INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Adam on December 08, 2011, 08:00:42 AM
-
I've been reading about that christian slag who's been fired from Macy's for refusing to let a trans woman use the women's changing rooms.
Apparently it is Macy's policy to let trans people use whichever one they identify as, but this woman thinks it violates her religious freedom, as apparently transgendered people don't exist lol
So what do you guys think? Should she have been fired? Should the store's policy be different? etc etc
-
Glad she got fired. She needs to learn a very hard lesson from this, and if she doesn't, well, tough luck for her.
Religious freedom should only be accepted to a certain extent. If your religious freedom enforces you to disrespect the freedom of others to be who they are and what gender they identify with, then I don't think anyone should respect such an extent of freedom.
-
:agreed:
Apparently she quoted some shite from Deutronomy (spelling? lol) to back up her beliefs. As if the Bible overrules everything... Also isn't Deutronomy in the old testament? the OT contains shitloads of fucking insane laws. I doubt she's follewed every other rule laid out in it
-
:agreed:
Apparently she quoted some shite from Deutronomy (spelling? lol) to back up her beliefs. As if the Bible overrules everything... Also isn't Deutronomy in the old testament? the OT contains shitloads of fucking insane laws. I doubt she's follewed every other rule laid out in it
She can't even if she wanted to. The Bible is full of contradictions you can't know which laws to follow exactly especially that the omniscient YAHWEH wasn't aware that such civilizations as they exist in today's world would emerge.
We don't punish people with the death penalty for being homosexuals or picking sticks on the Sabbath. On the contrary, we consider these acts barbaric by our modern standards.
-
Exactly. It's a fucking pick'n'mix religion imo. Picking and choosing what suits you out of a whole load of bullshit.
-
I don't get how it is called religious freedom? It is more like restriction. Trans people don't exist? She contradicted herself by not allowing the woman in the changerooms then.
-
What would her plan be, to get everyone to pull down their panties so she could check out their equipment?
I'm not really surprised that it happened at Macy's though. It was in Macy's in New York City that I was prevented from going into the handicapped fitting room with my daughter by an overly zealous employee because neither of us were in a wheelchair.
-
Your right to religious freedom stops where it impedes on the freedom of others.
TAKE IT AWAY, TIM.
Tim Minchin - Pope Song Sonisphere 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBrHr4EhOVQ#ws)
-
It was in Macy's in New York City that I was prevented from going into the handicapped fitting room with my daughter by an overly zealous employee because neither of us were in a wheelchair.
Wow. Fucked up. When I was at the hospital they looked into getting me a radar key (dunno if they have them in the US, basically they're just keys so u can use disabled toilets), and I did worry about stuff like that - people stopping me going in just because I'm not in a wheelchair or something
-
I don't get how it is called religious freedom? It is more like restriction. Trans people don't exist? She contradicted herself by not allowing the woman in the changerooms then.
lol Yeah. I guess what she means be "religious freedom" is freedom for one person to curtail other people's freedoms
-
"Religious freedom" shouldn't give you the entitlement to be an asshole.
-
She also went up to her and said "you're a man" lol
Hardly a polite way for an employee to address a customer. deserves to be sacked just for being fucking rude
-
Ok I just want to ask , is the transperson in question a MTF?
I don't want to say the wrong gender and be utterly insulting :laugh:
But IMO I think the transperson in question should actually sue the ex-employee for her words.
As Pika said , religious freedom stops when it impedes on the rights of others , which is exactly why I think the WBC should be locked away for attempting to stir up hatred against gays.
-
But IMO I think the transperson in question should actually sue the ex-employee for her words.
You can't do that here and it's a damn good thing you can't. That would establish a horrible legal precedent that you could sue people for butthurt. >:(
I'd go on a rant Squiddy, on the importance of freedom of speech, and how that fredom includes the freedom to be insulted, but Christopher Hitchens makes the point better than anyone else here.
Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech - Part 1 of 2 (2006) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1_Uz4H8zv0#)
-
Scrap I agree with u about freedom of speech, but in certain positions you've got to put on an act - a polite act - whether u like it or not. and being an employee in a shop is one of those times. Shopworkers SHOULD get in trouble for being rude to a customer like that
oh and christopher hitchens is aweosme :2thumbsup:
Ok I just want to ask , is the transperson in question a MTF?
I don't want to say the wrong gender and be utterly insulting :laugh:
But IMO I think the transperson in question should actually sue the ex-employee for her words.
As Pika said , religious freedom stops when it impedes on the rights of others , which is exactly why I think the WBC should be locked away for attempting to stir up hatred against gays.
Yeah she was MTF. The worker actually said herself that she'd "been watching" her as soon as she came in, because she "knew" it was a man shopping for women's clothes.
Now that strikes me as fucking odd tbh. Even if there was a legitimate reason to stop a transwoman going in a women's fitting room (surely there isn't, especially as people undress behind curtains ANYWAY), then there's still no reason to be suspicious of them just for shopping there in the first place. Even if it was a man (biological male, not trans) shopping there, so what? Men can shop in women's stores ffs. Just the fact that she admited she was keeping her eye on "him" before "he" had even done anything makes it pretty clear shejust an intolerant bitch
-
I've been reading about that christian slag who's been fired from Macy's for refusing to let a trans woman use the women's changing rooms.
Apparently it is Macy's policy to let trans people use whichever one they identify as, but this woman thinks it violates her religious freedom, as apparently transgendered people don't exist lol
So what do you guys think? Should she have been fired? Should the store's policy be different? etc etc
I wonder what that religion is... Pretty sure none of the major religions discuss transgendered people's re changing rooms in a single holy text.
-
What would her plan be, to get everyone to pull down their panties so she could check out their equipment?
Here's a job to volunteer for. :zoinks:
-
But IMO I think the transperson in question should actually sue the ex-employee for her words.
You can't do that here and it's a damn good thing you can't. That would establish a horrible legal precedent that you could sue people for butthurt. >:(
Saying nasty things is different to discriminatory speech and actions. (I meant to put actions rather than words my bad)
I mean let's swap this around , if the MTF was a black woman and not a transperson , and the employee tried to stop her going in there , there would be IMMENSE uproar , and I'm pretty sure legal proceedings would have taken place against the employee
-
Scrap I agree with u about freedom of speech, but in certain positions you've got to put on an act - a polite act - whether u like it or not. and being an employee in a shop is one of those times. Shopworkers SHOULD get in trouble for being rude to a customer like that.
Yes, she did get in trouble, and rightfully so, she got fired and probably deserved more, but you don't get the law involved over butthurt.
-
I wouldn't get the law involved, no. Although if someone else did, I'd laugh and enjoy it if she got any kind of legal punishment :zoinks:
and yeh squiddy, there'd be uproar if this was racism. or intolerance of someone's religion, for that matter
-
But IMO I think the transperson in question should actually sue the ex-employee for her words.
You can't do that here and it's a damn good thing you can't. That would establish a horrible legal precedent that you could sue people for butthurt. >:(
Saying nasty things is different to discriminatory speech and actions. (I meant to put actions rather than words my bad)
Fair enough on the point about discriminatory actions. If you BEHAVE in a bigoted manner, then that has consequences and is rightfully against the law.
Discriminatory speech, on the other hand, is a slippery slope that you don't want to go down. Listen to the youtube link I posted, if you haven't already. Hitchens uses the case of a British historian who was jailed in Austria over the POSSIBILITY that he would violate their speech laws concerning the Holocaust.
As dusgusting as hate speech is, you don't want to make it into a Thought Crime. :police:
-
was that david irving? holocaust denier?
while irving is a ffucking lowlife scumbag, and holocaust denial is bullshit, I agree that the idea of locking someone up for having fucked up OPINIONS or beliefs is ridiculous
-
was that david irving? holocaust denier?
while irving is a ffucking lowlife scumbag, and holocaust denial is bullshit, I agree that the idea of locking someone up for having fucked up OPINIONS or beliefs is ridiculous
Yes it was David Irving. Even though his holocause denial books are bullshit, his other books about the Nazis are historically accurate.
-
was that david irving? holocaust denier?
while irving is a ffucking lowlife scumbag, and holocaust denial is bullshit, I agree that the idea of locking someone up for having fucked up OPINIONS or beliefs is ridiculous
While I'm with you that people shouldn't be locked up just because they have a fucked up opinion on something, I can empathize with that law in some countries.
The Holocaust is relatively recent. There are people who have been affected by it who are still alive.
-
was that david irving? holocaust denier?
while irving is a ffucking lowlife scumbag, and holocaust denial is bullshit, I agree that the idea of locking someone up for having fucked up OPINIONS or beliefs is ridiculous
While I'm with you that people shouldn't be locked up just because they have a fucked up opinion on something, I can empathize with that law in some countries.
The Holocaust is relatively recent. There are people who have been affected by it who are still alive.
That's neither here nor there. David Irving should still has a right to voice his opinions, as poisonous as some may find them. Instead he spent time in Austrian prison for what amounted to thoughtcrime.
-
Those people seem to be everywhere. :GA:
-
She should have simply turned the other cheek.
Jesus would have.
The main reason why I no longer follow Christianity is their hatred of gay people, Muslims, democrats, school lunches, puppies and spring.
Christianity is an excuse to hate.
-
was that david irving? holocaust denier?
while irving is a ffucking lowlife scumbag, and holocaust denial is bullshit, I agree that the idea of locking someone up for having fucked up OPINIONS or beliefs is ridiculous
While I'm with you that people shouldn't be locked up just because they have a fucked up opinion on something, I can empathize with that law in some countries.
The Holocaust is relatively recent. There are people who have been affected by it who are still alive.
That's neither here nor there. David Irving should still has a right to voice his opinions, as poisonous as some may find them. Instead he spent time in Austrian prison for what amounted to thoughtcrime.
I agree with this. Locking him up makes him a martyr to his supporters. By silencing him, it allows his supporters to claim that the authorities are hiding the truth.
The best way to deal with people like that is to let them speak, and to disprove his claims.
-
I only just saw this thread :facepalm2:
Yes what a silly cow. Glad she was sacked. I don't think it would be easy to take it further. It would require the name and address of the employee and that is confidential information. I think if the store had done nothing about it then there must be some way of forcing them to disclose...but not sure how.
Not all changing rooms have curtains though. I am not bothered either way. As a customer i wouldn't complain if i thought there was a trans person in there. TBH people rarely are looking at anyone else, it's a functional thing, just get the job done, does it fucking fit? Sweet i am out of there. If anyone was looking at me in a changing room, regardless of what sex they were i would likely ask "what the fuck are you looking at?" if i was in a bit of a bad mood. If i was feeling playful i would probably say something a bit tongue in cheek like "what do you reckon then? the black one? or the blue?"
What would be fun would be to set the silly cow up? I mean get a real biological female, perhaps a bit masculine in looks, to go in there and then when the assistant approached :flasher:
-
<heads to nearest macys wearing a dress with a spycam attached to shoes>
-
A little up skirt
-
I agree with this. Locking him up makes him a martyr to his supporters. By silencing him, it allows his supporters to claim that the authorities are hiding the truth.
The best way to deal with people like that is to let them speak, and to disprove his claims.
There are valid points to not locking them up for these sorts of issues, but disproving the claims they make cannot really be done as their claims are unfalsifiable as any conspiracy theory claim usually is.
Reason why I, in one sense, I'm with disciplining conspiracy theorists is that they often always spout these nonsense for their own selfish egotistical purposes (being inconsiderate of real victims and people who are actually innocent) and not because they have a real sense of justice for the sake of the country or the world.
-
"Disciplining" paranoia isn't going to do shit. It's a brain abnormality or genetic defect.
-
I agree with this. Locking him up makes him a martyr to his supporters. By silencing him, it allows his supporters to claim that the authorities are hiding the truth.
The best way to deal with people like that is to let them speak, and to disprove his claims.
There are valid points to not locking them up for these sorts of issues, but disproving the claims they make cannot really be done as their claims are unfalsifiable as any conspiracy theory claim usually is.
Reason why I, in one sense, I'm with disciplining conspiracy theorists is that they often always spout these nonsense for their own selfish egotistical purposes (being inconsiderate of real victims and people who are actually innocent) and not because they have a real sense of justice for the sake of the country or the world.
I don't know a huge ammount about the holocaust. TBH I've always found documentaries on the subject a bit stomache churning.
I would have assumed that the rough number of people killed by the Nazis could have been worked out.
If there is no way of proving the numbers of people killed, then is it possible that the official estimates are wrong?
-
I've been reading about that christian slag who's been fired from Macy's for refusing to let a trans woman use the women's changing rooms.
Apparently it is Macy's policy to let trans people use whichever one they identify as, but this woman thinks it violates her religious freedom, as apparently transgendered people don't exist lol
So what do you guys think? Should she have been fired? Should the store's policy be different? etc etc
Haha funny shit. Glad she was fired
-
"Disciplining" paranoia isn't going to do shit. It's a brain abnormality or genetic defect.
Not necessarily.
It could also be due to personal experiences. There are quite some otherwise normal people who believe in conspiracy theories and deny the Holocaust and such.
It's a lot about education and intellectual integrity.
-
I agree with this. Locking him up makes him a martyr to his supporters. By silencing him, it allows his supporters to claim that the authorities are hiding the truth.
The best way to deal with people like that is to let them speak, and to disprove his claims.
There are valid points to not locking them up for these sorts of issues, but disproving the claims they make cannot really be done as their claims are unfalsifiable as any conspiracy theory claim usually is.
Reason why I, in one sense, I'm with disciplining conspiracy theorists is that they often always spout these nonsense for their own selfish egotistical purposes (being inconsiderate of real victims and people who are actually innocent) and not because they have a real sense of justice for the sake of the country or the world.
I don't know a huge ammount about the holocaust. TBH I've always found documentaries on the subject a bit stomache churning.
I would have assumed that the rough number of people killed by the Nazis could have been worked out.
If there is no way of proving the numbers of people killed, then is it possible that the official estimates are wrong?
Only possible in the sense that it is possible that you might not be the person you make yourself out to be even if you were to post pictures of yourself and post YouTube videos and such. Or even if I were to meet in real life the person claiming to be Butterflies here. If I don't want to believe you're Butterflies, I may never be convinced by any evidence that you are.
That's how it is with Holocaust denialists. You can point them to all the evidence you want, but you can't prove the Holocaust happened.
There's a difference between proof and evidence. Evidence (no matter how strong) doesn't necessarily always point you to the facts and truths.
We do have strong evidence either way. For criticism of Holocaust denial, check this Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial)