Trump's War on Trans Rights

Post Reply New Topic

More precisely people (we know who) use religion to masquerade their personal prejudice against blacks, gays, muslims (insert minority group here)

As a child I knew a devout christian woman who told my mother that she felt physically sick whenever she saw an aboriginal person. Unfortunately christianity (or islam for that matter) doesn't create a brotherhood of man or teach tolerance

LOL ... at your first statement; it made me laugh.

Sure, I would agree that pro-LGBT is the enlightened, moral, high ground.

I was just pointing out the law.

Many white southerners claimed God wanted the races separated in order to justify segregation. There's still a Biblical fundy college that still makes the same argument.

If a service or business is open to the public, then trans or black Americans have the right to service.

But why is service a right? And if this is the case, why are establishments like men-only clubs or sororities allowed? It seems that just because something is open to the public, that does not mean that it must serve every citizen. I think the reason sororities are allowed vs. a white's only club would probably be because of their differing motivations. Both are segregated, but the latter is motivated by racism. So discrimination on the basis of hate is what is not a right in your mind. It's a limitation on "property rights." Is this what you mean?

@MushroomPrincess

Yes, it is, if by "public" spaces, you mean "open to the public" not "owned by the public." Privately-owned establishments should be allowed to do whatever they like, in my mind. I also defend the rights of those who smoke marijuana, although I'm thoroughly disgusted with the habits of many who smoke it. People use their rights in ways I dislike all the time, but I still defend them because I think it's important. If it truly is a right, it belongs to them, so why should I feel entitled to take it away? What does the word "right" mean if we get to pick and choose which ones we like, anyway?

Because there's a huge difference between a business open to the public, and a private organization such as a men's' only - he-man woman haters club. If you don't want to serve blacks or trans people, then form a private club.

Exactly, but we have too many people that want to pick and choose which rights are important.

Like Kraichgauer said, replace "trans" with "black" and see how awful this sounds. Would you defend a business's right to refuse service to black people? Or have "whites only" restrooms, etc.?

Before Trump was elected, I can hardly even imagine having this conversation with someone. Now we have people openly admitting that they approve of Jim Crow-style discrimination. It's a little disturbing, and has frightening implications for the future of our country.

Divide and conquer has been an effective political strategy in the past.

I have always been vocal about my beliefs. The reason you're seeing these conversations now is that Trump is stirring up controversy.

I did replace it, and I found that my opinion does not change. I suppose I should mention that I'm not fully white myself, nor am I straight. People of my race in the US have experienced atrocities that infuriate me. I get as angry as you do, trust me, but I can't let it dictate how I react. My political beliefs have developed independently, and I think that's why I tend to clash with so many people - both left and right. Understand that my only concern is whether or not a person's rights are being breached by another's actions, and if someone is doing this - no matter what either person's beliefs are - I will defend the victim. If no one's rights are being breached, however, I will defend any action. This goes either way. I will defend you against legislation that seeks to remove your right to surgery. I will defend them when they use their private property in ways I disapprove of.

The real question, which I am most preoccupied with, is which things are rights and which are not. I would have to be convinced that you have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of hate. These conversations are complicated, though. We would have to both agree on what a "right" was in order to get anywhere.

@Kraichgauer

Why is there a difference between a privately owned club and a privately owned business? They are both private property. Like I said, you have to spell it out. Other people's minds seem to make leaps - I need to see how you connect these ideas in order to understand your point of view.

Because a privately owned business is opened to the public in order to make money, which legally means the whole public. Open your doors to the public, and everyone constituting the public has the right to equal service.
In this case, the person made into a victim is the consumer who has been turned away from a particular business that opens its doors to everyone else.
A private club, on the other hand, is not open to the public, and so can pick and choose its members, something said privately owned business open to the public can not do.

I agree.

We won't be divided anymore when we all just accept that the black power activists are right.

What is legally required doesn't matter as much as why these conventions exist. I already know that they are considered different, but I want to know how they're different. Why can't an establishment like a restaurant decide to not open to the public, but to only a select group? Why must a restaurant be open to the public? Why can't it be selective? What is the difference - not legal, but inherent - between the two establishments?

What you're all missing is the simple fact that not all discrimination is bad. Do you think children should serve in the military? If you were on the front line and you were relying on the people around you for your life, needing them to do their bit in terms of moving equipment, being co-ordinated, having strength\stamina\controlled aggression, keeping calm under danger and so on...would you want to be serving next to a ten year old? No? So in that instance discriminating due to age is sometimes a good thing.

If a female is the victim of a sexual assault by a man then they'd rather the person examining\interviewing them is a female. If I was on the second floor of a burning building and a fire fighter turned up to get me out, I'd rather that fire fighter was a man. Sure some women probably would be capable of getting me out safely but it's far more likely a man could.

The law has to decide where and when discrimination is acceptable. Is it acceptable to ban men from female changing rooms? Is it acceptable to ban women from being police officers? These are things that need to be decided on on an almost case-by-case basis.

This argument of equating all discrimination to racism is simply a tool to try and silence people who say things you don't agree with. It's a way to call anyone a "racist", the preferred slur to shut people up you don't agree with. Instead we should ask if stopping trans people from serving in the military is justified or not, that's what is important. Seeing it simply "this is discrimination, discrimination is bad because Hitler" is not a sound argument.

Because as all people are equal under the law, a business that is open to the public must cater to all customers, despite what prejudices the owner might have. In pre-civil rights times, one of the instruments of oppression was to treat certain customers (usually based on color, but also religion and national origin) less preferentially than others. Sure, the business owner has rights, but so do the customers.

Nobody's trying to silence anybody. I'm just contextualizing two forms of discrimination within America's history of white male supremacy. If you'd rather avoid the topic of race and racism, then that's your choice (though I'd have to say your silence on the subject is pretty telling).