Uh, yeah, because a law barring transgenders from using the BR will stop real perverts from crossdressing just to get into the BR for their dirty little deeds.
Just like how a gun ban will stop criminals from getting guns.
Nice try.
Did you even read anything that’s been posted so far? Clearly you haven’t, but enjoy your, “Yeah I really got them,” moment for yourself.
That rape victim is obviously a bigot because she doesn’t embrace and celebrate the perversion de jour like all of the smart, progressive people.
This just in:
"We’ve had a long history of embracing diversity and inclusion. A couple of weeks ago, I had one of our team members send me a note reminding me that if we went back to the mid sixties, our company was one of the very first to use African-American models in their advertising. And back then, it wasn’t well received. We had a lot of tough feedback, but sitting here today, we know we made the right decision. And I certainly recognize that the stance we took, which, by the way, was very similar to many of our retail peers, has received quite a bit of feedback and as a company we’re constantly listening. So we listen to our guests, we listen to our team members.
_But what’s been lost in this story is the fact that the vast majority of our stores—actually over 1,400 of our stores—already have a family restroom. And we’re committed over the next few months to make sure every one of our stores has that option, because we want our guests to be welcomed in our stores. _
_But if there’s a question of safety, I can tell you and others—our focused on safety is unwavering, and we want to make sure we provide a welcoming environment for all our guests one that safe, one that’s comfortable, and that’s our commitment over time. _
So, we took a stance and we’re going to continue to embrace our belief of diversity inclusion and just how important it is to our company, but we’re also going to make sure our focus on state is unwavering and we’re going to provide a great environment for our guests to shop every time they’re in out stores."
~ Target CEO Brian Cornell
1 Like
Reading some of the opinions in this thread I am not sure why the bathroom thing is that much of a bad thing from your perspective. Aren’t you scared of getting raped in a public bathroom by a gay men?
The article basically says target is doing just fine. I’m assuming you probably wouldn’t have posted it if you read it first.
1 Like
@ people signing petitions to boycott Target, I think there’s a misunderstanding of the NC law. It only effects government buildings and schools. The Republican governor sold it as a law that still allowed private businesses to set their own policies. Target is just doing that. In fact, they are just restating a policy they already had, I believe.
About boycotts, the New York City Mayor recently called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A because the owners have supported traditional marriage. He’s done this even though Chick-fil-A’s company policies forbid any kind of discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation in both employment and service to customers. Imagine what that would look like if he decided to go after every person who supported traditional marriage and boycott their business.
He would have to boycott President Obama and Hillary Clinton because as of less than 10 years ago, they were not supporting same-sex marriage.
This has only recently become a wedge issue. Americans from both sides of the aisle need to stand up against this kind of thing.
This has been pretty baffling to me, in regards to how people have reacted. As a poli-sci guy, I’ve honestly really enjoyed observing this. Regardless of your feelings in the matter, it’s great to observe the system at work. Publicly elected officials are responding to their perceptions of their constituents regarding laws that affect public utilities, and many groups are exercising their first amendment rights in either direction to attempt to shape policy.
I mean…it’s great. You can vote or you can demonstrate, and you can change things.
1 Like
About the politics of this, social conservatives are allowing the Democratic Party to sort of rewrite history. I think a lot of young people don’t realize that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln. The Ku Klux Klan was historically Democrat.
I would love to see the Republican Party move toward a more libertarian stance on social issues. We should be the party that stands against discrimination. Let people hold their own private or religious views, but in public life stand firm against any kind of discrimination. Issues like this allow the other party to use it as a wedge issue and recast history.
There’s a gay libertarian writer at reason.com that I really like.
The KKK was originally founded explicitly as a democrat organization with the exclusive goal of getting the dems back into power. It was originally not anti-black but anti-republican. (they even allowed black members) Historically, the republicans have usually been on the correct side of civil rights issues.
The issue here is that there are conflicting “rights”. Religious liberty vs. the “right” to receive a service. A true social liberal would stand on the side of the negative right of religious liberty, and against the positive right to make others do things. I am entirely pro negative rights including people of all religions, sexuality, races, and tooth brush colors. Being socially liberal I’m also always against the coercion of others. This policy would have always landed me on the right side of issues in history. It also makes me pro letting business decide for themselves. A baker shouldn’t be coerced to bake a cake or business be forced to segregate bathrooms in a particular way.
Meanwhile government has the duty to be reasonably accommodating to both the transgender and normal gender people. Letting a post op, fully transitioned person who is attracted to their original gender and you’d never know based on looking use the bathroom of their new gender seems pretty reasonable. Being a woman and not wanting a bearded “trans-woman” dangling their penis in a changing room seems pretty reasonable too. Neither of the party proposals accomplishes both of these accommodations.
1 Like
Thanks for your very articulate response, DD. The idea that the Dems are the “do-good party of human rights/ civil rights” gets me. It’s all about the politics of division, and for me it’s intellectually dishonest.
About the TG issue, there was a great article yesterday about how Title IX isn’t up to the task here, and also how it’s being used interpreted in some very troubling ways on college campuses, as relates to sexual assault reporting mandates, the advice that professors not use gendered pronouns, etc… The language and scope of this will need clarification.
Interestingly enough, a major contributing factor to this is the ideological shift that occurred between the democratic and republican parties around the time of the Great Depression with FDRs New Deal proposal and the massive influx of social welfare programs. We got to observe an almost complete reversal between party positions.
But, additionally, the another contributing factor that tends to muddy the waters is the conflation of “conservative” to “republican” and “liberal” to “democrat”. Many use the terms interchangeably when in reality they’re merely correlated.
And then I end up going down a long windy road about how the entire concept of political parties is absurd and then I get depressed and think that I should take up drinking, but it’s still something I suppose. Along with the book Culture War, Revolving Gridlock does a good job of discussing the issues of party politics. A great read for anyone interested in the subject.
1 Like
The reason young people associate the Democratic Party with civil rights and inclusivity, and the GOP with racism and xenophobia, is that this is a more-or-less accurate description of the current state of the parties. It has nothing to do with ‘re-writing history.’ If one wishes to identify when the GOP went off the rails with respect to civil rights, one need look no further than the ‘Southern Strategy’ Nixon initiated in the early 70s (and Reagan/Lee Atwater perfected in the 80s). Electorally speaking, the Southern Strategy was an unmitigated success–the South was transformed from reliably Blue to bedrock Red. But it cost the GOP its soul.
Am I suggesting all Republicans are racists? Of course not. But ask yourself this–which party is currently being forced to fend off ‘unwelcome’ endorsements from white supremacist/racist organizations and individuals? (Hint: It ain’t the Dems.) At some point the GOP needs to take a hard look at itself, and ask 1) why these organizations/individuals identify with the current GOP; and just as importantly, 2) why these organizations/individuals feel comfortable being so public in their support of the current GOP.
3 Likes
Good post. …
1 Like