Topic: This 'restroom law' is getting out of hand.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,799
How is this even enforceable without infringing upon a corporation's rights? Corporation's rights pretty much outweigh individual's rights. I do not think Alabama even has a restroom law. If this the company's decision and this kind of brings out the hypocrisy of the "Freedom of Religion Act". So it's okay for a business to choose to not service LGBT people but it's not okay for a business to choose to serve them? This shit seems like a lawsuit is brewing which could extend all the way to the supreme court.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/27/3773081/oxford-alabama-transgender-jail/
It feels like a second civil war might be brewing up too. This time not between two fictitious superheroes, slavery, or even guns. What the serious fuck?
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/27/3773081/oxford-alabama-transgender-jail/
It feels like a second civil war might be brewing up too. This time not between two fictitious superheroes, slavery, or even guns. What the serious fuck?
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #671,984
The funny thing is that some states let people get an amended birth certificate without any surgery. My partner just so happens to be born in one such state.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 50 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,985
Next they will pass a law that requires a bathroom monitor. You will have to show your genitals and submit to a genetic test before you can take a piss in Alabama.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,987
@671,984 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
> My partner just so happens to be born in one such state.
Which partner is that? Last I heard you had two.
> My partner just so happens to be born in one such state.
Which partner is that? Last I heard you had two.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,988
@671,985 (C)
Would there be mentors for elementary school restrooms?
Should Kimmo Alm or t04str move to the U.S. and apply for a job?
Would there be mentors for elementary school restrooms?
Should Kimmo Alm or t04str move to the U.S. and apply for a job?
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,989
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 57 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,990
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
What happened to the older woman you were seeing?
What happened to the older woman you were seeing?
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,992
<--- Problem Solved.Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,995
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,996
@671,992 (D)
@previous (C)
How about we just remove the fucking urinals? Problem solve.
They smell like shit and urine anyway.
@previous (C)
How about we just remove the fucking urinals? Problem solve.
They smell like shit and urine anyway.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,997
@previous (A)
I take it you do not go out clubbing very often. Women usually wait in long lines. Yes urinals are disgusting but it keeps the lines short.
I take it you do not go out clubbing very often. Women usually wait in long lines. Yes urinals are disgusting but it keeps the lines short.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #671,999
@671,992 (D)I came up with a better solution.
@previous (C)
So pee into a toilet like a civilized person at home and not into a trough like an animal.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #672,001
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #672,003
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #672,013
urinals are efficient.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #672,014
This Frank Zappa song summarizes the situation perfectly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-wzTRwJMg
In B4 YT;DW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-wzTRwJMg
In B4 YT;DW
buttons joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,068
@672,001 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
you had like 2 threads going bragging about how many people you were fucking
you had like 2 threads going bragging about how many people you were fucking
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,090
fuckin pee all over, spray it on floor
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,091
This is a radical concept but what if we let the people who own the bathrooms work this out for themselves?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,094
@previous (Metæ)
No. Business owners cannot be allowed to just charge around recklessly without oversight.
No. Business owners cannot be allowed to just charge around recklessly without oversight.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,097
@previous (J)
But... there's a twist! Business owners who make unpopular decisions will lose business and go out of business. It's like democracy.
But... there's a twist! Business owners who make unpopular decisions will lose business and go out of business. It's like democracy.
more positive squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,098
i think the most popular opinion on this matter, but i don't disagree with the less popular opinion at alli think maybe the best option for everyone should be chosen!
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,107
@672,097 (Metæ)
But shall that be the deciding factor? Or will it merely give business owners a free reign to be unfair or unreasonable?
I am not convinced of the libertarian slant...
But shall that be the deciding factor? Or will it merely give business owners a free reign to be unfair or unreasonable?
I am not convinced of the libertarian slant...
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,112
how about this
keep everyone out of the fuckin bathroom
keep everyone out of the fuckin bathroom
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,114
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,116
going to the bathroom around other people is fuckin weird we need to rehaul the whole fuckin thing. 1 person at a time
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,144
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 54 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,156
@672,097 (Metæ)
Racism was and is very popular in the South. It wasn't until the federal government stepped in that schools and businesses began desegregating en masse ("With all deliberate speed" perhaps was not the most urgent call to action ever written). Businesses don't make the "right" decisions, they usually make the economically sensible ones. If discrimination against a minority group is economically profitable, businesses will do that. Somehow the invisible hand not only sets prices in a market, but now also cures social ills? I don't get it.
Racism was and is very popular in the South. It wasn't until the federal government stepped in that schools and businesses began desegregating en masse ("With all deliberate speed" perhaps was not the most urgent call to action ever written). Businesses don't make the "right" decisions, they usually make the economically sensible ones. If discrimination against a minority group is economically profitable, businesses will do that. Somehow the invisible hand not only sets prices in a market, but now also cures social ills? I don't get it.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,159
@672,107 (J)
They do have the free reign to be unreasonable, but consumers also have free reign to boycott them. Businesses that make unpopular decisions will not be in business anymore.
I mean to give an example lets look at something less emotionally driven, like prices. A business owner is free to jack their prices up. There's nothing stopping McDonalds from being unreasonable and charging $100 for a Big Mac. Nothing, except that nobody is willing to pay $100 for a fast food burger and then McDonalds will no longer be in business.
They do have the free reign to be unreasonable, but consumers also have free reign to boycott them. Businesses that make unpopular decisions will not be in business anymore.
I mean to give an example lets look at something less emotionally driven, like prices. A business owner is free to jack their prices up. There's nothing stopping McDonalds from being unreasonable and charging $100 for a Big Mac. Nothing, except that nobody is willing to pay $100 for a fast food burger and then McDonalds will no longer be in business.
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 37 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,160
I never understood the whole thing when people act like transsexual women shouldn't be allowed in women's bathrooms because it's dangerous for little girls.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,161
@previous (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
> because it's dangerous for little girls.
The danger which is very real. A child molester can paint on makeup and put on a dress and just walk into a girls restroom in parks and other places where children play. The dude can claim he is a tranny. How is the law supposed to deal with this?
> because it's dangerous for little girls.
The danger which is very real. A child molester can paint on makeup and put on a dress and just walk into a girls restroom in parks and other places where children play. The dude can claim he is a tranny. How is the law supposed to deal with this?
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,164
@previous (C)
Yeah I get that, but maybe the deeper lesson is that public bathrooms are unsafe.
I mean, it just sounds ridiculous to suggest that the pedophiles ought to only be allowed where the other 50% of children shit and piss, the male bathrooms.
Yeah I get that, but maybe the deeper lesson is that public bathrooms are unsafe.
I mean, it just sounds ridiculous to suggest that the pedophiles ought to only be allowed where the other 50% of children shit and piss, the male bathrooms.
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 16 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,165
@672,161 (C)
Come on. You think it'd be difficult to prove whether or not a male predator put on a dress just to go into a woman's restroom to prey on girls? Is that to say that there are no female predators of young girls? Couldn't a male predator just as easliy hang out in the bathroom without changing his clothes? You're talking bullshit, it just doesn't happen.
Come on. You think it'd be difficult to prove whether or not a male predator put on a dress just to go into a woman's restroom to prey on girls? Is that to say that there are no female predators of young girls? Couldn't a male predator just as easliy hang out in the bathroom without changing his clothes? You're talking bullshit, it just doesn't happen.
buttons double-posted this 10 years ago, 54 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,166
@672,164 (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
Public restrooms aren't unsafe. What this discussion shows me is that it's unsafe to be a trans woman
Public restrooms aren't unsafe. What this discussion shows me is that it's unsafe to be a trans woman
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
buttons triple-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,167
@672,164 (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
Are you calling all transgendered people pedophiles or did you just flip the discussion to pedophilia again you creep
And you wonder why people think you're one
Are you calling all transgendered people pedophiles or did you just flip the discussion to pedophilia again you creep
And you wonder why people think you're one
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,171
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,173
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,174
http://wspa.com/2016/04/21/man-charged-after-10-year-old-girl-says-he-watched-her-in-bathroom/LANCASTER, Pa. – A Quarryville, Pennsylvania man was arrested and charged after a 10-year-old girl told her mother that she caught him watching her as she used the bathroom.
James Thomas Shoemaker, 19, faces one count of invasion of privacy in connection with the April 14 incident at the Sheetz in the 1100 block of Manheim Pike.
Employees at the store said Shoemaker had been in the bathroom for about an hour.
Police caught Shoemaker inside of a stall in the women’s bathroom in possession of a phone as described by the victim.
Investigators determined that Shoemaker was watching porn before using his camera to look over at the stall next to him.
Shoemaker has been released from custody with a summons to appear in court. His phone is being forensically analyzed.
James Thomas Shoemaker, 19, faces one count of invasion of privacy in connection with the April 14 incident at the Sheetz in the 1100 block of Manheim Pike.
Employees at the store said Shoemaker had been in the bathroom for about an hour.
Police caught Shoemaker inside of a stall in the women’s bathroom in possession of a phone as described by the victim.
Investigators determined that Shoemaker was watching porn before using his camera to look over at the stall next to him.
Shoemaker has been released from custody with a summons to appear in court. His phone is being forensically analyzed.
James will have less trouble next time when he learns to role play as a woman. He will probably have to lose that beard.
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,175
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 35 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,176
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 23 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,177
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E double-posted this 10 years ago, 26 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,178
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,179
@672,156 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
How profitable do you seriously think a segregated or whites-only store would be today? In today's social media world anyone caught shopping there (and believe me people would make an effort to shame the customers, and that's their right to film in a public place) would be an immediate pariah. Just look after the Charleston shooting how many businesses pulled confederate flag merchandise even though there was no law requiring it. Apple even removed a Civil War history app from the app store for using it in it's actual historical context.
Jim Crow was a statist policy, not something business owners campaigned for. I mean what business wants to build and maintain two bathrooms, two water fountains, two serving counters, two lobbies...
Would there be racist/sexist/ableist/_ist business owners? Probably but they would not be very popular and wouldn't stay in business long.
How profitable do you seriously think a segregated or whites-only store would be today? In today's social media world anyone caught shopping there (and believe me people would make an effort to shame the customers, and that's their right to film in a public place) would be an immediate pariah. Just look after the Charleston shooting how many businesses pulled confederate flag merchandise even though there was no law requiring it. Apple even removed a Civil War history app from the app store for using it in it's actual historical context.
Jim Crow was a statist policy, not something business owners campaigned for. I mean what business wants to build and maintain two bathrooms, two water fountains, two serving counters, two lobbies...
Would there be racist/sexist/ableist/
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 16 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,180
@672,175 (buttons)
@672,175 (buttons)
> ...He's not a woman
It will only take him 30 minutes to turn himself into a HeShe. Then according to you he will be a woman.
He will have to shave! However he could be a Heshe bearded woman.
@672,175 (buttons)
> ...He's not a woman
It will only take him 30 minutes to turn himself into a HeShe. Then according to you he will be a woman.
He will have to shave! However he could be a Heshe bearded woman.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,187
@previous (C)
So no? It could happen to anyone in any bathroom? And you can't find an example of a real trans woman doing it? Surprise
So no? It could happen to anyone in any bathroom? And you can't find an example of a real trans woman doing it? Surprise
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,189
@previous (O)> And you can't find an example of a real trans woman doing it? Surprise
Be very careful when you throw out the challenge, because the answer is just one click away using 1989 technology.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Here More Proof That Male's Being In Women Rest-Room and Dressing Room IS An Is Bad Idea And Liberal Say Nothing Happening? Really San Jose, CA Sex Offender Wearing Fake Breasts, Wig Arrested For Loitering In Womens' Restroom
It's not a crime for a man to put on a wig and fake breasts.
But it is a crime if you're wearing them and hanging out in a womens' restroom. (Current California Law)
Richard Rendler, 60, of San Jose, a registered sex offender, found that out on Friday in Campbell, when he was arrested at the PruneYard Shopping Center on misdemeanor loitering charges.
Campbell Police Sgt. Dave Carmichael said Rendler was arrested after having been caught in the womens' restroom of an unnamed store for "several minutes.''
Police were tipped off to Rendler's whereabouts shortly before noon on Friday, when a witness called authorities to say a man was getting out of his car wearing fake breasts and a wig and carrying a purse. The witness saw the man near a bank and thought it was a little "weird'' to see a man wearing what seemed to be a disguise, Carmichael said.
According to the Megan's Law Web site, Render has been previously arrested on charges of child molestation and indecent exposure.
Here More Proof That Male's Being In Women Rest-Room and Dressing Room IS An Is Bad Idea And Liberal Say Nothing Happening? Really San Jose, CA Sex Offender Wearing Fake Breasts, Wig Arrested For Loitering In Womens' Restroom
It's not a crime for a man to put on a wig and fake breasts.
But it is a crime if you're wearing them and hanging out in a womens' restroom. (Current California Law)
Richard Rendler, 60, of San Jose, a registered sex offender, found that out on Friday in Campbell, when he was arrested at the PruneYard Shopping Center on misdemeanor loitering charges.
Campbell Police Sgt. Dave Carmichael said Rendler was arrested after having been caught in the womens' restroom of an unnamed store for "several minutes.''
Police were tipped off to Rendler's whereabouts shortly before noon on Friday, when a witness called authorities to say a man was getting out of his car wearing fake breasts and a wig and carrying a purse. The witness saw the man near a bank and thought it was a little "weird'' to see a man wearing what seemed to be a disguise, Carmichael said.
According to the Megan's Law Web site, Render has been previously arrested on charges of child molestation and indecent exposure.
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,190
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,191
@672,159 (Metæ)
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The theory goes that a business is free to be "unreasonable", and the people are free to boycott it. If the boycott damages or shuts down the business then it's obviously too unreasonable. If a boycott doesn't work, then supposedly the behaviour of the business was not that big a deal.
My point is that, there is no guarantee that this will work perfectly. Maybe some backwards-ass southern place decides to ban trans people, or something. The local area has similar sentiments and doesn't care, but any trans people who happen to go there will be discriminated against. And won't have the "social power" necessary to make the store change.
That's what I'm concerned about. Everyone getting a fair deal. Laws can guarantee that, your method cannot.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The theory goes that a business is free to be "unreasonable", and the people are free to boycott it. If the boycott damages or shuts down the business then it's obviously too unreasonable. If a boycott doesn't work, then supposedly the behaviour of the business was not that big a deal.
My point is that, there is no guarantee that this will work perfectly. Maybe some backwards-ass southern place decides to ban trans people, or something. The local area has similar sentiments and doesn't care, but any trans people who happen to go there will be discriminated against. And won't have the "social power" necessary to make the store change.
That's what I'm concerned about. Everyone getting a fair deal. Laws can guarantee that, your method cannot.
falaina (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,195
These incidents that the media is now focusing on probably isn't fucking increasing or decreasing. They probably happened for the longest damn time and they are only continuing to occur. This whole restroom bullshit, at least from the right, seems to be the next big distraction since same-sex marriage was legalized in all fifty states. It now makes me wonder what the issue will be once same-sex marriage, marijuana, abortions, and the right for trannies to use their identified gender's restroom is legalized in all fifty states.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,197
@previous (falaina)
> is legalized in all fifty states.
With states rights the only way that can happen is if the Supreme court weighs in. That eventually could happen.
> is legalized in all fifty states.
With states rights the only way that can happen is if the Supreme court weighs in. That eventually could happen.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,198
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,205
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,219
@previous (buttons)
> An example of a woman not a 'male sex offender in wig'
As you know men dress as women for a variety of reasons. You will end up with a problem if you demand some proof of intent.
Is it a costume to deceive? Over the years Transvestites have deceived men in bars and ended up injured.
Deception is a two way street.
> An example of a woman not a 'male sex offender in wig'
As you know men dress as women for a variety of reasons. You will end up with a problem if you demand some proof of intent.
Is it a costume to deceive? Over the years Transvestites have deceived men in bars and ended up injured.
Deception is a two way street.
buttons replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,223
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,233
@672,159 (Metæ)
popular/unpopular is not the ultimate gauge for an unshitty society, you know that
popular/unpopular is not the ultimate gauge for an unshitty society, you know that
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 10 years ago, 59 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,234
Sheila LaBoof triple-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,235
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,238
kook !!mCVqftDha double-posted this 10 years ago, 42 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #672,240
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #672,277
@672,179 (Metæ)
That depends on where they are. I think you have this weird view of the world where racism is dead, business owners were never racist, and everyone always does the economically rational thing to do. Here is a poll of Mississippi Republican voters in 2011. If you scroll down to question 14, 46 PERCENT OF THEM THINK INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND 14 PERCENT DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE LEGAL OR NOT. In the year two thousand and fucking eleven. Do you think a town of Mississippi Republicans give a FUCK about the bad press they might hypothetically get on a social media platform they probably don't even use? No. They care about racial purity and they don't trust black people. This is after decades of forced integration and the entire country telling people "Stop being racist".
Racism, sexism, and bigotry of all sorts is fundamentally not rational. It is a hatred or fear that corrupts the reasoning process. Orval Faubus shut down the Little Rock school system, and the only way to get them to open it again was for the most respected man in the United States serving as president to order the deployment of the most respected war heroes from WWII, the 101st airborne, to personally escort black kids into white schools. This happened in 1958-1959. In 1960? Faubus was re-elected governor by a vote of 70%-30%. The thing I think you totally ignore is you have in your mind this image of how a business operates that is hyper-rational economic machine, when really it is run by human beings who have biases and serve customers with those biases. In the 1950s if you supported integration you were probably harassed and seen as a "nigger lover". It may have very well been a liability to support integration, despite the fact that nominally you are increasing your customer base. If the majority of white customers to your store do not want to be in the same building as black customers, then you are LOSING customers by allowing black people in. Your white customers will flock to your competitor who hates black people just as much as they do. The "free market" would encourage segregation because blacks, being poorer and a minority of the population, could not support a business as well as a steady base of pro-segregation racist white customers.
If you had to choose between serving a poor minority population, or a wealthy majority population as a business, there is only one economically rational decision. The only way this got better was the "liberal elite" yankee scum who were in the Supreme Court decided that you could not segregate public institutions, and the Civil Rights Act was passed and later litigated heavily to stop this kind of blatant racism. And even that law was almost not passed. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, there's a decent chance the bill dies in Congress and doesn't get passed, and it remains legal and economically sustainable to systemically discriminate against people based on race.
Ugh. Sorry I am just so fed up with libertarian viewpoints that I started to ramble. Tying it back to this current issue, if there is a similar incentive going on, where due to "religious liberty" or whatever bullshit fucking piece of shit garbage euphemism/excuse people have to cover up their homophobia, most of the population in the area supports discrimination against homosexuals, or transgender people or whatever, there is no economic incentive to NOT discriminate. You may in fact increase the number of customers at your business by discriminating, because your customers think you are sticking up for their "religious freedom" and will tell their church about your business.
Ok I lost my train of thought and I'm gonna go nap. I'm just so done with the fucking "well if businesses just do the "right" thing everything works out yay!" schtick.
That depends on where they are. I think you have this weird view of the world where racism is dead, business owners were never racist, and everyone always does the economically rational thing to do. Here is a poll of Mississippi Republican voters in 2011. If you scroll down to question 14, 46 PERCENT OF THEM THINK INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND 14 PERCENT DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE LEGAL OR NOT. In the year two thousand and fucking eleven. Do you think a town of Mississippi Republicans give a FUCK about the bad press they might hypothetically get on a social media platform they probably don't even use? No. They care about racial purity and they don't trust black people. This is after decades of forced integration and the entire country telling people "Stop being racist".
Racism, sexism, and bigotry of all sorts is fundamentally not rational. It is a hatred or fear that corrupts the reasoning process. Orval Faubus shut down the Little Rock school system, and the only way to get them to open it again was for the most respected man in the United States serving as president to order the deployment of the most respected war heroes from WWII, the 101st airborne, to personally escort black kids into white schools. This happened in 1958-1959. In 1960? Faubus was re-elected governor by a vote of 70%-30%. The thing I think you totally ignore is you have in your mind this image of how a business operates that is hyper-rational economic machine, when really it is run by human beings who have biases and serve customers with those biases. In the 1950s if you supported integration you were probably harassed and seen as a "nigger lover". It may have very well been a liability to support integration, despite the fact that nominally you are increasing your customer base. If the majority of white customers to your store do not want to be in the same building as black customers, then you are LOSING customers by allowing black people in. Your white customers will flock to your competitor who hates black people just as much as they do. The "free market" would encourage segregation because blacks, being poorer and a minority of the population, could not support a business as well as a steady base of pro-segregation racist white customers.
If you had to choose between serving a poor minority population, or a wealthy majority population as a business, there is only one economically rational decision. The only way this got better was the "liberal elite" yankee scum who were in the Supreme Court decided that you could not segregate public institutions, and the Civil Rights Act was passed and later litigated heavily to stop this kind of blatant racism. And even that law was almost not passed. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, there's a decent chance the bill dies in Congress and doesn't get passed, and it remains legal and economically sustainable to systemically discriminate against people based on race.
Ugh. Sorry I am just so fed up with libertarian viewpoints that I started to ramble. Tying it back to this current issue, if there is a similar incentive going on, where due to "religious liberty" or whatever bullshit fucking piece of shit garbage euphemism/excuse people have to cover up their homophobia, most of the population in the area supports discrimination against homosexuals, or transgender people or whatever, there is no economic incentive to NOT discriminate. You may in fact increase the number of customers at your business by discriminating, because your customers think you are sticking up for their "religious freedom" and will tell their church about your business.
Ok I lost my train of thought and I'm gonna go nap. I'm just so done with the fucking "well if businesses just do the "right" thing everything works out yay!" schtick.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #672,280
> 46 PERCENT OF THEM THINK INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND 14 PERCENT DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE LEGAL OR NOT.
My last post of the afternoon - Damn - I am taking the word of CNN today that California has only 20% Republicans registered - Yes we are truly a Liberal state -
2012 After the loss Republicans figured out they needed to court the Latino vote. That of course has been turned upside down LOL
It is said by everyone that Trump has to get 70% of the white Male vote and that means ALL the White Males.
So much more to say but gots to scoot.
ZoooOOOoooOOOOOOOOooooM-------------------------------------------------------------------->
My last post of the afternoon - Damn - I am taking the word of CNN today that California has only 20% Republicans registered - Yes we are truly a Liberal state -
2012 After the loss Republicans figured out they needed to court the Latino vote. That of course has been turned upside down LOL
It is said by everyone that Trump has to get 70% of the white Male vote and that means ALL the White Males.
So much more to say but gots to scoot.
ZoooOOOoooOOOOOOOOooooM-------------------------------------------------------------------->