Travel Ban

[Sergeant Zip]

It looks like California's "Island of Inclusivity" may not allow CA state funded teams to play in the 2018-2019 college football championship semi-final game in Dallas or the Men's NCAA Final Four in 2018 in San Antonio.  It also calls into question these teams ability to recruit in certain states.

[Balsy]

11 hours ago, Sergeant Zip said:

It looks like California's "Island of Inclusivity" may not allow CA state funded teams to play in the 2018-2019 college football championship semi-final game in Dallas or the Men's NCAA Final Four in 2018 in San Antonio.  It also calls into question these teams ability to recruit in certain states.

 

People travel to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Tennessee to begin with?  (kidding)

All for it.  1) Any possibility of eliminating California teams from consideration of any national Title, I'm okay with.  To Hell with California.  And 2) California is just following the trend started in the private sector, so much so it lead to the VP's own party sending him to the political Siberia that is the Vice Presidency.  

I mean it's a disgrace that in 2017 we have states passing laws allowing discrimination of any kind. What are the snowflakes in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota and Tennessee so afraid they're going to catch the gay or something?  That they need to create safe-zones from homosexuals?  It's 2017 America, not 1887, or Saudi Arabia.  We're supposed to be better than this.

 

 

[Hilltopper]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

People travel to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Tennessee to begin with?  (kidding)

All for it.  1) Any possibility of eliminating California teams from consideration of any national Title, I'm okay with.  To Hell with California.  And 2) California is just following the trend started in the private sector, so much so it lead to the VP's own party sending him to the political Siberia that is the Vice Presidency.  

I mean it's a disgrace that in 2017 we have states passing laws allowing discrimination of any kind. What are the snowflakes in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota and Tennessee so afraid they're going to catch the gay or something?  That they need to create safe-zones from homosexuals?  It's 2017 America, not 1887, or Saudi Arabia.  We're supposed to be better than this.

 

 

You really want to try and compare those states to Saudi Arabia? Lol

[K92]

4 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

You really want to try and compare those states to Saudi Arabia? Lol

Alabamistan.

[skip-zip]

No worries.  This will all be over when everyone eventually decides that they are tired of the latest liberal social agenda being forced upon us, and we return to the next era of common sense.  About 30 years from now, everyone will laugh when you tell them that there were people who actually fought for something like the "right" for Men to be able to go into a Women's bathroom.  

 

And if this crusade doesn't fade away on it's own soon enough, the Supreme Court will take care of it.  

[Balsy]

10 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

You really want to try and compare those states to Saudi Arabia? Lol

 

Using religion as a means for discrimination?  Yup.  Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism no matter the flavor.

 

2 hours ago, skip-zip said:

No worries.  This will all be over when everyone eventually decides that they are tired of the latest liberal social agenda being forced upon us, and we return to the next era of common sense.  About 30 years from now, everyone will laugh when you tell them that there were people who actually fought for something like the "right" for Men to be able to go into a Women's bathroom.  

 

Yeah, when you guys are no longer the major voting block and the millennials are, none of this crap will matter anymore because we don't care about preventing people from using the bathroom.  Its a freakin bathroom.  Someone wants to dress like a woman and use it because they feel comfortable, w/e its their life.

 

It's more about the right of a business to discriminate against a person because of their personal life.  I don't personally care about the bathroom issue.  I do, however, care about passing laws requiring police to check people's IDs as they go into the bathroom. And if a Lesbian doesn't look "girl" enough to go into the women's bathroom, she's not allowed to go in because of asinine laws.  Who the creak cares, it's a bathroom...and in the women's bathroom they go into stalls.  What are you snowflakes scared about?  

[Hilltopper]

Do you really think that everyone in your age group thinks just like you? Here's a newsflash for you, they don't.  I love how progressives seem to try and label everyone and try to use that create divisions in our country. You're practicing your own brand of fundamentalism that says anyone who disagrees with you must be stopped from exercising their ideals because it offends you!

[skip-zip]

Let me add something to Hilltopper's post above.  

 

Balsy,  I love some of your posts.  And I know you are young, but let me point out something else to you.

 

Your theory that the young liberals will eventually all become older and become the major voting block that takes over the country's elections is flawed.  It never happens because people see the light as they get older.  I happen to be old enough to remember the gigantic liberal movement of the 60s.  I even remember telling everyone that I wanted to go to college at Cal-Berkley.  I even diligently studied the facts of May 4th at Kent, and wished I was there to join those students.  

 

So if your theory was correct, those of us in our 50s, and 60s like me would still all be voting Democrat.   We aren't.   People change their views as they get well into their careers, raise families, buy homes, pay taxes, see what truly drives economic growth, understand how the mainstream media operates, etc.  

[skip-zip]

11 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

I love how progressives seem to try and label everyone and try to use that create divisions in our country.

 

While they simultaneously claim that they want everyone to be treated equally.  

[kreed5120]

Knew I shouldn't have clicked in this thread.

[Balsy]

14 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

Do you really think that everyone in your age group thinks just like you? Here's a newsflash for you, they don't.  I love how progressives seem to try and label everyone and try to use that create divisions in our country. You're practicing your own brand of fundamentalism that says anyone who disagrees with you must be stopped from exercising their ideals because it offends you!

 

Of course I don't.  But the research conducted on the matter, indicates that anti-LGBTQ legislation in any form...anti-marriage laws, allowed to refuse service laws, and bathroom laws (I'll come back to this one in a moment) are overwhelmingly not liked or supported by generation.  Newsflash; millennials are more progressive, even the conservative ones, than your generation.  It's just a fact.

I am not practicing a brand of fundamentalism, sorry.  You're allowed to excercise whatever ideals you want, I don't care.  But I will challenge you on them, I will criticize you on them, and I will call BS on them.  Where I have a problem is when municipalities pass laws that allow discrimination of ANY kind.  Fortunately we have laws that protect based upon Race and Religions, but we don't based upon sexual preference.  Of course, I AGREE with you that we shouldn't have to pass laws to protect that, it should just be a given.  Who cares who you sleep with at night, or who you're married to?  (This is a rather Libertarian idea BTW, not progressive).

 

You get these states that then pass laws that say it is okay to single out someone, for something that's none of their business, because they have a "sincerely held religious belief" not to serve them.  That's wrong.  That's anti everything this country should stand for.  It's in the same ilk of having a "sincerely held religious belief" of not serving black people in a restaurant.  And I will call it out, every single time. Again this idea that people shouldn't be discriminated against for arbitrary reasons, is a Libertarian idea, not a progressive one.  The progressive idea is that you must use the law to protect that right.  The ones passing the laws, aren't the progressives in this case...it's the Republican legislatures.

 

[kreed5120]

3 hours ago, skip-zip said:

People change their views as they get well into their careers, raise families, buy homes, pay taxes, see what truly drives economic growth, understand how the mainstream media operates, etc.  

I'm going to regret getting involved in this I know, but what does the economy have anything to do with this issue at hand? I absolutely hate how the 2 party system divides this country. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, but so many people are adamant their party is 100% right on all issues and the other is 100% wrong. One party could come up with the cure to cancer and the other would find a reason to object because they weren't the ones to come up with the idea (obviously I know a party wouldn't come up with a cure to cancer). This makes the country weaker, not stronger. 

 

As a moderate, I just wish candidates would run without party labels and the people would pick the candidates solely based off the issues, not because they belong to a political party their parents supported.

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, skip-zip said:

Balsy,  I love some of your posts.  And I know you are young, but let me point out something else to you.

 

Your theory that the young liberals will eventually all become older and become the major voting block that takes over the country's elections is flawed.  It never happens because people see the light as they get older.  I happen to be old enough to remember the gigantic liberal movement of the 60s.  I even remember telling everyone that I wanted to go to college at Cal-Berkley.  I even diligently studied the facts of May 4th at Kent, and wished I was there to join those students.  

 

So if your theory was correct, those of us in our 50s, and 60s like me would still all be voting Democrat.   We aren't.   People change their views as they get well into their careers, raise families, buy homes, pay taxes, see what truly drives economic growth, understand how the mainstream media operates, etc.  

 

Look, I never claimed the Democratic party as the bastion of liberalism, or classic liberalism in this country, or progressivism.  In fact, I guarantee you I am highly likely to not vote in the Democratic party in the relatively near future, but that's because the party has had a massive shift away from the things I believe it needs to be focused on and running campaigns on, and it's massively corrupt (as is the Republican Party).  For instance it has made social issues the forefront, while I think Jobs and the Economy should be.  (That's without saying that BOTH political parties are different in rhetoric, but in reality of things accomplished are pretty much the same).

But there are issues generations become defined by, here's an analysis of it.  You do see a shift on many issues over-time.  This isn't bound to a political ideology.  I know it's hard to believe, there's Republicans I support!  Mostly on the Local, County and state levels, but because of certain issues, and where I place value in them.

This younger generation doesn't give one-flying-flip about passing laws about allowing discrimination against LGBTQ people.  Not because we all want it, or believe it's acceptable, we just don't care to ban it.  It's very, Libertarian of us.  We grew up with friends who were out, and we don't care about it.  Just like your generation didn't give a one-flying-flip about passing anti-black laws, which older generations might have been more in favor of.  My mother, roughly in your generation (a little older I'd take it) and I have conversations about this stuff all the time.

I just want to be clear on this; overtime issues become the center of what will change based upon a generation's view on it.  I say with a high level of confidence, there will not be a drastic change in millennials views towards healthcare, LGBTQ, and a number of other issues.  I'm a critic of many things on the left myself, I know that's hard to believe.

 

Oh I'll agree with you that how I view the world has changed in the last 6-years, but it has not changed how I feel on issues.  But I'm probably a lot more well travelled and experienced than you'd realize.  That's what the generations thing above is a good read. 

[Balsy]

4 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

I'm going to regret getting involved in this I know, but what does the economy have anything to do with this issue at hand? I absolutely hate how the 2 party system divides this country. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, but so many people are adamant their party is 100% right on all issues and the other is 100% wrong. One party could come up with the cure to cancer and the other would find a reason to object because they weren't the ones to come up with the idea (obviously I know a party wouldn't come up with a cure to cancer). This makes the country weaker, not stronger. 

 

As a moderate, I just wish candidates would run without party labels and the people would pick the candidates solely based off the issues, not because they belong to a political party their parents supported.

 

I know you might find this hard to believe, I 100% agree with you.  I hate the two party system that boils the things down to a divisive issue, instead of a conversation.  I'm personally an advocate in the Democratic party, for it to open it's umbrella and accepting people who don't agree with us 100% on every issue.  You wouldn't believe the blowback I got.  

I know I come across as a Pure-Democratic-Live-And-Die, I'm really not.  I despise both parties, and I have candidates I like in both, however they usually get torpedoed by a system that isn't set up for debate and discussion of ideas.

Unfortunately it's all about the $$$$.  Parties make it easier to run, which in turn makes it easier for those who have $$$ to have access to the parties.

[Hilltopper]

So Balsy, you're perfectly OK with a genetic male who "identifies" as female walking around naked in the ladies locker room at the local health club?

[skip-zip]

There's way too much to follow here, but let me add a few things:

 

1) I have gay friends and relatives, including an uncle and cousin.  I love them the same.  

 

2) I invite the millennials/liberals (or however they are defined) to tell me who should have "rights" if their own mother, wife, young daughter or young niece has the crap scared out of them by having a big burly man walk into the bathroom with them?  Your stance that this "man" should be allowed in there because they are acting on their own "sexual preference" would change in a heartbeat.

 

3) See #2.  The problem with the entire argument is that today's young liberals want whatever THEY feel is right and just to be protected.  And everything else is an act of discrimination against somebody.  Where do you think the rhetoric that, "if you don't like Obama, you must be a racist" began?

 

4) When someone won't service you in a store because of their religious beliefs, wouldn't it be easy to just go to another store down the street?.  That's what I do when I don't like how a store is treating me.  But when liberal lawyers, left wing organizations and the media offer to exploit your case for you, everything changes.  They even strategically choose to challenge those cases in areas where there are liberal judges that would be sympathetic to them.  Why would they go to such effort?  Because....it has nothing to do with being denied service at that store.  That store merely serves as their latest vehicle to force their own social beliefs on the rest of us.  

 

5) Common sense laws to protect public safety are a necessity.  No .1% group of people in this country should be permitted to violate or change those laws at everyone else's expense, especially when it comes to trying to claim that you are some gender other than the gender that you actually are.   I recently got my driver's license renewed.  Should I have had a right to make them put "F" on there?  Should I report it to the media, and hire an attorney?  It's getting ridiculous, folks.   

[Balsy]

17 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

So Balsy, you're perfectly OK with a genetic male who "identifies" as female walking around naked in the ladies locker room at the local health club?

 

This should be separated into two separate things.  You guys are deciding to focus on those who believe themselves to be a different gender than they were born.  I've so far been focusing my commentary on discrimination on serving gay people.  Looking at the legislation being opposed by the travel ban, it was targeting BOTH kinds of legislation, not one.

Actually Hilltopper, I don't know how I feel about it.  Using a bathroom is one thing.  Locker Rooms and local health clubs, eh...not so sure about it.  But I think this is a fallacy on your part, the same fallacy that conservatives levy against liberals whenever the gun control debate comes up.  Why legislate to something that doesn't actually happen.  I do not for a moment believe there is a rash of trans-gender individuals who all of a sudden are using locker rooms, or even bathrooms TBH.  Trans-gender people have always existed, and believe it or not...they probably used those bathrooms and facilities WITHOUT YOU KNOWING anyways.  So what harm was done?  What are you actually trying to solve?  Are we going to check the genitalia of everyone going into a bathroom now?

How I feel about it is irrelevant to the fact that passing laws on this is entirely irrelevant.  It's a non-issue, red-haring used to divide us.  I mean look at the people on this forum already, ready to go at each other's throats over a relatively minute, almost non-existant thing.

As for Legislation on being allowed to discriminate against Gay people in whatever business you want (which is separate from the bathroom issue you keep focusing on) I am absolutely against this, and it is a considerably bigger issue than the one above.  There are far more gay people, their marriage to each other is now legal, and they live everywhere. 

The California Law, according to article from Al.com in the first post:  "prohibits state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with laws that authorize or require discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or same-sex couples."

In the same article hyperlinked within that one Alabama specifically is on the list because:  "In Alabama's case, it was the passage of a lawallowing adoption agencies in the state to follow faith-based policies, including the option to not place children with gay couples."

You, for some reason, have decided to focus on the red-haring.  I have decided to focus on the other.  Hopefully you actually read this post.

[Balsy]

16 hours ago, skip-zip said:

There's way too much to follow here, but let me add a few things:

 

1) I have gay friends and relatives, including an uncle and cousin.  I love them the same.  

 

2) I invite the millennials/liberals (or however they are defined) to tell me who should have "rights" if their own mother, wife, young daughter or young niece has the crap scared out of them by having a big burly man walk into the bathroom with them?  Your stance that this "man" should be allowed in there because they are acting on their own "sexual preference" would change in a heartbeat.

 

3) See #2.  The problem with the entire argument is that today's young liberals want whatever THEY feel is right and just to be protected.  And everything else is an act of discrimination against somebody.  Where do you think the rhetoric that, "if you don't like Obama, you must be a racist" began?

 

4) When someone won't service you in a store because of their religious beliefs, wouldn't it be easy to just go to another store down the street?.  That's what I do when I don't like how a store is treating me.  But when liberal lawyers, left wing organizations and the media offer to exploit your case for you, everything changes.  They even strategically choose to challenge those cases in areas where there are liberal judges that would be sympathetic to them.  Why would they go to such effort?  Because....it has nothing to do with being denied service at that store.  That store merely serves as their latest vehicle to force their own social beliefs on the rest of us.  

 

5) Common sense laws to protect public safety are a necessity.  No .1% group of people in this country should be permitted to violate or change those laws at everyone else's expense, especially when it comes to trying to claim that you are some gender other than the gender that you actually are.   I recently got my driver's license renewed.  Should I have had a right to make them put "F" on there?  Should I report it to the media, and hire an attorney?  It's getting ridiculous, folks.   

 

 

1)  This is also what every racist says.  "I have lots of black friends..."  Like this is literally the last thing to say in a conversation where you're trying to convince people your not biased towards whatever it is you just referenced...

2) This is a fallacy.  Trans-gender Male-to-Female aren't going to be a big Burley man who walks into a bathroom.  Their going to look like a girl.  Like there is nothing stopping men from walking into bathrooms right now if they wanted to anyways, you think a law is magically going to stop that?  The issue is that there are people who change their gender identity (wouldn't otherwise know if you didn't lift of their skirt to check) using a bathroom.  Yeah this point is BS.

3)  Everyone has the right to be equally protected under law and not be singled out for special criticism.  Period.  Bigots deserve to be called out for being bigots.   And when you think I'm being a bigot CALL ME OUT ON IT.  Why are people so afraid of being called out for things?  I'm not.  I'm not a snowflake who needs a safe-space.  I'll meet anyones criticisms of me and the things I say with facts and logic.  Anytime anywhere.

4)  Wouldn't it just be as easy for a Black person to just go find a black person store to shop at?  Same logic you're presenting here.  If you live in a community that is mostly religiously inspired against gay people, you're screwed.  Equal protection under law should apply.  If you have a problem serving black people, don't open a business.  If you have a problem serving gay people, don't open a business.  Screw you and your (Not you individually Skip, more a broad statement to those offended by gay people) religious convictions, none of us care.  You have the right to hold them, but we have the right to not give a rat's ass about them or have them impact/impeded our lives. 

5)  Yes, common sense laws like seat belts, water and air, chemical regulations protect people.  Anti-gay legislation is not common-sense.  We got to protect people from gay people?  Really?  Just like how we once had to protect from black people right?  Please...this is a GARBAGE point.  You know it, I know it.  Since you're all about protecting people, you're going to jump on board for the next waiting period/background check on all firearm purchases legislation right?  You're going to jump on board for the banning of assault weapons right?  Because you're all for common-sense legislation that protects people right?  You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite right?

Obviously with that last bit I'm being OBVIOUSLY HYPERBOLIC and pointing out the hypocrisy of that argument.  These laws actually protect people (anti-LGBTQ)?  BS!

Edited July 11, 2017 by Balsy

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 Anti-gay legislation

 

There's the place where liberals have all gone completely astray in the common sense category.  YOU have decided that telling men to use the bathroom that says MEN, and women to use the bathroom that says WOMEN is discrimination, hate, or akin to early 20th century laws against black people because of their skin color.  You, and the rest of your flock, have also decided that a man "feeling like a woman" should matter, but religious freedoms and convictions should not. I often wish that many of the millennials had not been spoon-fed by their parents, and would have learned that you can't just insist that everything you don't like should be changed.  Even something as straightforward and certain as the official results of elections produces outrage.  That's how your generation was raised.  Everything you don't like is "BS" (see above), because you decided that it is because you want things to be some other way.  Like I've said to you a few times already, people start to "get it" more as they get older and experience more of life.      

 

Since you've insisted several times now that it's "just a bathroom", then we can just leave that one alone now, right?

If you have a pee pee, urinate in the Mens' room.  

Simple enough.  

You can't get more "common sense" than that.  

 

[kreed5120]

@Balsy 

 

To be fair though both parties try to focus on the extreme cases to delegitimize the other parties stance. They also try to deflect a point by going on a tangent completely unrelated to the subject at hand and name call as you can see in the post above. I'm pretty sure I heard his rant word for word on Fox News, but of course all media is liberal biased *eye roll*

 

Edit: I just wish if people used religion as justification to discriminate against gays they would also enforce it on other groups the bible states are sinners. Instead they single out a select group because they are an easy target and make them feel better about themselves.

 

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

Edit: As an aside I do actually agree that men should use men bathrooms and women should use women restroom. I just don't understand the logic that a place would refuse to make a cake for a gay couple because they are sinners, but will make one for someone going on their 4th marriage.

Edited July 11, 2017 by kreed5120

[zippy5]

Man I hope I don't grow up and "get it" anytime soon. 

[Hilltopper]

My wife and daughter also have a right to privacy and protection. The locker room issue is just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom-laws-worry-parents/

 

Girls from a swim team in New York City’s Upper West Side are too scared to use the women’s locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool. In March, a sign appeared noting that everyone has the the right to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their “gender identity or gender expression.” Around the same time, the girls, who range in age from about seven to 18, became concerned after they saw a “bearded individual” in the women’s changing room.

[skip-zip]

And that's only a small sampling of the proof that this "inclusiveness" is opening the door to predators.  And I'm surprised that even mainstream media sources have been compelled to report these incidences.  

 

Here's a few more:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/58525-frightening-incidents-begin-in-target-s-transgender-friendly-bathrooms

 

[Hilltopper]

Say goodbye to womens sports fairness. This person has a mustash.

 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/

 

 

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/sports/transgender-boys-matches-with-girls-leave-all-unsatisfied.html

Edited July 11, 2017 by Hilltopper

[kreed5120]

5 hours ago, zippy5 said:

Man I hope I don't grow up and "get it" anytime soon. 

I heard you get it if they sneeze on you.