I imagine there are, perhaps rural, areas where it might indeed not be possible to find a bakery willing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, if such a thing were allowed.
But even if not, why does a gay couple not get the bakery that offers the best cakes, or the cheapest cake, or whatever it was that made them choose the one bakery in the first place?
Lets follow your logic to its conclusion, as the presenter in the following video does at the University of Washington:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho
You end with a bunch of mush for brains kids who are incapable saying the truth for fear of offending someone.
Oh, and someone earlier claimed that there were no incidents of abuse allowing men in women’s bathrooms. From the University of Toronto:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh?utm
According to the following page, the quotes are as follows:
@awcntdb you said:
“The harm you are stating has to do with the stopping of a person from doing something. Since there are other wedding cake bakeries, one is not overtly harmed by being denied a wedding cake by one baker who has a certain religious belief.”
In legal circles, That is just not true. In the court of law in public accommodation cases It doesn’t matter how many bakeries are or are not open for business. The “harm” that you have been subject to is being denied the service. Actually not getting the product.
What does this incident have to do with transgender students (who are the subject of the claim that there have been no incidents)? The university found that male students were taking advantage of gender neutral bathrooms, and so changed some to mens/womens rooms, and stated that they should be used by those who identify as male/female, respectively.
I want to know what the people who are for this law do with intersection individuals. I know, I know, some like to ignorantly believe that there are only two sexes but there are many, many people whose genitalia or chromosomes may surprise you.
Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22" - that fits on a cake? A Bible shaped cake?
I doubt it.
They have all these fancy computer cake print machines now, I suppose one can have anything on a cake, even objectionable Old Testament passages.
@zinhead. That story has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Presumably, the young men who were guilty of filming showering women were straight and not transgender. In addition, it was a temporary decision to reduce the number of gender neutral bathrooms and one such room still exists on each floor of that one dorm. No changes were made to the dozens of other dorms on campus.
I’m assuming that the bakers received federal student loans, small business tax breaks and the joy of using public utilities and protections of local fire and police departments.
If I as a tax payer are subsidizing their business shouldn’t I be allowed to pay less taxes if they are allowed to discriminate against me?
@alwaysamon - The name of the article is “University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms After Peeping Incidents.” The point of the law in NC and others like it is to stop incidents like the one described in the article.
To get back to the pragmatic:
The incident at UToronto isn’t related to transgender individuals.
Peeping Toms aren’t new at all and the problem was solved without resorting to bans or discrimination. You can also bet the peeping toms will be punished severely enough that other students won’t think it’s an okay thing to do.
Also, note that the situation of peeping toms, all being heterosexual males, was identified about 30 pages back as the #1 bathroom problem (and transgender people assaulting others or being peeping toms reported as zero case.)
(Note that the misuse - intentional or not- by the newspaper doesn’t make the issue “transgender”; there are no such things as “transgender bathrooms”, same as there are no transgender kitchens and transgender dens. The word would be “gender neutral”, or in the 90s, unisex. Think Ally mcBeal.)
Regarding the example linked:
Fully developped adults shouldn’t change in “open space” locker rooms where there are youngsters whose body is different from theirs, because nakedness isn’t something simple to process when you’re young or a teenager, even the nakedness of those who share the same basic anatomical features as yourself; teens have a right to be shocked and distressed if someone is changing next to them or “seeing them” that person isn’t the same anatomical sex as they are. Teens can be made comfortable with their own bodies but sharing a locker room with someone who doesn’t share their anatomy isn’t the way to do it, regardless of how the person regards themselves.
Unlike what some sensationalist reporers/columnists/bloggers (?) more or less said, the LGBTQ community isn’t advocating “adult penises parading around in locker room with naked teenage girls/adult women naked parading around in a locker room with teenage boys” (although those supporting this idea aren’t in the LGBQ community, I’m pretty sure some in the heterosexual community would be in favor).
Many (most?) LGBTQ groups are advocating the right for people who identify as female to walk into a stall inside a female changing room or bathroom at the YMCA or the pool. You come in fully dressed, you come out dressed in the appropriate outfit/uniform/swimsuit. What’s in your underpants is seen by no one and concerns no one, and you are who you say you are.
Schools are stickier since many locker rooms are still open-space, but as far as I know when you change into your gym clothes you don’t get naked. In addition, installing curtain partition would certainly be better for most. I know quite a few teens who’d love not having to change in front of buffer/thinner kids.
I admit I’ve never seen non-stall showers but admit they might exist in some schools - I remember there used to be some at my middle school, but they were revamped some time in the past 25 years because the kids refused to use them (getting naked in front of everybody else trumped absolutely every other consideration for them.)
(I absolutely draw a distinction between a space with minors, and a space with adults).
Then again, how often are rooms in public pools and public gyms totally open like in this example? If this is an issue, more partioned rooms should be created. It doesn’t take a huge budget to hang showercurtain-style partitions in locker rooms that don’t have stalls.
In any case, this example is different from bathrooms (no one’s nakedin bathrooms) and thus doesn’t explain, justify, or relate in any way to the NC, KS, and MS law.
Has there been pushback in KS and MS?
Ugh post 585 should be intersex not intersection. Stupid technology.
The title is inflammatory and doesn’t reflect what actually happened. A more accurate title (though equally inflammatory) would be “University of Toronto scales back gender neutral restrooms, because men ruin everything” 
Do many of you not realize that you are living in your own world and only seeing things the way you think as adults with your particular beliefs. Icky is but one reaction.
And having seen a situation I posted about earlier, I can tell you that icky is not the point when it comes to minors, What about the 5 and 10 year-old girls who were literally traumatized by a male walking in on them naked in the girls’ locker room? Traumatized enough for their Dads to rush down there to know they were safe.
Why are the rights of young girls to be safe and not feeling threatened in their surroundings being thrown to the wind for penises? There is real mental harm being done there to young females who are threatened by this activity. There is something really off with this logic. So what if some people do not care about what their kids are exposed to - many do care and some things just cross the line. And this may be one of them.
Clearly, there are those who seem to care less of the effect on young children. However, not everyone has forgotten about them and put political correctness behind to their well-being.
^I would view the much more serious problem with that scenario as an unrelated adult being naked with children. Wan’t there just a huge thread about this?
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1875254-old-naked-men-p1.html
Also, re-reading your scenario post, I am confused. Your refer to an “anatomical male” in one paragraph and a “transgendered male” in another. Were there two individuals involved? Did the person(s) claim to identify as female?
^but you’re talking about one incident implicating someone who lacks common sense.
the bathroom laws in NC are NOT about this situation.
awc #532 - re. exposed penis in women’s locker room
Were there any news reports of this incident?
I’m a bit skeptical as to what actually happened, assuming something did actually happen.
Anyone else have any knowledge of this?
Is this the story?
Duke released a statement condemning HB2
https://today.duke.edu/2016/04/leaders-hb2