lostboy

Fake red herring issue.

There is no movement to force religious cake bakers to bake obscene baked products for ANYONE!

Never has been. Never will be.

Geez, the twisted games the opponents of GLBT civil rights play are seemingly endless.

Some bakeries do erotic baked products and it's fair to assume none of them are religious fundamentalists of ANY flavor.

Can you really imagine a bakery that does penis cakes discriminating based on the sexuality of the customers? Come on now.

Duh. Double Duh.

Next ...

Nobody said they were, you klutz.

It was merely injecting a little humor into the debate.

What IS happening is that homosexual couples are suing cake shops for not making cakes with (for example) two male figurines on and "well done Ben and Joe" on them.

Now - the reason you should be allowed to refuse to make the cake is simple. The act of making the cake is participating in the event. It's not refusing someone because you don't like them. It's refusing to participate. There is a huge difference.

If you are devoutly religious and your religion tells you that homosexuality is a mortal sin (something I do not believe), then you should not be forced to participate in any way in a homosexual event.

It is not about prejudice it is about forced participation.

The LGBT community very much has it in for Christians. Muslims get a free pass for some reason, so we don't see LGBT activists trawling southern states looking for Mulsim bakeries to sue. Christians are very much a target.

At the end of the day, I'll bake the bloody cakes. They won't look much - but these Christians have their beliefs. I don't agree - but honestly, it's hardly saving the world forcing them to cook your dick-cake is it?

Deriving humour from debasing other people's dignity. Very funny. Perhaps you should do this in the jokes section or the gay forum and see what response you get. It was and is not very amusing in the context of a political discussion.

Bryan Adams is following The Boss!

I hope many more will!

Of course they will. Protecting toilet rights for transvestites is such an earth-shakingly important issue.

Even if respecting the human rights of individuals who are different from you is not as big a priority as protecting the second amendment or keeping African Americans in their place, the issue has resonance with the MAJORITY of people who are in favour of protecting LGBT rights.

" If the #NeverTrumpers fail to stop Trump at the convention, they could rally around an independent candidate. Who might that be? That's the billion-dollar question. Some want a true outsider like retired Marine General James Mattis."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-republican-nomination-delegates-20160330-column.html

Popular vote really does not count at all.

Changing rules as they go, the Republican Party is ignoring Trumps popularity (based on number of delegates). The convention will be "adjusted" to bring in a surprise nominee.

Might even be a retired Marine General. Not in all history has the Republican Party gone so far as to snub voters, and twerk the rules. Trump has a legitimate complaint....but, sadly, our system is not pure. Votes are ignored. People ran out to support Trump, but they have been blocked at every corner. Liberal antagonists, Media, Republican Party Heavyweights.

Looks like if you don't fall into favor with the Heavyweights, you don't stand a chance. George Bush Jr knows the deal...

Now, I must ask those folks who despise Trump so much, if they would be more supportive of a Retired Marine General...as the nominee. Then, indeed, the world would be shuddering. I prefer Trump..but as a retired Marine myself, I would swallow the pill, if this popped up. I was not aware that this possibility would be presented. Fair enough....the system sucks. Put the General in there and let God sort the rest out.

Today, I am realizing...no matter how successful one becomes, the backdoor fat-daddies and elbow rubbing special interest/lobbyists...do pretty much as they please.

Lots of You Tube VDO's of marines twerking. Can't find any Generals doing it but plenty of others.

Now if Mr. Mattis did this routine, he might out trump Trump.

Not one of the links or VDO's that you posted supports your claim that Trans people pose a threat to women and children through the use of female toilets. You post links to male sex offenders in an attempt to stir up hatred of LGBT people.

Readers might notice that the above post (and previous ones) make reference to male sex offenders. But what has conveniently been omitted is the fact that all of these male sex offenders were wearing women's clothes when they brutally sexually assaulted real women and girls in ladies' rooms and girls' locker rooms.

That's why the good people of North Carolina passed this common sense legislation.

It really is deplorable the depths some activists will go to in order to further their aberrant political agenda.

Male sex offenders wearing dresses has no relation to the topic of Trans people accessing bathrooms. The connection only exists in your mind. None of the people in the videos and links that you have posted are Trans people.

Making the false and despicable connection of male sex offenders and Trans people is purposeful hate speech only intended to inflame feelings against LGBT people. People at the coal face of this issue have stated unequivocally that there is no risk to women and children through Trans people using toilet facilities.

Sorry for butting in, but I think his point is not to say trans people are sexual offenders, but to point out that sexual offenders will be able to take advantage of the situation and claim to be trans in order to gain entry to the ladies room after they see their female target enter.

It is not Trans who are the threat, it is the creepy, sex offender who would wouldn't shy away from pretending to be Trans to his advantage. No one can honestly think that it would never happen.

How real of a risk is it, sex offenders taking advantage of the situation? Is it worth finding out? How many assaults would be ok? Maybe if were someone else's wife/daughter/girlfriend, that would be worth the risk? As a man, I couldn't care less if I was followed into a public toilet late at night by a trans-man (sorry, don't know the proper terms). But I can understand a young woman or teenage girl feeling uncomfortable if she were followed in by a trans-woman.

I really do not think that you combat male sex offenders by preventing Trans people from using the bathroom. Male sex offenders can strike anywhere. People should take the same precautions against attack by male sex offenders no matter where they are.

The only reason to associate male sex offenders with LGBT rights to dignity is to inflame hatred. It is exactly the same tactic as talking about gay men and pedophiles in the same sentence. It is base ignorance. It diverts from the real issues and is consequently dangerous. It is hate speech.

You litany of questions are completely off topic. If you want to study the issue of male sex offenders then go to some other place. Even then, I would probably give more deference to an actual woman saying these things than some men who have a history of posting anti LGBT sentiments. If you go away and grow a vagina and come back, I will give more credence to your 'concerns'.

Not one of the links or VDO's that you posted supports your claim that Trans people pose a threat to women and children through the use of female toilets. You post links to male sex offenders in an attempt to stir up hatred of LGBT people.

Readers might notice that the above post (and previous ones) make reference to male sex offenders. But what has conveniently been omitted is the fact that all of these male sex offenders were wearing women's clothes when they brutally sexually assaulted real women and girls in ladies' rooms and girls' locker rooms.

That's why the good people of North Carolina passed this common sense legislation.

It really is deplorable the depths some activists will go to in order to further their aberrant political agenda.

Male sex offenders wearing dresses has no relation to the topic of Trans people accessing bathrooms. The connection only exists in your mind. None of the people in the videos and links that you have posted are Trans people.

Making the false and despicable connection of male sex offenders and Trans people is purposeful hate speech only intended to inflame feelings against LGBT people. People at the coal face of this issue have stated unequivocally that there is no risk to women and children through Trans people using toilet facilities.

The legislation in North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas and a tiny number of other states is unconstitutional. The legislation will be challenged. In the meantime people are voting with their dollars. Individuals and organisations are cancelling events, closing down commercial operations and even the Federal Government is making clear statements about the loss of Federal funding because these states are not complying with anti-discrimination legislation.

People can learn more about Transgender issues at the American Psychological Association apa.org website. The information clearly debunks the attempted scam of associating male sex offenders with Trans people. There is no need to continue believing ignorant assertions that push people to discriminate against LGBT people. The 20thC is long gone. Such people are on the wrong side of history. They are laughed at and mocked by the coming generations. It is quite right that the T in LGBT is getting attention now that a majority of people support LGB rights and oppose the purposeful incitement of hate.

I really think that when the poster who is pushing this hate agenda grows a vagina, then she can come back and be the Defender of Female Toilets. Until then, what prurient pleasure is being derived from such focus on male sex offenders wearing dresses. Completely off topic and a deliberate red herring.

Ok - so let's get this right.

Let's say you run a Mormon bakery.

A gay couple comes in and asks you to bake a big cock shaped wedding cake.

you refuse on the basis of your religion.

Why should the law force you to bake the cake?

And why does Springsteen care?

Let's face it - these issues only come up because gay activists trawl the US looking for people to refuse to serve them. There really is very little homophobia or racism left in the US besides what activists need to find to prove their points.

A have never seen any report of any LGBT couple requesting a Wedding Cake made in the shape of a penis. Why do you make such scurrilous, unproven and false allegations. You wish to perpetuate some stereotype about LGBT promiscuity? A blatant, blunt and bigoted attack on LGBT people based on your stereotyping? Whatever you say from that point in your post has entirely no credibility. Your accusation of LGBT activists trying to beat up stories. Your complete and utter nonsense about racism and anti-LGBT bigotry not existing in America. This is directly disproved by the anti-LGBT religious hate laws in North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas etc.

The homophobia and racism reflected on TVF is an absolute mirror of the same bigotry in western liberal democracies by a certain demographic of old white men.

Springsteen is voting with his dollars. Many, many other businesses and organisations, including the US Federal Government are doing the same.

You dont know many gay people, do you?

All of my gay friends have a sense if humor.

Shame they have to put up with the far left frothing at the mouth getting offended on their behalf.

And for your information. I have seen 2 penis shaped cakes in my life. Both given to gay men on their birthday. Not a single person got offended but I can understand why not every baker would want to make them.

You are barking up completely the wrong tree on your assumption but never mind. It really does not matter how many penis shaped cakes you have seen in your life, I have seen more, none of them however were wedding cakes. You do realise there is a difference? The religious bigots are claiming their version of marriage history is the only version. The refusal to bake the cakes for LGBT weddings is because it is a WEDDING CAKE. Birthday cakes to not count. Even religious nuts can't deny the right to a birthday celebration to LGBT people on religious grounds.

So you have gay friends. So what. That makes every thing you say on LGBT issues valid?

This is about people taking a stand against discrimination. Legally enforced bigotry. Legally enforced shaming of a minority that is different. People like Springsteen voting with their dollars to make a clear statement to the bigots that their actions are unacceptable. Your trivialisation about penis cakes makes you a boor, no matter how many gay friends you claim.

America no longer requires is African American citizens to use non white water fountains any more.

Trannies choose to wear dresses.

Trans people do not necessarily wear dresses to identify as female. To assume they do is an indication of pyscho-sexual malformity.

Making African Americans drink from non White water fountains is precisely the same as making LGBT people adhere to discriminatory and unequal rules. Fortunately, as noted above, this is unconstitutional and will be challenged.

You continue to demonstrate a lack of credibility. Posting a picture of someone who is clearly a dick on this thread is behaviour I would expect. Thousands of words could be written about the WASP prick you choose to convey your silly meme. That shirt, that tie, those braces, those glasses, that big mouth, that hairstyle. Clearly that guy has not received the Queer Eye makeover. Just the kind of guy people would have pleasure in telling to go get stuffed.

As an early poster noted this may be why Trump is not elected- the forces of Political Correctness (read socialism/fascism). This is why Trump is popular. And there it is: This election fundamentally distills down to those who embrace the radical chains being placed around every aspect of American social, spiritual, political, military, and economic life under the guise of "correctness," (READ: Approved) and those who's tolerance for so long has unintentionally empowered the very "correctness" (READ: Approved) that is destroying America.

Political Correctness (READ: Approved (or not)) is a disease, a pathology. It has an entire pathogenesis and one can trace its origin/aetiology, reservoir, vector, and virulence. Political Correctness is no less than the manifestation of Leftist agenda; it is the necessary by products of State interjecting in the Individual. This is what the byproduct of Progressive Agendas look like- division, disparate people reduced to their own camps of need and want, Balkanization, and hand-outs under the cover of "entitlement." Political Correctness is an appalling regression in human/societal evolution. It ensures equality of outcomes, non industry, redistribution, thought policing/enforcement (READ: Political Correctness), ethical/cultural relativity, and racism under the cover of... not racism. Indeed, not-racism platforms of Political Correctness (READ: Racism) are entirely predicated upon percolating race in every single facet of social life by government decree and design. Always race, 24/7, always packages as not-racism (Read: Progressive/Liberal Agenda).

Trump is popular not because he is Trump but because Trump is a lightening rod for what people are sick of- Progressive Policies (READ: A slow motion coup). Rarely in elections is it so clear not only what people are sick of but the louder the voices of their opposition scream the more confirmed the rejection; the more obvious the stakes. Trump's supporters are only 1/2 of this fascinating story. The other 1/2 is how his candidacy smokes out of hiding all the various cogs and wheels of the Socialist/Fascist machine he opposes. It is as if people are lining up to declare their opposition to Trump but what they are intentionally doing is finally "outing" themselves; after all, they are the problem!

I wonder at your presumption that merely making an assertion is enough to demonstrate truth. Just because you say something, really doesn't mean that it actually exists. Normally, one makes an assertion and then provides some argument, reasoning, evidence to support this. Case in point: you assert that political correctness is a pathology that is destroying America. You claim that its origins can be traced and vector tracked and back this with a bunch of fine sounding medical type words. And then you do what? You change your argument. Now not wanting to judge your Creative Writing teacher who should have taught you about one paragraph, one idea but really, once you introduce this idea, then you should support it. Not go off on unrelated tangents on balkanisation and entitlement demanding lefties. If this virus is so trackable, then track it for us.

We are also expected to accept your conflation of concepts PC = Racism; Progressivism = Coup; Socialism = Fascism; and the most insidious one of all - Anti-Racism = Racism, with no real context. Again just your assertion. You are merely being the purveyor of Orwellian double speak.

It might be time to give up on your melting pot. Not all Americans accept dominance by male WASP culture. Sorry that you were born to late and have to endure the indignities of diversity, tolerance and inclusivity but the laws of physics are such that this cannot be changed.

I have seen the benefits of multiculturalism as it developed over 40 years in Australia. I even worked in public policy positions to facilitate this. I am also personally a member of a minority that will no longer accept the labels and strictures of a section of society that hates such minorities. And I am pleased to say that polls show that a majority of people now support this position.

OK. I will grant you, your WASPish America is doomed by PC. Good. Bring it on. The sooner the better. America will be stronger by accepting the strengths and talents of the minorities that it has previously shunned. The 70% of Americans who reject Trump are rejecting his anti-PC rubbish. Americans are fundamentally a polite and tolerant people on an individual level. So in that vein, I make a humble suggestion. Think of PC as just another word for politeness. Politeness and etiquette is part of the 'oil' that makes the wheels of culture move around quietly and effectively are they not? I inherited my Mother's copy of Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette http://www.amazon.com/Vanderbilt-Complete-Etiquette-Anniversay-Edition/dp/0385413424. Not a first edition but an early one. It makes for some amusing reading with some of its more obviously out of date suggestions. However, let's just think about PC as being part of the way a society accepts all of its inhabitants. Lets just imagine that there are societies that believe that all people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wouldn't being polite to each other reinforce that noble thought. This is what PC means to me. Of course, now it is a red rag to the old reactionaries. You can get the text of Ms. Vanderbilt's book online. I can't lend you mine unfortunately.

I have posted several links and videos illustrating the very real threat that some are determined to minimize to advance their aberrant TBGL agenda. North Carolina is acting with common sense.

Normal people know this is a needlessly risky sociology experiment. Some choose to ignore or attempt to delegitimize the legal evidence. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they are apparently shameless in their reckless, agenda driven zeal.

Not one of the links or VDO's that you posted supports your claim that Trans people pose a threat to women and children through the use of female toilets. You post links to male sex offenders in an attempt to stir up hatred of LGBT people. Not one thing that you have claimed is supported by any evidence.

Here is what the Human Rights Council says about the North Carolina anti LGBT law http://www.hrc.org/blog/five-things-to-know-about-north-carolinas-newest-radical-anti-lgbt-law

I post this quote again:

The lack of enforcement guidance in the legislation also suggests "it's not motivated by solving a real problem," she says. "If it was, they would have spent more time understanding and actually addressing a problem. Instead they passed a law that is a political statement." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina-lgbt-bathrooms-hb2-enforcement

This statement was made by Cathryn Oakley, a senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign. A woman. A person who uses female toilets. Something that does not apply to you on two counts. Is she hysterically claiming protection from Trans people using female toilets in fear of being accosted, raped, pillaged? No. Because she is not a moron. She doesn't have an agenda to stir up hatred against a minority. A minority that just is not doing what you claim they are doing.

It really is time for some actual proof of your accusations to be provided. Nobody is falling for this nonsense. Even the bigots who don't want to give Trans people the respect they deserve are not pushing this League of Women's Toilet Defence crap. They are just plain old Toilet Birthers and want police checks on birth certificates before Trans people can take a piss.

America no longer requires is African American citizens to use non white water fountains any more. Why then are LGBT people expected to endure discrimination and unequal treatment?

Of course I understand all that. Perhaps you should start a new thread about cards.

The fact you can't help labeling the guy "hayseed" in a derogatory tone, and over-the-top characterizations that he's "infatuated", makes my point all the more obvious.

What I'm saying is generalizing and slating people on an assumption, is the same kind of narrow attitude as saying muslims are terrorists. There probably are racists misogynistic homophones at Trump rallies, but not all of them are. You seem to be struggling with this very basic truth.

I don't think that there will be any thread coming up on World News about playing cards any time soon, so I am perfectly happy to highlight the hypocrisy of White Right Victimhood and their penchant for false moral equivalence.

If you are going to make a soapbox out of stereotyping, then choosing to defend a Trump fan boy is probably not going to get you very far. Trump and his 'movement' is entirely a stereotype. He plays on base fears, insecurities and prejudices. You may feel that he is deserving of recognition as a serious candidate but most Americans (more then two thirds) and I would imagine higher numbers of non Americans don't agree with you. His candidacy brings discredit to the US political system.

But that is neither here nor there. You are offended by my tone and believe that my polemic proves your point. Well, let's just see what the hayseed said:

"No more political correctness," said Kottke, 22, a cattle trucker and construction worker from Athens, Wisconsin"

No more political correctness. This is a policy platform for the leader of the country with the strongest military might in the world in the 21st Century? You really want us to take this seriously. You place this at the same level as income inequality? You place this at the same level as the overweening influence of the national security state? You place this at the same level of diplomacy in a nuclear armed world?

I don't.

Political correctness is a code word. It means a person who has been taught to hate people who don't look like or sound like or act like them wants the freedom to express that hate. And you resent the fact that people recognise this hayseed for what he is and call him out.

​It is very easy to stereotype people when they use words that fit the stereotype. Is everyone in the Trump camp the same as Mr. Kottke? Maybe not but it cannot be denied that the Trump camp provides comfort and a natural home for bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes. When then be surprised at people identifying this particularly when the code words are used.

​Seems a pretty acute assessment basic truth to me.

"No more political correctness" does not make the guy a white, racist homophobic misogynist as Oldgrumpy ranted about earlier, which is what I was responding to until you jumped in.

Even Bernie Sanders rails against political correctness. It's all the rage. Everyone's saying it, ad nauseam. You just hijacked the term and assigned some dastardly idea about codes and hidden meanings to fit your narrative. LOL.

Stereotyping and labeling individuals often proves inaccurate, which is why learned folks try to avoid doing it. It also runs counter to liberal/progressive thinking, at least in theory. The hypocrisy on display here is that it's OK, especially if you can link it to defending a protected group, in order to feel justified in marginalizing another.

I got a chuckle at your ass-umption I'm a Trump supporter or that I'm offended. I'm not offended at all. I'm not a Trump supporter either. Keep swinging, you might get lucky, but I doubt it.

I was not aware that this thread was a private conversation between you and Oldgrumpy. Please tell me how you get such privileges from TVF?

Very well, you are not a Trump supporter but your attempted defence of a Trump fanboy under the guise of exposing what you call the hypocrisy of the un-learned folks is a stalking horse. The Trump fanboy used the correct code words. He signalled the precise faction to which he was aligned. And that faction is the home of the bigot. Even un-learned folks like me can work out what one plus one equals.

I am interested in what actual evidence you have that the basis of liberal/progressive theory rejects the notion of recognising the obvious? You are promoting the false equivalency of liberalism allowing tolerance of hate speech? Maybe time to hit the books or google or whatever.

There would be far more credible poster boys for your attempt to demonise liberals than Mr. Kottke.

So you're a man who likes to wear a dress. Seems strange to me (and quite frankly, sad), but hey good for you. But when you try to enter ladies' rooms or girls locker rooms, that behavior is unacceptable.

It's not the person but the behavior that needs to addressed with legislation. It's far too risky for women and young girls to be thrown into this social experiment.

The video just a few posts above shows countless incidents of men wearing dressed who entered ladies' rooms and girls' locker rooms and then went on to sexually assault, rape and attack innocent young girls and women. Some here don't seem to have a problem with that. They haven't even referenced the video. As if the facts don't even exist.

As it is being presented here, "identity" is nothing more than a transitory (no pun intended) feeling.

There are bathrooms for biological men and bathrooms for biological women. If you're a man wearing a dress and you feel ashamed to enter a men's bathroom, then I guess you're just going to have to hold it until you get home.

You seem to have a quite an overt animus towards transgendered women. While reducing them to simply men "who like to wear dresses" would probably earn you some approving nods and male brownie points from your testosterone-charged, swinging-dick drinking buddies (some whom probably have a secret predilection for transgendered women), it just makes you look like an ignorant, hateful bigot in my eyes. And how often is such behavior just a cover for hypocrisy? Though, to be honest, I do detect a genuine revulsion on your part. It's a pity that Thailand appears to have had no modifying influence on your Neanderthal attitude towards transgendered people. Anyone, with just the merest hint of insight into human nature would know that after talking and getting to know something about the life of, say, a Thai ladyboy, or any genuine transgendered woman, that they are more than just "men in dresses".

It's your turn to insult me, and then I have no interest in engaging with you further on this topic. I'm pretty sure you're incorrigible.

I don't have any animus toward trannies. You're certainly entitled to think otherwise. What I do take issue with though, is agenda driven hacks who are attempting push forward an ill conceived social experiment without taking into consideration the very real risks involved. Or even worse, they are indifferent to risks and try to minimize them. This is genuinely what is at stake in NC, SC and many other states across the nation. It is very important for common sense to prevail and the concept of "identity politics" to be pushed to the dustbin of half-baked ideas.

And as far as 'reducing" them to men who like to wear dresses. Well, that's what they are. Men who like to wear dresses. You can talk about their "feelings" all day long with someone else. But in the end, it's a guy wearing a dress.

You have been consistently unable to demonstrate with any credible evidence that there is any risk to women and children by trans people using female toilets. Instead you post links to male sex offenders who are not trans and promote the deliberate misconception that Trans people pose a risk to women and girls.

This is not an issue. It has never been an issue. It is a scam that you are perpetuating to incite hatred.

Meanwhile, the police in NorthCarolina have no idea how to enforce this ridiculous and discriminatory law. "The lack of enforcement guidance in the legislation also suggests "it's not motivated by solving a real problem," she says. "If it was, they would have spent more time understanding and actually addressing a problem. Instead they passed a law that is a political statement."http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina-lgbt-bathrooms-hb2-enforcement

Your assumption that Trans people wear dresses to identify as female is just gross ignorance and further demonstration that you are acting in bad faith on this issue.

Why don't you present evidence of your assertions. This thread has been running a while but you have come up with nothing. It's time to put up or shut up.

And then there are people who are getting tired of the small special interest groups who insist that they are entitled to special treatment. Enough already.

Well that's your problem. The rest of us don't care. Deal with it.

You don't seem to be missing the point. You are. Or intentionally obtuse.

Suggesting a Trump supporter is X Y Z, just because he's a Trump supporter, is the same kind of shit as calling all blacks dumb and lazy because they are black. It is just that simple.

This has nothing to do with Trump, blacks or your Mommie. It's about recognizing hypocrisy by the unproductive hate mongers spewing vitriol from the extreme ends of the spectrum.

I don't believe I am being obtuse at all. If anything I am being acute. Since you seem to have a thing for angles.

While you are trying to point out what you call hypocrisy for someone commenting on some hayseed's infatuation with Trump and Trumpism, I am merely highlighting the insincerity and hypocrisy of playing the victim, you know, moaning about various cards being played. I offer a very simple solution. You don't want the racist card played, then don't say racist things. You don't want the misogynist card played, then don't talk rubbish about women and their issues. You don't want the homophobe card played, then don't stereotype LGBT people and their issues.

Simple really. Once can be quite perpendicular about that particular angle.

Of course I understand all that. Perhaps you should start a new thread about cards.

The fact you can't help labeling the guy "hayseed" in a derogatory tone, and over-the-top characterizations that he's "infatuated", makes my point all the more obvious.

What I'm saying is generalizing and slating people on an assumption, is the same kind of narrow attitude as saying muslims are terrorists. There probably are racists misogynistic homophones at Trump rallies, but not all of them are. You seem to be struggling with this very basic truth.

I don't think that there will be any thread coming up on World News about playing cards any time soon, so I am perfectly happy to highlight the hypocrisy of White Right Victimhood and their penchant for false moral equivalence.

If you are going to make a soapbox out of stereotyping, then choosing to defend a Trump fan boy is probably not going to get you very far. Trump and his 'movement' is entirely a stereotype. He plays on base fears, insecurities and prejudices. You may feel that he is deserving of recognition as a serious candidate but most Americans (more then two thirds) and I would imagine higher numbers of non Americans don't agree with you. His candidacy brings discredit to the US political system.

But that is neither here nor there. You are offended by my tone and believe that my polemic proves your point. Well, let's just see what the hayseed said:

"No more political correctness," said Kottke, 22, a cattle trucker and construction worker from Athens, Wisconsin"

No more political correctness. This is a policy platform for the leader of the country with the strongest military might in the world in the 21st Century? You really want us to take this seriously. You place this at the same level as income inequality? You place this at the same level as the overweening influence of the national security state? You place this at the same level of diplomacy in a nuclear armed world?

I don't.

Political correctness is a code word. It means a person who has been taught to hate people who don't look like or sound like or act like them wants the freedom to express that hate. And you resent the fact that people recognise this hayseed for what he is and call him out.

​It is very easy to stereotype people when they use words that fit the stereotype. Is everyone in the Trump camp the same as Mr. Kottke? Maybe not but it cannot be denied that the Trump camp provides comfort and a natural home for bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes. When then be surprised at people identifying this particularly when the code words are used.

​Seems a pretty acute assessment basic truth to me.

Right Wing Victimhood! Shoes and other feet come to mind. Reaping and Sowing. All sorts of cliches.

Don't want to be called a racist, then don't make racist comments. Simple really.

The young guy quoted in this article didn't make any "racist" comment. Yet one poster here tarred him with the big brush.

Like saying all black people are lazy and dumb, because they are black. If they think that's unfair, well, they are just playing the victim card.

It is simple.

Playing cards? More Right Wing Victimhood. "Look Mommy, someone called me a racist because I said black people are lazy" So unfair, playing these cards. I guess some people think that such comments about cards reflects intelligent debate. Just disguised victimhood.

Don't want to be called a racist, then don't make racists comments. Simple reallyYou seem to be missing the point.

You don't seem to be missing the point. You are. Or intentionally obtuse.

Suggesting a Trump supporter is X Y Z, just because he's a Trump supporter, is the same kind of shit as calling all blacks dumb and lazy because they are black. It is just that simple.

This has nothing to do with Trump, blacks or your Mommie. It's about recognizing hypocrisy by the unproductive hate mongers spewing vitriol from the extreme ends of the spectrum.

I don't believe I am being obtuse at all. If anything I am being acute. Since you seem to have a thing for angles.

While you are trying to point out what you call hypocrisy for someone commenting on some hayseed's infatuation with Trump and Trumpism, I am merely highlighting the insincerity and hypocrisy of playing the victim, you know, moaning about various cards being played. I offer a very simple solution. You don't want the racist card played, then don't say racist things. You don't want the misogynist card played, then don't talk rubbish about women and their issues. You don't want the homophobe card played, then don't stereotype LGBT people and their issues.

Simple really. Once can be quite perpendicular about that particular angle.

Some people have anointed themselves arbitrator of what is and is not acceptable for everyone else. They attempt to lead the narrative and marginalize others. Disagreeing starts the ad hominem and generalizing - under-educated white male racist, misogynistic redneck.

They engage in the very behavior they are criticizing.

Right Wing Victimhood! Shoes and other feet come to mind. Reaping and Sowing. All sorts of cliches.

Don't want to be called a racist, then don't make racist comments. Simple really.

The young guy quoted in this article didn't make any "racist" comment. Yet one poster here tarred him with the big brush.

Like saying all black people are lazy and dumb, because they are black. If they think that's unfair, well, they are just playing the victim card.

It is simple.

Playing cards? More Right Wing Victimhood. "Look Mommy, someone called me a racist because I said black people are lazy" So unfair, playing these cards. I guess some people think that such comments about cards reflects intelligent debate. Just disguised victimhood.

Don't want to be called a racist, then don't make racists comments. Simple really.

Ok - so let's get this right.

Let's say you run a Mormon bakery.

A gay couple comes in and asks you to bake a big cock shaped wedding cake.

you refuse on the basis of your religion.

Why should the law force you to bake the cake?

And why does Springsteen care?

Let's face it - these issues only come up because gay activists trawl the US looking for people to refuse to serve them. There really is very little homophobia or racism left in the US besides what activists need to find to prove their points.

A have never seen any report of any LGBT couple requesting a Wedding Cake made in the shape of a penis. Why do you make such scurrilous, unproven and false allegations. You wish to perpetuate some stereotype about LGBT promiscuity? A blatant, blunt and bigoted attack on LGBT people based on your stereotyping? Whatever you say from that point in your post has entirely no credibility. Your accusation of LGBT activists trying to beat up stories. Your complete and utter nonsense about racism and anti-LGBT bigotry not existing in America. This is directly disproved by the anti-LGBT religious hate laws in North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas etc.

The homophobia and racism reflected on TVF is an absolute mirror of the same bigotry in western liberal democracies by a certain demographic of old white men.

Springsteen is voting with his dollars. Many, many other businesses and organisations, including the US Federal Government are doing the same.

Well done Bruce, pissing off your customers and fans is a brilliant way of making a political statement ......

Excuse me. How about, 'pissing off some of your customers and fans". Do not overstep, you do not suppose

that all would not support him? I for one, support economic boycotts as a means of showing opposition to

law passed, based on religious beliefs of some, to discriminate. That holds with segregation in the US,

apartheid in South Africa or religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia. However, we are focused here on my country.

please could you point out where it mentions SA or Saudi in the article, if Bruce wants to make political statements then he should run for office. him boycotting the concert will lose the ticket holders money as you don't get 100% refunds anymore plus as he doesn't tour much anymore his loyal fans are missing out on seeing him in concert. I still think the majority will be pissed off rather than supporting him as it's not going to have any effect on the people who passed the legislation, does Bruce think the ticket holders are going to protest on his behalf?

Springsteen created some of the best music of my generation- maybe any generation. Rich, Americana, folksy, and palpable. However, when we became adults and realized he uses our support of his products to act upon very political issues, he loses credibility as an artist, not gains credibility as a politician.

I get that everyone should be able to have a voice and fame should not saddle that. However, he does not action his voice in spite of his fame, he actions his voice leveraging his fame. Without question, this is abusive of fans; he leverages the fans. Those that love him likely reject the obvious ethical conflict, but most of what Springsteen endorses over the years is entirely ethical relativity. Without question the greatest source of bigotry, intolerance, and loathing is found in his politics, dressed in liberty, fraternity, and equality. Bruce was a radical leftist long before today.

Your assessment of Springsteen's ethics seems somewhat emotional and irrational to me. Allegations of abuse. References to loathing. Why is the Right characterised by emotion? Cannot they use reason to counter the ideas of tolerance, diversity, inclusivity? They must use fear to oppose a left whose rationality is backed by centuries of philosophical inquiry. The beat up of the Trans use of bathrooms is a case in point.

Why is Springsteen to be denied a point of view just because he sings some songs? Rank hypocrisy of the Right shows its ugly face again.

Some people have anointed themselves arbitrator of what is and is not acceptable for everyone else. They attempt to lead the narrative and marginalize others. Disagreeing starts the ad hominem and generalizing - under-educated white male racist, misogynistic redneck.

They engage in the very behavior they are criticizing.

Right Wing Victimhood! Shoes and other feet come to mind. Reaping and Sowing. All sorts of cliches.

Don't want to be called a racist, then don't make racist comments. Simple really.

Without even knowing any of the details of the law or having any strong views on Springsteen's music can nobody see what a minefield this is?

What about world tours, oh no cant go to China because of Tibet, nor India because of the caste system. In PNG they still eat each other and have the Ecuadorian Indians stopped shrinking heads yet? And as it goes for Countries so it does for states and cities. By all means put your hand in your pocket to support what you find important privately, but this move just strikes me as virtue signaling, which is all too prevalent these days.

I am not sure, but I don't think that Bruce Springsteen is a citizen of Papua New Guinea. I might be wrong. So why expect him to have views on what happens there? Besides, I have worked there many times over the years and never been offered 'long pig' to eat.

People voting with their dollars. Is that not the right wing capitalist ideology? As an American, he even has a constitutional right to speak his mind and spend his money where he wants.

'Virtue Signaling'? From which memo from the Right Wing Think Tank Meme-Maker did this emerge? Another attack on freedom of expression by the defenders of the Constitution?

Religious bigotry laws are just the latest battleground in the Culture Wars that the bigots lost last year. They just don't know it yet. They are Zombie Bigots. Bruce Springsteen is being just one voice of those who are not Un-Dead. Good on him.

Bruce Springsteen was born in New Jersey was he not, so why bother about North Carolina by your logic? Though I've no doubt you have approved of artists not playing Sun City during the apartheid era. There is no constitutional issue here so why bring it up? If you are in favour of the principle of boycotts then you are in danger of being held open to accusations of double standards unless you subscribe to a bewildering list of causes. What about states that sanction the death penalty or allow fracking?

P.s so tiring debating with liberals who try to do an end run with what they imagine your views to be and hence project away. As I stated in my previous post I don't know details of the law but my point is based on a wider principle.

I wonder at your wider principle. Are you on some journey of discovery about what type of moral relativist you are? Your posts make it clear that you do not believe in Universal Truths so maybe you are progressing to Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism.

I happen to hold that there are Universal Truths applicable to this situation. The truth that all people are created equal and are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law. This is clearly also a Constitutional issue as it was this basis that formed the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015 (the so-called marriage equality decision).

Circling back to your moral relativism and expectation of Springsteen to be equally vocal on all issues that he considers right and wrong and your continued reference to not knowing the core issues of the North Carolina religious bigotry law, I am reminded of something that Desmond Tutu is reputed to have said:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." http://www.tutufoundation-usa.org/exhibitions.html

Your rah,rah train for Trump slipperylobster is about all you have.

Fox News "liberal", from there the post even more nonsensical.

Apart from Trump's legal issues (Trump University Fraud case going forward), and a ton of mob connection press about to be released, he'll not get to the convention with the required delegates and then it's game on for his party that does not support him. Doors flung wide open at that point.

I wish there was an emoticon that had cheerleader pom-poms, slipperylobster, rah,rah,rah, but your team doesn't even like their frontrunner, nor does the majority of the nation. Rah,rah dude.

I only agree to disagree...

watch and weep. the game is in play. Trump wins the nomination..my bet.

for better or worse.

Weren't you the one who announced Trump's victory in Utah a short while back? Took a little posting holiday after that embarrassment I see. But now you are back expecting us to take your assessments seriously?

Without even knowing any of the details of the law or having any strong views on Springsteen's music can nobody see what a minefield this is?

What about world tours, oh no cant go to China because of Tibet, nor India because of the caste system. In PNG they still eat each other and have the Ecuadorian Indians stopped shrinking heads yet? And as it goes for Countries so it does for states and cities. By all means put your hand in your pocket to support what you find important privately, but this move just strikes me as virtue signaling, which is all too prevalent these days.

I am not sure, but I don't think that Bruce Springsteen is a citizen of Papua New Guinea. I might be wrong. So why expect him to have views on what happens there? Besides, I have worked there many times over the years and never been offered 'long pig' to eat.

People voting with their dollars. Is that not the right wing capitalist ideology? As an American, he even has a constitutional right to speak his mind and spend his money where he wants.

'Virtue Signaling'? From which memo from the Right Wing Think Tank Meme-Maker did this emerge? Another attack on freedom of expression by the defenders of the Constitution?

Religious bigotry laws are just the latest battleground in the Culture Wars that the bigots lost last year. They just don't know it yet. They are Zombie Bigots. Bruce Springsteen is being just one voice of those who are not Un-Dead. Good on him.

Springsteen's action is just one of many responses to religious bigots http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/gay-rights-mississippi-north-carolina.html?_r=0

Well done The Boss.

Coming: Fear and Loathing in Cleveland

It's gonna be a sight to see...

The left has always been quite.... "ehrm"... clever with their propaganda posters:

Your own words betray you. NAZI JEW PROPAGANDA

And you attempt to claim refuge in 'Artistic Equivalency'. No amount of ducking and diving excuses this disgusting gutter tactic. You have no concept of the tradition of artistic satire.

I hear the delete fairies in the distance. I hope your appealing post stands (unlike your other recent ones) for all to see you in your disgrace.

The thread title mentions "fear over transgender bathroom access".

One of those fears is that an innocent woman or young girl being sexually assaulted by a tranny in the ladies bathroom or girls' locker room.

I've asked this question several times, but interestingly have not yet received an answer. Maybe the reason it's not being answered is because it's hitting too close to the mark. But I'll ask it again:

What percentage of sex offenders have ever engaged in cross dressing or have ever "identified" as transgender"?

I would think that it's not an insignificant number. I also think this is a legitimate question that needs to be answered before we allow every Tom, Dick and tranny to enter a girls' locker room or a ladies' bathroom.

Your premise is wrong

we are not concerned with transgender people sexually assaulting young girls or boys in the bathrooms.

We are concerned that a system set to accommodate Transgender people will be abused by non Transgender people.

Consider the following

according to statistics transgender people constitute .3% of the population. The vast majority of this .3% being legitimate. If there are any that present a danger, they are such a small percentage of a small percentage that they present a statistically insignificant danger.

That leaves the remaining 99.7% that would also have have access and be able to game the system. That's where the danger is.

Public buildings are constructed using pubic funds and should be accessed by all the 'public' irrespective of their identity or what proportion of the population that minority comprises. I do not argue against your point of focussing attention on where risks of sexual offences may lie but your focus on the smallness of the minority I believe is not relevant to the issue of using public facilities.

Furthermore, public facilities require management and administration by some public authority, even if it is as simple as hiring cleaners and providing basic maintenance. It is the responsibility of the authority that manages a facility to address any and all issues related to the operation of the facility, access to the facility and anything else that relates to that facility. I recall similar furores over handicapped access to public facilities including bathrooms/toilets in the 80's. Now it is accepted that there are ramps and purpose built facilities for physically handicapped people.

How can authorities manage this problem? Certainly not by letting the issue of sexual predation by males drive the agenda. As with most things, these issues can be managed by information, inclusivity and understanding. Non Unisex facilities could have signs posted that provide access for trans people but also provide some mechanism for people uncomfortable with this to avoid the situation. Maybe hotlines or information services or other initiatives to raise awareness can be used. I posted earlier statistics that demonstrate that when people learn about transgender people and issues they are more accepting of their needs. I am not an expert in facilities management but I know that people have that expertise to ensure that public facilities are managed in a way that does not discriminate against any member of the public. The concept of equal protection is surely apolitical.

On the off topic issue of sexual predation, there are also many strategies that law enforcement, public policy officials and mental health experts can use to deal with this. The hysteria over a non-existent scenario of real Trans people using bathroom access for sexual assault is merely to promote hysteria and bigotry. It just does not happen when real Trans people are concerned. Sensible people know how to approach public policy issues in ways that do not discriminate or promote hate.

a well thought out an reasonable response,

But, there is always a but

But , in a world of limited resources one needs to prioritize their allocation.

Three words, Cost /benefit assessment,

Serious questions deserve serious responses. Besides a good fight helps get the post count up so that you graduate to that level where certain rules don't apply.

Cost Benefit Analyses are entirely based on assumptions. Different assumptions, different results. They make great employment for economic consultants and occupy lots of time in discussions in public policy debates. Been there done that and am still doing it. Your core assumption is based on statistical data on numbers of Transgender people proportionate to the rest of the population. ).3% you have mentioned. I have no idea if that is correct but the exact number doesn't count. My assumptions are different. My assumptions are based on the idea that a public restroom is a public good.

Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

The technical terms are explained in the link if you like. You also have issues that economists call 'externalities' which is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. This could include things like the impact on public health or sanitation if people kept throwing their piss pots into the middle of the street like they did in medieval times.

So I think you may want to be careful about the idea of CBA for public goods like public toilet facilities.

I think it is irrelevant actually. I have seen a bunch of universal access toilets in many places. The first one I saw was in Oxford Street next to the Starbucks opposite Selfridges some time ago. Big round thing stuck next to the outdoor seating. Cost 50p to use. Big enough for handicapped people and no indication of gender identity necessary. I used another one inside the US Embassy in Kabul last month. Takes so long to get through security that I was bursting. A little embarrassing when I was followed inside by my colleague and it turned out to be an individual unisex universal access facility. I also notice that those Porta-Potties that are used for temporary toilet access at public events and on building sites are not colour coded for gender. Men, Women, Trans people alike line up to use them.

Like I said, there are a bunch of strategies that can be used to deal with this issue. It does not necessarily mean that all facilities now have to have multiple restrooms for 3 genders and handicapped. Maybe some will in the future. Maybe there will be more unisex options. Individual toilets with strong locks. Who knows. What I do know is that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with male sexual offenders

You have what authority to demand that I answer any question? Absolutely none. Your continued harping on the issue of sexual offenders is nothing to do with Transgender us of toilets. The fear that you cite as the opportunity to spread your hate and bigotry is entirely your own. It does not justify turning this topic into a litany of anecdotes about male sexual offenders.

LGBT people are not perverts. LGBT people are not deviants. Your continued insinuations of this is base, shameful and disgraceful.

Settle down, dear. I never demanded that you do anything.

Furthermore, I never said that TLGB people are perverts or that BGTL people are deviants. All I did is ask what percentage of sex offenders have ever cross dressed or "identified" as transgender.

The words "calm fears" are written clearly in the thread title, and the primary fear is that some tranny is going to sexually assault women and young girls.

You seem fine taking that risk to advance your agenda. Voters and lawmakers in many part of the US disagree with you.

Why do you call me dear. It is not my username. You persist in off topic posts and now you directly violate the forum rules by not showing respect to another forum member. By using language designed to inflame and humiliate. This tactic is merely a repetition of your off topic posts about sexual offenders that have nothing to do with Trans bathroom access. This tactic is merely a reputation of your demands for posters to research data that does not exist because it is a fantasy in your mind. This tactic is entirely consistent with your whole approach to this issue. Juvenile, facile, sophomoric rubbish. Intentional disrespect of LGBT people. Intentional disrespect of other posters.

I am not your dear. You do not give instructions to other posters to do anything on this forum.