why is Paypal not being called to account? Business should keep its nose out of such politics.

Lol what? How is that on the basis of sexuality? It's in response to a law. You want the government to be able to force a private company to do business in a certain state? They can have whatever political views they want.

 

[Maren]

You need to start a new post.

Yeah, that probably is off topic.

And any such topic is against Christian Forums rules. "Transsexualism and transgenderism may only be discussed, without promotion*, in the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with personal struggles related to these issues. Members may not promote* transsexualism or transgenderism in their profiles."

It wouldn't surprise me to see this thread shut down soon.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

And any such topic is against Christian Forums rules. "Transsexualism and transgenderism may only be discussed, without promotion*, in the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with personal struggles related to these issues. Members may not promote* transsexualism or transgenderism in their profiles."

It wouldn't surprise me to see this thread shut down soon.

Not really. We can talk about the biology and psychiatry all day long.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Meanwhile, in Tennessee....

Tennessee GOP leader threatens tax hike on companies that oppose anti-trans bathroom bill

19 Apr 2016 at 14:55 ET - Tennessee House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick (R) on Tuesday threatened to financially punish companies which opposed a bathroom bill aimed at transgender people by stripping their tax breaks.

“All these companies who tried to blackmail us over this thing, when they come for their corporate welfare checks [economic incentives] next year, we need to have a list out and keep an eye on it,” the majority leader added.

- Source

That, on the other hand, would be a breach of American law.

 

[Arcangl86]

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.

Does every business need to check every business decision they make with every customer they have?

 

[Gene2memE]

Behaviour has to be regulated where it adversely affects others.

This is where the concept of rights fits in. We establish a basic set of rights based on universal principles (fairness, equal treatment under the law, transparency, accountability, ect, ect) and we use these principles to determine whether the rights of an individual or group have been violated by certain behaviour or actions.

There is a phrase "your right to swing a fist ends at my nose". Generally speaking, under the principle of fair, indivisible, universal rights, you are free to do as you like, until and unless what you are doing violates the rights of another. When rights cross over and interfere/interface with each other, then it goes to the courts, the judiciary or legislators to sort out the answer.

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.

The principle comes first, then the rights, then the behaviour. You don't need to regulate a series of specific behaviours like 'don't stab people with knives', 'don't hit people with cricket bats', 'don't punch random strangers when drunk', when you have a basic right to health and a basic right to safety already enshrined in law.

Giving and taking offense is subjective. I find female genital mutilation deeply offensive. However, others do not, and practice it as part of their religious/cultural heritage.

How then are we to resolve the incongruity? If we apply a basic human right, like the right to health, then we could determine whether this behaviour is in violation of the rights of others. Next we need to decide whether application of that right is sufficient to overcome the beliefs of the people that practice this behaviour. This is again where the judiciary and legislators step in - universal application of human rights is one of the basic principles of governance.

So if you establish rights founded on basic principles, you don't need to regulate behaviour.

The trouble with rights and principles becomes this: who's right and principle do you defend?

Everyone's rights are defended, as rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible across the society.

Principles are not defended, as they are not applicable to individuals. Principles are the foundations that rights are built on.

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.

Regulating behaviour is one very short step away from an absolute dictatorship. Forcing modes of behaviour on people in the named of the "benefit of all" is eerily similar to the kind of thinking in 1984.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Your rights end where mine begin. You have the RIGHT to believe that no woman should hold a job. You DO NOT have the right to demand that all women quit their jobs. I have the right to believe that Ford Mustangs are the ONLY real muscle car. I do not have the right to demand that no Camaros or Challengers ever be sold.

North Carolina can demand transgender people to use the bathroom for the gender they were born with, and I can then refuse to do business, travel or spend money in that state. Its a shame...the OBX are beautiful. I grew up near there. I stay away from Arizona, specifically Maricopa County because of the racial profiling...Maricopa County cannot demand that I go there and spend money. Neither can North Carolina. The performers who have cancelled shows in North Carolina are within THEIR rights to refuse to play shows there as doing so would violate THEIR personal beliefs. See...it works both ways. Bryan Adams, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam have cancelled shows in NC because to play shows there, they feel, would indicate agreement with the current, discriminatory laws.

 

[JustOneWay]

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.

I never called you a right wing bigot. Interesting how people read into things which are simply not there.

 

[Xalith]

We have men's rooms, women's rooms and family restrooms. Why not just add transgender rooms. It would afford everyone what they want.

Yeah, sure, let's spend thousands of dollars adding new facilities to shopping malls, etc just so people who had optional surgeries can freak out normal people.

I would not want my daughter or wife in a restroom with a so-called "transgender" man who identifies as a woman, kthx.

Anybody who thinks that is a good idea needs a reality check.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I think we should all remember that Paypal is a public company, and so this gesture isn't some brave moral act, it isn't some great stance against what they perceive as bigotry.

This is a shrewd calculated move to maximise shareholder wealth, through both increasing public exposure, name recognition and reputation.

 

[com7fy8]

The risk became that any man, perhaps a sex offender, could enter a woman's restroom simply by calling himself transgender.

I didn't think of this. But I have thought of how things could go if a man imitating a woman were to be discovered in a men's room. It could get violent; or it can get confusing if a guy tries to pick him up. There are men who imitate women enough so I have needed to check for an Adam's apple in order to make sure if they were men. So, if imitators of females have to appear in men's rooms . . . this can go different ways.

I think I have seen male imitators who did look like men. So, if you ban such male imitators from men's rooms, it could look like there are men in ladies' rooms.

I would not want my daughter or wife in a restroom with a so-called "transgender" man who identifies as a woman, kthx.

Understood > but if females imitating males must use the ladies' rooms, then your wife or daughter will be with a woman who looks like a man and who could be sexually interested in your wife or daughter. But if a female imitator is in with your wife or daughter, he is not interested in them; and it is possible his imitation will be enough so they won't know the difference.

So, I think there is no right way to handle a wrong thing, except plan your intake so you will be at the right place when you need a bathroom.

 

[John Davidson]

I've said it before & I'll say it again: these right-wingers will not be satisfied until "bigot" is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act & the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Why are they bigots for insisting people use the right restroom?

 

[JustOneWay]

Why are they bigots for insisting people use the right restroom?

Apparently you miss the entire debate. A man who transgenders into a woman is a woman, not a man. That woman should be allowed to use a woman's restroom....the right one, as you put it.

 

[John Davidson]

Apparently you miss the entire debate. A man who transgenders into a woman is a woman, not a man. That woman should be allowed to use a woman's restroom....the right one, as you put it.

The article said that they would be required to use the restroom that they biologically identify with. So if a man still has a penis then he is indeed a man and should use the men's room.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

lol. That's asking for consent?

No. I'd say that's an egocentric's game in action and attempting to persuade a woman toward sex.

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.

As is right due to the teachings in God's word. Beware anyone who attempts to teach otherwise. That's in the word too.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

Apparently you miss the entire debate. A man who transgenders into a woman is a woman, not a man. That woman should be allowed to use a woman's restroom....the right one, as you put it.

When that man still has his male anatomy, no he is not a woman.

 

[Cute Tink]

I didn't think of this. But I have thought of how things could go if a man imitating a woman were to be discovered in a men's room. It could get violent; or it can get confusing if a guy tries to pick him up. There are men who imitate women enough so I have needed to check for an Adam's apple in order to make sure if they were men. So, if imitators of females have to appear in men's rooms . . . this can go different ways.

I think I have seen male imitators who did look like men. So, if you ban such male imitators from men's rooms, it could look like there are men in ladies' rooms.
Understood > but if females imitating males must use the ladies' rooms, then your wife or daughter will be with a woman who looks like a man and who could be sexually interested in your wife or daughter. But if a female imitator is in with your wife or daughter, he is not interested in them; and it is possible his imitation will be enough so they won't know the difference.

So, I think there is no right way to handle a wrong thing, except plan your intake so you will be at the right place when you need a bathroom.

Trans people aren't in the bathroom to pick up on people and men aren't "pretending to be trans" to get into the women's bathroom.

You don't know the sexual orientation of a trans person just by looking at them. Trans people can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc., just like the rest of the population.

Calling trans people "imitators" is just an insult. I'd suggest you refrain from it in the future if you don't want to be reported.

 

[Cute Tink]

Why are they bigots for insisting people use the right restroom?

You mean this person in the men's restroom:

and this person in the women's restroom:

Yeah that won't cause confusion with them being in the "right" bathroom.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

I'd think threatening a member is a reportable offense in itself. You have no right to tell someone how to speak here when they're not directly insulting any member the way you are.

 

[Cute Tink]

I'd think threatening a member is a reportable offense in itself. You have no right to tell someone how to speak here when they're not directly insulting any member the way you are.

Giving a heads up to someone that how they are speaking is insulting is insulting and threatening?