Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users Due To State’s Anti-LGBT Laws

originally posted by: proteus33
i have friends that are gay . . .

Here's a thread for you.

"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Freija


Again in spite of your insistence this is not a witch hunt.

You are also absolutely wrong about sexual predators in women's bathrooms. It happens all the time. I am at work so I am not going to google "man caught in women's bathroom" but these types of peeping tom incidents occur quite often. The legislation was not aimed at the transgendered, it was aimed at the sexual predator that would use the story of "I'm a transgender" to provide an excuse to be in the women's restroom. The expansion of the definition of gender from a legal standpoint would allow a male sexual predator to enter a women's bathroom or locker room and lurk there waiting for a victim. He would not even need to be dressed as a female, when confronted he could simply say "I identify as female" and a business owner would have a potential legal nightmare on their hands if they threw them out of their business. This law addresses that issue. You can scoff at the idea all you want but it will happen.

I am not saying its a perfect law, but I have an issue with a male lurking in the women's room while my wife goes to do her business. I just dont see most trans-gender people having to deal with this issue. They are living as their chosen gender and they dress and act that way. They will go into the restroom and do their business just like everyone else. No one will question them unless they are doing something creepy.

originally posted by: Dragoon01
The legislation was not aimed at the transgendered, it was aimed at the sexual predator that would use the story of "I'm a transgender" to provide an excuse to be in the women's restroom.

Delusional. Right Wing BS.

There are already laws against predators.

There are probably more predator attacks in elevators, stairwells, parking structures - - - then public restrooms.

Because predators look for the advantage of isolation.

The idea a predator is going to go through all the trouble to pretend to be a transgender is a stretch.

a reply to: Annee

Rare is a time that I would agree with you, but you are correct.

A predator will be a predator, regardless of any law.

Similar to the gun laws or any other laws that restrict freedoms or liberties.

a reply to: Annee


Complete bull...

I have a friend who is a complete alcoholic.
I have a sister in law who is as well, as is her husband.

All three are clean but as they will tell you, they are never completely cured of it.
I love these people, however I hate their addiction. I cant stand to see people destroy themselves, even though I do not feel it is my place to stop them. I can offer advice and tell them I think its a bad idea but they have to live their own life.
I dont have an issue with gay people or transgendered however I do not approve of the lifestyle a lot of them live. To many live a self destructive lifestyle.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whats the bet there is an unprecedented rise regarding the use of VPNs in North Carolina? LoL

originally posted by: Dragoon01

I dont have an issue with gay people or transgendered however I do not approve of the lifestyle a lot of them live. To many live a self destructive lifestyle.

It's not a lifestyle.

a reply to: Annee


Delusional Liberal BS.
Just like how its such a stretch that a sexual predator would pretend to be a teacher, or a scout master, or a pastor, or any other thing that sexual predators pretend to be in order to gain that isolated access.

I cant think of too many places that are more isolated than restrooms, and yet still publicly accessible.
Do not underestimate the mind of a sexual deviant.

a reply to: Dragoon01

The expansion of the definition of gender from a legal standpoint would allow a male sexual predator to enter a women's bathroom or locker room and lurk there waiting for a victim. He would not even need to be dressed as a female, when confronted he could simply say "I identify as female" and a business owner would have a potential legal nightmare on their hands if they threw them out of their business. This law addresses that issue.

Part of the problem is that gender is being self defined and it doesn't have to be concrete. The LGBT community has extended the acronym to LGBTQQIP2SAA+. Some now shorten it to just LGBT+. Their attempt to be all inclusive has created another problem in the eyes of the law, because it would open all bathrooms up to use by anyone, regardless of the intent.

Many activists have reclaimed the word “queer” as a preferred descriptor. Taking back the word from the bullies and foes is a way to regain power. This is much like Bitch magazine co-opting a frequent slur as a way to raise feminist activists above their oppressors. For many, however, the scars from being called “queer” are too deep and too fresh to choose it as an identity. So what’s a diverse, inclusion-inclined community to do?

Over time, a number of other additions have been suggested to the LGBT acronym. The most common is Q, signifying “questioning” to recognize that many people are uncertain about their sexual orientation or gender identity (or both). Some also use the Q for queer. At full throttle, the letters wind up something like LGBTQQIP2SAA – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,

Two Q’s to cover both bases (queer and questioning);
I for Intersex, people with two sets of genitalia or various chromosomal differences;
P for Pansexual, people who refuse to be pinned down on the Kinsey scale;
2S for Two-Spirit, a tradition in many First Nations that considers sexual minorities to have both male and female spirits;
A for Asexual, people who do not identify with any orientation; and
A for Allies, recognizing that the community thrives best with loving supporters, although they are not really part of the community itself.

That manages to be pretty inclusive, but it’s also pretty unwieldy.

The law is trying to simplify matters, on a complex and sometimes confusing issue for some.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Rare is a time that I would agree with you, but you are correct.

A predator will be a predator, regardless of any law.

Similar to the gun laws or any other laws that restrict freedoms or liberties.

There have been attacks in isolated restrooms. Most restrooms are very busy, especially women's restrooms.

This law is against Public facilities, such as schools, government buildings, etc.

This law is mostly targeting students. You know, "we have to protect the children".

How many predator attacks have there been in public schools - - in restrooms?

a reply to: Dragoon01

Laws will not stop sexual deviants.

Same as gun laws will not stop criminals.

a reply to: Annee


You have a reading comprehension problem.
Your zeal for liberal goodspeak overrides your minds ability to process the words that you are reading.

I said
I do not approve of the lifestyle a lot of them live. To many live a self destructive lifestyle.

Now let me explain what that means so that maybe you will understand it.
I am well aware of the concept that gay or transgender people are "born" that way. I do not disagree with this. I can accept that this is biologically factual.
It is not however biologically a characteristic of being gay to parade around in public high on designer drugs wearing nothing but a thong and leather chaps.
Unless you are telling me that gays are predisposed to high risk sexual behavior and addictive drug use, in which case I would still stand by my statement and disapproval of said behavior.

You know ... it occurs to me ...

So many of you are fundamentally opposed to stuff like this because "it might allow businesses to discriminate," but then here you are cheering on businesses in the actual process of discriminating on the basis of their own moral beliefs.

Look at Springsteen. He was actually in a contract to provide a service and he pulled out of that contract citing moral objections, something you claim bakers, photographers and other artists have no right to do (even before a business contract is agreed upon btw), but apparently Springsteen can do it and you like it.

I guess it all depends on if the morality in question is your own morality or not.

a reply to: Annee

There will always be sexual criminals.

But restricting an entire population is ridiculous.

originally posted by: Dragoon01

It is not however biologically a characteristic of being gay to parade around in public high on designer drugs wearing nothing but a thong and leather chaps.

Polite society forced LGBT to live on the fringes and develop their own culture.

Why was it a culture of sex? Should be obvious.

As LGBT are now being accepted into main stream - - - the LGBT "culture" is slowly dying. But, should it?

Many LGBT exclusive businesses have closed because they are no longer required.

LGBT are now becoming "soccer moms/dads" in suburbia.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dragoon01

Laws will not stop sexual deviants.

Same as gun laws will not stop criminals.

I dont disagree with this, and in fact I really have a problem with most laws in general.
My belief is that laws should dictate punishments for behavior that violates the life, liberty or property of another and that almost exclusively should be for acts that HAVE happened rather than what MAY happen. In other words we punish for what people did rather than what they may have done.
In this case I believe the law is probably to broadly written and sweeps up people who have violated no ones rights in an attempt to target predators. I dont disagree with the intent of the law but I can see it could be a path to abuse.
I do not however believe this was done to root out transgendered people, I just think its plodding government being plodding government.

a reply to: Dragoon01

I believe that this has specifically targeted transgendered people.

Isn't there already a law against molesting people?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

There will always be sexual criminals.

But restricting an entire population is ridiculous.

McCrory is already making changes and "trying to clarify".

This bill is directly targeting students. This is all about paranoid, ignorant parents.

This bill is directly targeting those little m/f trans kids Freija has posted.

That's what its really all about.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, but are you not familiar with the concept of stacking charges?

A prosecutor charges someone with multiple charges with various degrees of severity in order to have them plea down to the lessor charge.

Again plodding government.

a reply to: proteus33

Do you know how hard it is for a man to enter the women's restroom? All he has to do is open the door and walk in. Where is this narrative that laws like this will result in allowing perverts in the bathroom coming from? What was stopping them from walking in beforehand?