Woman in Woman's Restroom in Tucson Walmart confronted by sheriff's deputies; One deputy insisted she “looked like a man”

[Hazelelponi]

These are not physical threat

Im not doing this. I'm completely out this thread.

People can threaten other people on discussion forums - or "not physical threats" that are just physically against me - whatever. I'm not sitting for it.

Someone needs a break.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

because I noted that people have freedom of both speech and association in this country your talking about physical threats of job loss, being thrown out of restaurants, or other public places

Just as you have freedom of speech and association, so do others.

The 1st Amendment only protects you from retaliation by the government for your speech or who you choose to associate with. Businesses and individuals are absolutely allowed to impose consequences for speech. They can't assault you (i.e. physically throw you out of a restaurant), but they can tell you to leave and call the police if you don't. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Now, in such a case you could argue that you're being discriminated against due to your religious beliefs, which are protected to an extent, but I think you'd have an uphill battle trying to make a case that your religious beliefs are required to be verbalized in public.

 

[RileyG]

Who is "they" and who is "us"? In what fashion are they not leaving you alone? Because unless I miss my guess, you are talking about people who are pushing for what they believe to be equality and the only way it is impacting you is you being informed of it by whatever news source you consume.

Equality for what? From my point of view, they’re not really the opposite gender anyway, but have every right to play pretend.

I’m more concerned about the rights of women or girls.

Peace

 

[RileyG]

Separate but equal, is that right?

Not comparable to the rights of African Americans. Period.

 

[RileyG]

^^^ this sounds threatening and it's definitely a personal attack against me - because I noted that people have freedom of both speech and association in this country your talking about physical threats of job loss, being thrown out of restaurants, or other public places.

That's like the weirdest response ever to making note in writing what people's constitutionally protected rights are during a discussion about legal issues in our nation.

I am done conversing with you. This is not a rational response to a notation about the law.

Peace. I will speak to you about God sometime, but clearly now is not the time.

Indeed. It was poisoning the well.

No one is being a bigot or hateful because they’re not comfortable with the trans agenda or men in women’s restrooms.

 

[RileyG]

Don't forget, she pursued Clinton after he tried to break it off.

Ok? He had much power….

 

[RileyG]

I must of missed this right to only have certain people in a restroom. Where is this right spelled out?

Yes. Men in men, women in women.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Looks like a man ..

 

[RileyG]

Just as you have freedom of speech and association, so do others.

The 1st Amendment only protects you from retaliation by the government for your speech or who you choose to associate with. Businesses and individuals are absolutely allowed to impose consequences for speech. They can't assault you (i.e. physically throw you out of a restaurant), but they can tell you to leave and call the police if you don't. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Now, in such a case you could argue that you're being discriminated against due to your religious beliefs, which are protected to an extent, but I think you'd have an uphill battle trying to make a case that your religious beliefs are required to be verbalized in public.

Who said anything about religion?

 

[stevil]

These are not physical threats. Being thrown out is more like 'being asked to leave'. Not a burly bouncer.

Also, I take the 'you' to be a generalized statement, not you personally. If one says such things loudly in public, one can expect some unpleasant consequences.

Plus I'm not this person's boss or Gym owner or restaurant owner. I'm just pointing out that people in those positions are well within their first amendment rights to remove such bigoted and disruptive people from their premisis. And in actual fact those people may feel somewhat obligated to do so to protect their other employees and customers from being in an environment of caustic people.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Just as you have freedom of speech and association, so do others.

The 1st Amendment only protects you from retaliation by the government for your speech or who you choose to associate with. Businesses and individuals are absolutely allowed to impose consequences for speech. They can't assault you (i.e. physically throw you out of a restaurant), but they can tell you to leave and call the police if you don't. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Now, in such a case you could argue that you're being discriminated against due to your religious beliefs, which are protected to an extent, but I think you'd have an uphill battle trying to make a case that your religious beliefs are required to be verbalized in public.

Well, since I have like, NEVER verbalized anything in public, never protested, never went to a rally, I have little doubt I'd have very much of a case because there's no case against me, and truly never will be.

However, on public forums when we are in a discussion about stuff going on in the public sphere I expect others to follow the rules of decorum I prefer.

If the forum doesn't want to provide a good environment I am free to find a nicer place.

The poster pointed to two issues in the post I responded to, both issues did fall under the first amendment legally, so I pointed it out.

Pointing that out should not have caused what it caused.

 

[RileyG]

Plus I'm not this person's boss or Gym owner or restaurant owner. I'm just pointing out that people in those positions are well within their first amendment rights to remove such bigoted and disruptive people from their premisis. And in actual fact those people may feel somewhat obligated to do so to protect their other employees and customers from being in an environment of caustic people.

Using the same logic, a person would have a right to tell a trans person they cannot use the bathroom or locker room of their choice if they think it’s disrespectful or wrong.

It’s two way street, sir.

 

[RileyG]

Well, since I have like, NEVER verbalized anything in public, never protested, never went to a rally, I have little doubt I'd have very much of a case because there's no case against me, and truly never will be.

However, on public forums when we are in a discussion about stuff going on in the public sphere I expect others to follow the rules of decorum I prefer.

If the forum doesn't want to provide a good environment I am free to find a nicer place.

The poster pointed to two issues in the post I responded to, both issues did fall under the first amendment legally, so I pointed it out.

Pointing that out should not have caused what it caused.

You said nothing wrong. Some people within the trans community need to stop being so hypersensitive and get thicker skin. Oh well.

(Not referring to any posters here. Just that community)

 

[stevil]

Using the same logic, a person would have a right to tell a trans person they cannot use the bathroom or locker room of their choice if they think it’s disrespectful or wrong.

It’s two way street, sir.

There are some laws protecting people from discrimination. But if a private business owner wants to try discriminating against trans employees or customers, it would be interesting to see how that plays out in the court system. You guys seemed to have won with regards to discriminating against baking cakes for gay people.

 

[RileyG]

There are some laws protecting people from discrimination. But if a private business owner wants to try discriminating against trans employees or customers, it would be interesting to see how that plays out in the court system. You guys seemed to have won with regards to discriminating against baking cakes for gay people.

Again. It’s about the rights of others and not discrimination. The world does not revolve around them.

And yes, businesses have a right to deny services to customers if they choose. Period.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Using the same logic, a person would have a right to tell a trans person they cannot use the bathroom or locker room of their choice if they think it’s disrespectful or wrong.

It’s two way street, sir.

It depends on the nature of antidiscrimination laws in the state where it happened. Some states protect trans people, others don't.

But I feel certain no state in the nation protects bigoted butthats from discrimination. They can be refused service.

 

[RileyG]

It depends on the nature of antidiscrimination laws in the state where it happened. Some states protect trans people, others don't.

But I feel certain no state in the nation protects bigoted butthats from discrimination. They can be refused service.

Again, it depends what you mean by so called discrimination. What about the rights of others that aren’t comfortable? And no, that does not mean they’re bigoted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And yes, businesses have a right to deny services to customers if they choose. Period.

Not period. They cannot refuse service to people based solely on the customer belonging to a protected class. Being black, Jewish or foreign born, for instance.

 

[NxNW]

Not comparable to the rights of African Americans. Period.

So, fewer rights than African Americans?

 

[RileyG]

So, fewer rights than African Americans?

No. Stop. They’re not comparable.

Point blank period.