Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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.
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
Does every business need to check every business decision they make with every customer they have?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.
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.
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.
I never called you a right wing bigot. Interesting how people read into things which are simply not there.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.
We have men's rooms, women's rooms and family restrooms. Why not just add transgender rooms. It would afford everyone what they want.
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.The risk became that any man, perhaps a sex offender, could enter a woman's restroom simply by calling himself transgender.
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.I would not want my daughter or wife in a restroom with a so-called "transgender" man who identifies as a woman, kthx.
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?
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.
No. I'd say that's an egocentric's game in action and attempting to persuade a woman toward sex.lol. That's asking for consent?
As is right due to the teachings in God's word. Beware anyone who attempts to teach otherwise. That's in the word too.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.
When that man still has his male anatomy, no he is not a woman.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.
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.
Why are they bigots for insisting people use the right restroom?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?