The Sentinel: Shower-Nuts Lied To People
I'm glad to see this story. I have wondered if there wasn't any law regulating what you can tell people when you get them to sign a petition.
Unfortunately for us, The Sentinel is behind a paywall. Here's the story.
True, that. We heard them say all kinds of stuff. They said, This law will require men and women to use the same bathroom. They said it would enable pedophiles and predators to come into ladies rooms. We saw one guy with a sign that said, "Protect our children," though the law has nothing whatsoever to do with children.
Hey, we know of at least one person who signed it because it said "Just the Facts" on it, and they thought it was "Teach the Facts." They asked the petition-pusher, is this Teach the Facts, and were told yes, it was. Another person said they almost signed it, thinking it was us, but caught themselves at the last minute.
I am interrupting this narrative to make you think twice about that last line. Do you remember when P.T. Barnum had a sign at the circus that said "Egress" and pointed to a door? Customers who had never seen an "egress" before went through the door and found they were outside and had to pay again to get back in. As Barnum would say, "There's a sucker born every minute." Ms. Turner is also happy to blame the poor sucker who signs the petition thinking he is making children safer, when in fact it's about discrimination against a vulnerable minority. They should have known better, she's saying.
There is currently no law regulating who can go into what bathroom, and never has been. It sounds like the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are saying they want a different law, one that regulates restroom access.
What they really want is the re-legalization of discrimination against transgender people, and the only way they can get the county to go along with it is by lying to everybody. I will be curious to see how far that gets them.
Unfortunately for us, The Sentinel is behind a paywall. Here's the story.
Petition Faces Big Road Blocks
A top attorney with Montgomery County said that some if not all of the signatures gathered by Citizens for a Responsible Government for a petition may be invalid if it is born out that petitioners were misrepresenting the contents of the petition to potential signers.
Citizens as diverse as members of the media, church goers, county council members and their staffers have reported that the CRG, a group responsible for a petition drive to try and get a referendum vote on County Council bill 23-07, which protects transgender individuals from being discriminated against in employment, housing and public accommodations, have been misrepresenting the content of the bill and their petition for several weeks.
True, that. We heard them say all kinds of stuff. They said, This law will require men and women to use the same bathroom. They said it would enable pedophiles and predators to come into ladies rooms. We saw one guy with a sign that said, "Protect our children," though the law has nothing whatsoever to do with children.
Hey, we know of at least one person who signed it because it said "Just the Facts" on it, and they thought it was "Teach the Facts." They asked the petition-pusher, is this Teach the Facts, and were told yes, it was. Another person said they almost signed it, thinking it was us, but caught themselves at the last minute.
The Council passed the bill unanimously in November. CRG claims that the bill grants special rights to transgender people and provides easy access for pedophiles and adult men to women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
When asked if verbally misrepresenting a petition while gathering signatures can invalidate the petition, the attorney, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, "It could." He also confirmed that he has heard about several people familiar with the bill being misinformed about its content by signature gatherers.
The County Board of Elections is currently evaluating the more than 30,000 signatures gathered by the group. Twenty-five thousand valid signatures are needed to get a question on the ballot in November asking about repealing the bill.
During CRG's push to collect signatures, several people familiar with the legislation said many of the petitioners were inaccurate about what the bill allows. Council President Mike Knapp said he got into an argument with one CRG member gathering signatures at a polling place on Maryland's presidential primary last Tuesday.
"I asked them if they knew what they were promoting," Knapp said.
"They were misinformed in what they were telling people."
Knapp said when he explained that the legislation doesn't say anything about bathrooms or locker rooms to the petitioner, they replied, "I think you're wrong." They asked Knapp how he knew, and Knapp said, "Well, I voted for the bill."
Asked how the petitioner was misrepresenting the legislation, Knapp said, "They were asking, do you want your kids sharing bathrooms with adults of the opposite sex?" Knapp added, "To their credit, the person that was there didn't know a lot about it [the bill]."
Dr. Dana Beyer, Senior Policy Analyst to Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg said she also confronted some signature gatherers last weekend outside of area grocery stores.
By law, every page of the petition must have a summary of the bill printed on it. The summary must be approved by the Board of Elections attorney when the final petition is turned in. A full copy of the bill must also be present at each petitioning site. Board of Election attorney Kevin Karpinski said that it is very rare that someone gathering signatures misrepresents legislation because the summary is right there.
"If there was a misunderstanding, it was on the part of the individual signing the petition," CRG spokeswoman Michelle Turner said.
I am interrupting this narrative to make you think twice about that last line. Do you remember when P.T. Barnum had a sign at the circus that said "Egress" and pointed to a door? Customers who had never seen an "egress" before went through the door and found they were outside and had to pay again to get back in. As Barnum would say, "There's a sucker born every minute." Ms. Turner is also happy to blame the poor sucker who signs the petition thinking he is making children safer, when in fact it's about discrimination against a vulnerable minority. They should have known better, she's saying.
She emphasized the fact that a summary was provided and a full copy of the bill was present at every site.
"It shouldn't be overlooked that petition gatherers were being harassed and intimidated," Turner said.
She added that one transgender individual introduced herself as a senior member of the Montgomery County Council and abused her authority by doing so.
CRG's director Theresa Rickman said she provided volunteers with talking points and literature to pass out, which is all legal. "I think Mr. Knapp is confused," Rickman said. "I don't think he's looked at this bill in the context of what it changes."
"This bill doesn't address the conflict between gender identity and personal privacy," Rickman continued.
"What we think is, if you have male genitalia, you can't go in. I challenge the county attorney to publish a legal opinion that says this legislation doesn't cover bathrooms."
But Knapp says it may be Rickman who is confused, and there could be ramifications when the petitions are evaluated. "I think there are going to be some issues there," Knapp said. "If you have well intentioned, critically minded people who are out there on the basis of misinformation, that's not right."
The Board of Elections plans to have a final signature tally by March 9.
There is currently no law regulating who can go into what bathroom, and never has been. It sounds like the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are saying they want a different law, one that regulates restroom access.
What they really want is the re-legalization of discrimination against transgender people, and the only way they can get the county to go along with it is by lying to everybody. I will be curious to see how far that gets them.








107 Comments:
Isn't lying a sin, Theresa, Michelle and Ruth? SHAMEFUL!!! I'll keep praying for you.
Does everyone see what Jim has done here? Faking umbrage at the "lies" of CRG, he tells a tall tale himself. The title "Sentinel: Shower-Nuts Lied To People" is a lie. The Sentinel reported on statements made by both sides. It didn't take a position.
It's not surprising that Knapp or a county attorney or Duchy or Beyer says the petitioners are lying. The petition, and there hasn't been a successful one recalling a county law for decades, represents a rebuke of the County Council. Of course they want to discredit it. They're hardly objective.
OO- do you know how to fly a kite?
If not, learn!
DKR
Unobjective Observer you've proven again and again that you're the one that's not objective. No one in their right mind opposes the equal rights of those who harm no one.
In that case, the council can continue putting up "whites" only signs on bathrooms across the county, can't they Jim ?
And the media is merrilying following Mike Knapp around as he essentially says the public accomodations code (written 30 years ago) to desegregate public accomodations and their facilities was never intended to racially desegregate bathrooms. Really ?
That's news to ever Lawyer in MC. Public accomodations don't include bathrooms... and the sun will set in the east this evening.
Andrea- not anon
Of course, the petition collectors lied and Michelle- so proud of her liars- counted on people not to read. People were suckered into signing and that is what CRG counted on. if they had told the truth- some people would have signed- we saw their comments on the on-lin petition. However, many others would have signed up to support discrimination.
Hey, any reports yet on the Showernuts explanation of how their kindly petition collectors called me a facist and told me I should be aborted???? I haven't heard Theresa- I have an answer for everything- explain.
"Of course, the petition collectors lied and Michelle- so proud of her liars- counted on people not to read."
Differences of opinion on how a law will be interpretted are not lies. Saying they are is a lie. County officials themselves have said the law would likely be interpretted to allow men who dress as women into bathrooms but they changed their story when it became clear CRG was getting traction with their arguments.
"Hey, any reports yet on the Responsible Government explanation of how their kindly petition collectors called me a facist and told me I should be aborted????"
My guess is you went out with the same nasty attitude you project here. Acting confrontional, screaming epithets and accusations- if you're going to try to raise a ruckus and disrupt an orderly democratic process, you shouldn't be surprised if a few people without the patience of a saint send a few insults your way.
Of course, that's assuming you're telling the truth. That's a big "if", considering the kind of hyperbole we've seen from you.
Anon- I have a great kite for you... may I give it to you as a gift?!
Segregation...well, if you want to go by those standards, the Bible is ALL ABOUT IT! However, TTF is not.
So, as it looks, CRW(eirdos) would support segregation! SHAME!
It is the county council trying to claim that bathrooms are "distincty private and personal" and thus not covered by the public accomodations desegregation law, not us.
Unobjective observer said "In that case, the council can continue putting up "whites" only signs on bathrooms across the county, can't they Jim ?".
You've been justifying that very thing all along, insisting that people should be allowed to associate with whomever they choose and that business owners be allowed to set their own rules for who gets to use their bathrooms.
AnonFreak, you are a mess.
No, we think bathrooms should be seperated by biology. Simple, easy, not discriminatory.
We are not the ones saying business owners should be able to decide, that would be Knapp again (we can't find any justifaction for that position in the law, either).
Andrea- not anon
OO- you are a jerk and a liar. I stood quietly with a sign and with handouts for decline to sign. I asked people who the baseball cap guy buttonholed to please read my hand out before signing. Your thug friends yelled at me and baseball cap guy threatened me with the police and by screaming at me to leave. And no one who ever tells anyone they should be aborted has anything to do with "the patience of a saint".
And I don't lie- I don't need to-the truth is enough when you know what you are doing is right. and unlike your pathetic friends, I wasn't ashamed to tell them who I was but Baseball cap guy freaked when I asked his name- and wouldn't give it.
AnonFreak, want to meet for coffee?
Just give me your first name and we'll go from there. I am Derrick (I started, your turn---since you are all about game-playing and immature tactic). Typical CRW(eirdo) game... SICKOS!
"Unobjective observer said "In that case, the council can continue putting up "whites" only signs on bathrooms across the county, can't they Jim ?"."
Guys, you're arguing with two different people. OO and anonymous are not synonymous.
Derrick, maybe we'll get some coffee later in the Spring. Can't get away this time of year.
You won't take my picture and put it on the internet, will you?
"OO- you are a jerk and a liar. I stood quietly with a sign and with handouts for decline to sign."
Well, if that's all you did then I'm on your side. Those guys need to get some manners.
Let's say, theoretically, you did do what I said earlier. Would these guys have been justified in returning the same treatment, in your opinion?
getting back to the point:
I wouldn't mind seeing the talking points given out.
And also, I do remember that volunteer who said on camera that the law would lead to men being able to go in the ladies room, even if they are not "dressed up like a woman" (i'm paraphrasing).
now where would she get such a notion if not from the talking points?
I think you can find the talking points on their web site notmyshower.net
Unobjective observer said "Guys, you're arguing with two different people. OO and anonymous are not synonymous".
Stop lying Red Baron, you claim to be a Christian and that's against your ten commandments. Its immoral for you to pretend to be more than one person.
Believe what you want, Priya.
"Stop lying Red Baron, you claim to be a Christian and that's against your ten commandments."
By the bye, Priya, which commandment would that be?
I have a request of Theresa.
When I made comments (which I believed were accurate though snarky) about her masculine appearance in the photo Jim posted, she complained vociferously and asked me to remove my comments.
I couldn't, but asked Jim to do so out of respect.
So now I am asking Theresa to call Lou Sheldon (I'm sure you have his number) and ask him to take down his TVC webpage where Anna Lafferty called me a "she-male," mentally ill, and insinuated I'm a pedophile and a predator.
Oh, Anon, keep showing us your ignorance about "biology." You're a real gem, and should be studied in high school biology.
Dana wrote: So now I am asking Theresa to call Lou Sheldon (I'm sure you have his number) and ask him to take down his TVC webpage where Anna Lafferty called me a "she-male," mentally ill, and insinuated I'm a pedophile and a predator.
______
Rio Theresa will do this? Her behavior has been one of the sense of entitlement in telling everyone else what to do, think, feel and throw in there only seeing things in her bigoted/hateful way. Hey the whole CRW(hatevers)behave this way.
What Anna Lafferty wrote was horrid and way beyond any word description. There will most likely be special place in Hell for people like that.
Ted
"So now I am asking Theresa to call Lou Sheldon (I'm sure you have his number) and ask him to take down his TVC webpage"
This is a little unfair, Dana. You asked someone to delete your own words. Theresa didn't write the story about you.
OO said, This is a little unfair, Dana. You asked someone to delete your own words. Theresa didn't write the story about you.
______________
Uh huh.. and you think they do not know each other? OO open your OO wider if you cannot see that.
The kind of hatred they both spew can and does cause hate crimes.
Ted
Hmmm....apparently, conspiratorial paranoia is yet another aspect of the gay psychosis.
Oh, AnonFrea. Why do hate yourself so much?? You're obsession with hating GLBT individuals is a true color of your insecurities with your own sexuality.
I made the request of Theresa. I believe she knows Lou Sheldon, or, at a minimum, is in contact with someone in his office.
Yesterday at the House of Delegates for the marriage equality hearing I bumped into a colleague by the name of Rick Bowers. Rick is head of Defend Maryland Marriage, the most vociferous organization in Maryland opposing marriage equality and promoting a constitutional amendment.
OK, you might ask, why would I be speaking with him, let alone be on friendly terms?
Because, first of all, I make it a habit of engaging with my adversaries. If a civil dialogue is possible, I go for it. It is what I do, and have always done. I can say that when elected I will represent all the people, and that includes those who don't want to even acknowledge my existence.
During last year's Senate hearing Rick happened to stick around for the trans civil rights bill hearing. Afterwards he grabbed my arm, begged me not to leave because he wanted to talk to me. As you might imagine, I was stunned, but I walked with him to the rotunda and we talked for fifteen minutes. He told me he had no idea who I was, no idea what being trans was about, and after having listened to me and the other witnesses that he was my friend and that I had his support.
This is less surprising than you might think, Theresa and her merry band notwithstanding.
So yesterday we were catching up and I mentioned the vile TVC slander. He was appalled, whipped out his cell and called Lou Sheldon. Now, of course, maybe he was calling his boss, or secretary, and just pretending to call Sheldon. I prefer to trust him and believe he was offended and was trying to correct the problem. I appreciate the act, and I have no doubt that Theresa can do the same. Sheldon might not listen to Bowers, but he would listen to her because she is, at a minimum, passively complicit in the TVC slander.
So, Theresa, I'm sure you've read this by now. When can I expect the page to be taken down and a retraction printed?
According to account, Dana used her County Council employment status to try and get CRG’s petitioners thrown out. Did the members of the County Council sanction Dana to do this? Did the County Council sanction Dana to harass and intimidate the petitioners and signers of the petition?
There is something that people seemed to forget when they are trying to defend this law. At this point in time, 37% of America's population ALREADY LIVES IN JURISDICTIONS THAT PROTECT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE. Some of them since the 1980s.
The bigots have used the bathroom issue since the dawn of mankind, when people peed in caves. And yet, there has NEVER been any male person arrested for being a predetor in a woman's restroom. None. Zero. Nadda. Zippo. It is an unrefutable fact. And, if a man wants to attack women and children in women's bathroom, he isn't going to wait for any law to justify him going in there. Geesh!
If the Maryland bigots are so hot on this issue, then ask for proof that this has been a problem in other jurisdiction. I'm disappointed that the trans people in MD are not repeating this fact over . . . and over . . . and over . . .
According to what account, Anon? An account by the CRG who scripted fraudulent talking points about what the law said for their volunteers to use in their attempts to fool voters into signing petitions?
"If the Maryland bigots are so hot on this issue, then ask for proof that this has been a problem in other jurisdiction."
It hasn't, Monica, because other jurisdictions have made reasonable exceptions for bathroom facilities, religious institutions and businesses under a certain threshhold. The problem here is a radical group has gained influence and is emboldened by the delusion that anything goes in MC. They may be surprised by the outcome. Or maybe not, since they seem so determined to keep this issue from voters, they may already know that a full public discussion and vote will reveal that MC is not the place it's assumed to be.
CRG, for example, clearly doesn't want the discrimination bill. They have publicly committed, however, to acquiesence if the exemptions can be realized. It's your extremist, uncompromising friends causing the problem.
As with the grocery stores a couple of weeks ago, they think causing a ruckus is the way to achieve their goals. Voting citizens aren't going to be impressed.
Wyatt,
I have invited Theresa for months, and she has never responded. All you have to do is check the TVC website to understand what this is about.
As Monica has made clear, there has never been an incident in any bathroom, something you clearly know. There is no religious exemption in MoCo for discrimination of any sort, so there should not be for anti-trans bigotry.
The only ones causing the ruckus are the liars of the CRG, who even after they have been repeatedly told the law is not about bathrooms, insist that it is. It is a NON-discrimination bill to prevent discriminatory practices against transgender people in employment, housing, and taxi service. Every citizen of MoCo is already protected from discrimination based on their religion. But by all means, keep lying to your choir -- those lemmings eat it up.
"There is no religious exemption in MoCo for discrimination of any sort, so there should not be for anti-trans bigotry."
Many religions feel transgenderism is a form of homosexuality. Whether they are right or not is not a matter for governmental involvement because we value religious freedom. Basically, if you believe transgenderism is acceptable, you have different religious beliefs than some religions. Religious groups should be free to hire those who believe in their cause.
Do you want to work for an organization that holds this view? There is little slave labor left these days. Most people want to work somewhere where they believe in the organization.
You were wrong to omit this. Admit it and fix it.
"The only ones causing the ruckus are the liars of the CRG, who even after they have been repeatedly told the law is not about bathrooms, insist that it is. It is a NON-discrimination bill to prevent discriminatory practices against transgender people in employment, housing, and taxi service."
And, as you so deftly omit, public facilities.
Red Baron said "Many religions feel transgenderism is a form of homosexuality. Whether they are right or not is not a matter for governmental involvement because we value religious freedom.".
Your right to religious freedom ends where it infringes upon the rights of others. The right to religious freedom is not absolute. Your bible commands that gays be put to death. You most certainly do not have the right to religious freedom to pursue that. You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same.
"Your right to religious freedom ends where it infringes upon the rights of others."
Jobs, taxis, cable TV and bathrooms are not rights. They are granted only with the consent of the deliverer of the services.
We aren't slaves in the U.S.. We are free to associate with and provide services to whoever we wish to.
We aren't socialists in the U.S.. We have property rights. The government can't tell us who to provide the use of our property to.
"The right to religious freedom is not absolute."
It is for Christians. This is because our society is based on Christianity.
As the bible says of Christian ideals, "against such things, they are no laws."
"Your bible commands that gays be put to death."
The Bible says God will put unrepentant gays to death. Christians aren't charged with doing it. As with all sinners, Christians are charged with offering the gospel of mercy to gays. What Christians seek is to reconcile as many as possible to God.
"You most certainly do not have the right to religious freedom to pursue that."
Don't tell me. Putting anyone to death is not required of Christians so this is academic.
"You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same."
Exactly. Same with gays. I have the right to associate with whoever I want and gays have the same right.
No one has a right to endorsement.
00 Of course that's an easy philosophical stance to take, but our society has by consensus decided that fairness is going to be a value we expect, and one that we will let our government enforce. It is fine to discriminate on the basis of merit, but we do not consider it acceptable to discriminate based on certain traits. Some years ago, it was acceptable to use race, or religion, and now it's not. More recently it was acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now it's not. There will always be people such as yourself who want to go back to stereotypes and prejudice. I hope you are always outnumbered, but of course there's a chance that your viewpoint will predominate if the rest of us are not vigilant.
JimK
Red Baron said "Jobs, taxis, cable TV and bathrooms are not rights. They are granted only with the consent of the deliverer of the services.".
People have the right to be considered for a job based solely on their ability to do the job. People have a right to public services. The deliverer of such services must serve all who are qualified to receive them. If you make your living off the public you are obliged to serve the public - all of it, no "whites only" signs or "we don't serve transexuals" allowed.
I said "The right to religious freedom is not absolute."
Red Baron said "It is for Christians. This is because our society is based on Christianity.".
Christians most certainly do not have an absolute right to religious freedom and your society most definitely is not based on Christianity. Your constitution never mentions god or Christianity, it specifically requires the seperation of churcn and state and the government cannot favour any one religion (or lack thereof) over any other. You do not live in your longed for Christian theocracy.
Red Baron said "The Bible says God will put unrepentant gays to death. Christians aren't charged with doing it."
Wrong. Leviticus 20:13 says:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
It does not say "I will put them to death", it gives the order that "they must be put to death". the inescapable implication is that Christians are to do it. One does not say "they must be put to death" if one intends to do it oneself.
Red baron said " I have the right to associate with whoever I want and gays have the same right.".
False. Gays are obligated by law to associate with (not discriminate against) Christians. You have a special right under the law they do not have. No special rights for Christians. By the same token both gays and Christians are obligated to associate with blacks and jews - no one has the free right to discriminate as they choose.
Hey, I had a brilliant response to Jim's remarks above and they somehow disappeared in posting. Oh well, no time to repeat now.
Priya, I also have no time for one of your extended debates on religion. I will say, however, that the purpose of seperation of church and state was to protect Christianity from governement not the other way around. You should read more outside of your comfort zone.
Furthermore, the civil laws within the ancient state of Israel were instituted by God for that society to demonstrate righteousness. Christians have been freed from the law. They live under grace. You don't seem to understand that not only gays are under a death sentence from the Mosaic law but all people are. All of us have broken these laws and deserve death. There is no one left capable of enforcing or penalizing the violation of these laws save God. Straights are as condemned as gays. Before we start killing gays for breaking laws, we'd have to kill ourselves first. Read the Sermon on the Mount for details.
We are all sinners in need of a way out. Christ is the way not judging others.
Red Baron, the people who founded the states were eager to escape an oppressive religious regime in England. They purposely prevented religion from dominating the states because they knew that was tyranny.
Red Baron said "Furthermore, the civil laws within the ancient state of Israel were instituted by God for that society to demonstrate righteousness."
The idea that it "deomonstrates righteousness" to put innoncent gays to death is preposterous - it demonstrates exactly the opposite of that.
Red Baron said "There is no one left capable of enforcing or penalizing the violation of these laws save God.".
Your imaginary god's never penalized anyone and never will. Its always been up to humans to penalize those who break the rules of fairness and always will be. If we leave justice up to your "god" anarchy will reign supreme - that's why we've never done that.
I'm still waiting for Theresa's response about her calling TVC to ask them to take the posting down.
I know she's not busy because she's got nothing to do now but wait for the BoE and for us to finish our jobs.
"the people who founded the states were eager to escape an oppressive religious regime in England. They purposely prevented religion from dominating the states because they knew that was tyranny."
The idea that the colonists left England to escape a theocracy is completely ignorant.
We can start with the Pilgrims. They didn't think England was too religious. They thought it wasn't religious enough. Read some of their writings. They came to found the New Jerusalem.
Move forward to the 1700's. In the middle of the century came one of the greatest revivals the world has ever known. The generation raised by these pious converts were completely brought up in a Christian environment. Convinced of the Protestant idea of the equality of all men before God, they asked themselves what kind of a government God would want them to have. Their answer was a representative democracy with inalienable rights guaranteed by a system of checks and balances. Before you start arguing, go find a history professor and have a chat with him.
England wasn't "an oppressive religious regime", it was an oppressive licentious and hedonistic society.
"The idea that it "deomonstrates righteousness" to put innoncent gays to death is preposterous - it demonstrates exactly the opposite of that."
They are not innocent before God. No one is.
"Your imaginary god's never penalized anyone and never will. Its always been up to humans to penalize those who break the rules of fairness and always will be. If we leave justice up to your "god" anarchy will reign supreme - that's why we've never done that."
And that's why there is so little justice in the world and always has been. Fallen men can't be trusted. That's why our system of checks and balances was created, acknowledging the biblical view of the essentially fallen nature of man.
"I'm still waiting for Theresa's response about her calling TVC to ask them to take the posting down."
She has no obligation to do so. She didn't write anything derogatory about you like you did to her.
You've already had a person with more influence call the guy. Why do you think Theresa knows the people who write that column.
Anon,
You don't need to answer for Theresa -- she's a big girl, and owes me the decency of a response.
I may have been snarky to her, but calling her "masculine-looking" or something to that effect is not rude in my book, and pretty mild. Her allies have called me a "she-male" and insinuated that I'm a pedophile and predator -- that's slander, and I don't think she wants to be caught up in that net. Given that there is a quote from her close friend, John Garza, and that the material is obviously culled from the CRG, it is clearly her responsibility.
"Of course that's an easy philosophical stance to take, but our society has by consensus decided that fairness is going to be a value we expect, and one that we will let our government enforce. It is fine to discriminate on the basis of merit, but we do not consider it acceptable to discriminate based on certain traits. Some years ago, it was acceptable to use race, or religion, and now it's not. More recently it was acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now it's not. There will always be people such as yourself who want to go back to stereotypes and prejudice. I hope you are always outnumbered, but of course there's a chance that your viewpoint will predominate if the rest of us are not vigilant."
Jim, my viewpoint is that discrimination based on behavioral and psychic criteria should be permissible. Personally, I tend toward compassion and would probably not do so outside of the context of a decision-maker in a religious institution or in a situation where it would be detrimental to the mission of an organization. Still, it should be permissible to maintain freedom of association. Forcing people with opposed views together doesn't promote harmony, it promotes bad feelings.
Modernity is not a factor here, btw. Many cultures in the past have embraced "sexual minorities."
The most famous example is Germany after WWI. Gays and transgenders were a socially acceptable part of the culture. This is why gays were heavily represented in the Nazi party at its beginning. Indeed, the SA, led by a gay guy and his gay right-hand man, were key to the Nazi climb to power. These "stormtroopers", who counted a large number of gays in their ranks in addition to their leadership, would go around raising a ruckus any time a protest was organized by opponents of the Nazi regime.
Eerie, huh?
You see the normalization of homosexuality is not some novel twenty-first century phenomena. It's been tried many times before and will be tried again in the future.
"that's slander, and I don't think she wants to be caught up in that net. Given that there is a quote from her close friend, John Garza, and that the material is obviously culled from the CRG, it is clearly her responsibility"
Clearly not. She didn't slander you.
00, I'm not going to pretend you are trying to reason with me, but I'll respond to some of your provocations.
discrimination based on behavioral and psychic criteria is a meaningless phrase, it's just a set-up to let in the stuff that makes you uncomfortable.
Nobody here believes you "tend toward compassion," we've seen what you've been saying this whole time.
The idea is not to "promote harmony," the idea is much simpler than that. Say a transgender person needs to pee -- they ought to be allowed to pee, if everybody else is allowed to. Say they need a taxi -- the taxi ought to stop. Taxi driver doesn't have to feel good about it, but the person needs a ride.
As for the Nazis, I appreciate that you would like to bring them into this, but it has nothing to do with anything, and your slime isn't sticking. It just makes you look stupid for trying something like that.
There's nothing here about the "normalization of homosexuality, in fact this isn't about homosexuality at all, and it's not about "normalization" of anything. Person goes into a restaurant, they're hungry, it's open, they ought to be served. There's no more to it than that. If people get over it, fine, but that's not the point. Racism didn't go away but now black people can get served in a restaurant, and I believe they appreciate that even if you don't.
JimK
You dolt, I didn't say she slandered me. You don't know how to read? Andrea Lafferty slandered me, TVC slandered me. Theresa's attorney, John Garza, is quoted in their story.
I'm saying that if she doesn't disassociate herself from it, then she will be guilty by association.
Arguing religion is as pointless as arguing whether to eat turkey or ham at Christmas. It's your choice. (Where have I heard "choice" before? Hummmm.) It seems that those who hate like to quote the Bible, picking and choosing one line out of the Bible, always out of context.
As much as the haters would like to think, this is NOT a religious issue. Sorry boys and girls. It doesn't translate. Jobs do not equal religion. A quick look in a thesaurus will confirm this. You aren't going to make OJ from a Delicious.
And, "bathrooms" are not in the Bible. Do a word search. So, you can't use the Good Book for that, unless you want to whack somebody over the head with it. Oh wait. That's what you've been doing.
So, what do we have after distilling down all of this screaming and whining. One side (the supposed "Christians") have lied, instilled fear in others, lied, spread hate, lied and even suggested transgender people should be put to death. Oh, did I mentioned "lied?"
The other side is trying to use logic and truth, but unfortunately, logic is not a concept the Religious bigots will ever understand. It's as understandable as Chinese is to Ugandans. It's pointless to try to educate those who relish being clueless. Let your votes do the talking. Remember, "37%." They can try, but they can't brush away successes in other places. Seems logical to me.
There is one thing I have found to be true over the years.
"Mother Nature (God) can think beyond binaries. Human Nature cannot."
Some of the comments here prove that in a big way.
"discrimination based on behavioral and psychic criteria is a meaningless phrase"
Well, that's what this bill is based on.
"As for the Nazis, I appreciate that you would like to bring them into this, but it has nothing to do with anything, and your slime isn't sticking."
Oh, you think someone is trying to slime the gay movement with Nazi associations?
That's unconcionable! I mean, what kind of a sick mind would do something like that? Compare someone to Nazis just because they had a different opinion than them?
"Person goes into a restaurant, they're hungry, it's open, they ought to be served."
Then why don't you just go for a law that says that?
It's because the normalization of "sexual minorities" is the real goal.
"I'm saying that if she doesn't disassociate herself from it, then she will be guilty by association."
Well, you're wrong.
"Arguing religion is as pointless as"
The only way to avoid arguing about religion with Priya is to never bring it up.
"It seems that those who hate like to quote the Bible, picking and choosing one line out of the Bible, always out of context."
Priya takes verses out of context all the time and does hate who is not 100% behind the gay movement.
Interesting.
"Jobs do not equal religion."
Jobs in religious institutions do.
"And, "bathrooms" are not in the Bible. Do a word search. So, you can't use the Good Book for that, unless you want to whack somebody over the head with it. Oh wait. That's what you've been doing."
See. This is a lie. CRG has never quoted from the Bible over the bathroom issue.
"One side (the supposed "Christians") have lied, instilled fear in others, lied, spread hate, lied and even suggested transgender people should be put to death. Oh, did I mentioned "lied?""
TTF lies regularly.
"The other side is trying to use logic and truth,"
Except when it doesn't support the gay agenda.
"but unfortunately, logic is not a concept the Religious bigots will ever understand"
Homosexuality is inherently illogical.
Fifth post in this thread said…
"In that case, the council can continue putting up "whites" only signs on bathrooms across the county, can't they Jim ?
And the media is merrilying following Mike Knapp around as he essentially says the public accomodations code (written 30 years ago) to desegregate public accomodations and their facilities was never intended to racially desegregate bathrooms. Really ?
That's news to ever Lawyer in MC. Public accomodations don't include bathrooms... and the sun will set in the east this evening."
--
So, Miestress Prevaracatrous, we meet again.
I see you’re back to not signing your posts...
Tell me, how is the repackaging of lies business working out for you? Have shipments been on time? It would seem so, you’ve had some really big deliveries of late.
In fact, if you were to describe yourself, would you say that you were more on the import end of the operation, or the export end?
And out of curiosity, what exactly is the shelf life of a repackaged lie these days?
I ask because they just seem so old.
Ya know, the whole “divide and conquer” thing, by “ensuring the fear and loathing” of a helpless minority thing.
In this case, was it the ‘hope of a better life’ thing that bothered you most?
Did you feel that even that was too much of a possession to own, for those of whom you disdain with such pleasure?
"Peddler on the rooftops," does this describe you, yes or no?
OO said...
"discrimination based on behavioral and psychic criteria is a meaningless phrase"
Well, that's what this bill is based on.
"As for the Nazis, I appreciate that you would like to bring them into this, but it has nothing to do with anything, and your slime isn't sticking."
Oh, you think someone is trying to slime the gay movement with Nazi associations?
That's unconcionable! I mean, what kind of a sick mind would do something like that? Compare someone to Nazis just because they had a different opinion than them?
"Person goes into a restaurant, they're hungry, it's open, they ought to be served."
Then why don't you just go for a law that says that?
It's because the normalization of "sexual minorities" is the real goal.
"I'm saying that if she doesn't disassociate herself from it, then she will be guilty by association."
Well, you're wrong.
"Arguing religion is as pointless as"
The only way to avoid arguing about religion with Priya is to never bring it up.
"It seems that those who hate like to quote the Bible, picking and choosing one line out of the Bible, always out of context."
Priya takes verses out of context all the time and does hate who is not 100% behind the gay movement.
Interesting.
"Jobs do not equal religion."
Jobs in religious institutions do.
"And, "bathrooms" are not in the Bible. Do a word search. So, you can't use the Good Book for that, unless you want to whack somebody over the head with it. Oh wait. That's what you've been doing."
See. This is a lie. CRG has never quoted from the Bible over the bathroom issue.
"One side (the supposed "Christians") have lied, instilled fear in others, lied, spread hate, lied and even suggested transgender people should be put to death. Oh, did I mentioned "lied?""
TTF lies regularly.
"The other side is trying to use logic and truth,"
Except when it doesn't support the gay agenda.
"but unfortunately, logic is not a concept the Religious bigots will ever understand"
Homosexuality is inherently illogical.
---
Wow. Gosh. Golly. Gee. OO. Your points are so very…very…valid.
After having read all that, on top of everything else in this thread that's yours, I am officially convinced that you are a member of TTF. Not meant to distract from the issues at hand in any way, but to help provide focus onto the idiocy of CRW “arguments,” and by extention, all religious-supremacist arguments.
I have to admit, you’ve had me going for several months now.
Nope Jim, seriously, there’s nothing you could say or do to convince me that OO is not one of your/our own. It’s not physically possible to be that stupid.
I’ve researched this too, and I am good friends with a Dr…Soinzo, who says the exact same thing as I do. Namely that "It’s just not logically possible to be that stupid."
No, it’s true, he said so. I have no link what-so-ever to back that up with, but it’s still true, so you have to believe me.
Anyway OO, I don’t just love you now, I loove you. Do you get it? I’m playing on your acronym, isn't that funny?
Oh happy day. (or should I say OOh happy day? Silly me, Pfft!)
"Your points are so very…very…valid."
You didn't have to come out and say that, Mr. Emproph.
Just the fact that you go on for line after line without any saying anything else- well, I think that says it all.
OO @February 29, 2008 4:56 PM said...
Priya Lynn: "The right to religious freedom is not absolute."
OO: It is for Christians. This is because our society is based on Christianity.
--
Thus, only “Christians” should be allowed to decide the true meaning of “religious freedom.”
---
:::
---
And from the cutting room floor...
And is therefore also a right that exists above and beyond the equal protection for all freedom provided by the United States Constitution.
Religious freedom = absolute freedom for “Christians” alone.
Some religious freedoms are more equal than others.
How is it possible that religious freedom could be based on one religion?
Since when do non-Christian members of society base society on Christianity?
"You didn't have to come out and say that, Mr. Emproph.
Just the fact that you go on for line after line without any saying anything else- well, I think that says it all."
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.
Derrick said...
Anon- I have a great kite for you... may I give it to you as a gift?!
And I have a short pier, which I also too would like to give to our beloved Anon, as a gift...
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions."
Well, right or wrong, I said a number of things. You didn't so that blows your theory.
I assume you think you were trying to make some humorous statements, which I personally enjoy regardless of the point of view, but unfortunately you didn't project well. Humor requires at least some system of logic. You usually say things with no logic at all.
Work on projection of logic.
I still haven't heard from Theresa.
Why should you? You've tried to associate her with comments she didn't make. This is a common tactic of the lunatic fringe.
She's smart not to take the bait.
OO said...
"Work on projection of logic."
Look, if you don't want the pier, just say so.
No one's walking off the pier, E. The public is rejecting TTF's worldview.
anonymous,
you mean the same way you all tried to associate the curriculum with things it didn't say? You lost there and sooner or later, you will lose here.
And OO,
I don't know how you figure you can speak for the PUBLIC.
I didn't associate her with comments she didn't make. I associate her with a group making comments in support of her attorney and her position.
She owes me the decency of an apology.
Do you owe the world an apology for every insulting remark made by a TTF supporter?
If so, get started. This will take a while.
I can only guess you are feigning this indignation because you believe the media is monitoring the blog. If that not it, what's going on?
And again, by the way and for the record:
--
"OO @February 29, 2008 4:56 PM said...
Priya Lynn: "The right to religious freedom is not absolute."
OO: It is for Christians. This is because our society is based on Christianity.
--
I do my best when it comes to logic OO, but if that's not good enough for you, and you have logic better than I, then please help me to understand.
Why don't we start with your very own notion that conservative Christians should be allowed to decide religious freedom for everyone else?
Why do you feel that conservative Christians own the rights to all religious freedom?
Ah, some actual substance from Mr E.
Conservative is a nebulous term. Traditional Christianity holds that every man is directly accountable to God. The church is not an intermediary. This is why Christianity is the basis for our Constitution. Alone among world faiths, Christianity seeks those whose heart has been converted- not those who have been compelled to feign faith. Every man is responsible for himself to God.
Remember, it was Jesus who first came up with the notion of a seperation of church and state. He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".
You see, basing our system of government on Christianity will protect everyone's freedom of religion because freedom of religion is part of the Christian belief system. You can't say that about other major world religions.
You see, basing our system of government on Christianity will protect everyone's freedom of religion because freedom of religion is part of the Christian belief system.
But America already has a basis of freedom of religion for all.
How is it that providing one religion with the power to regulate that freedom, then increase that freedom for all?
"But America already has a basis of freedom of religion for all."
Yes, it does. It was based, as I've explained to you, on Christian principles. Regognizing that is important.
"How is it that providing one religion with the power to regulate that freedom, then increase that freedom for all?"
I'm not suggesting any changes to entangle religion and government. That would be bad for Christianity. I'm just saying let's not go forward with a faulty concept of how we got here.
If the CRG really wants to protect our children in bathrooms, why haven’t they gone after Catholic priests? I’m not asking that because the upper echelon of the Catholic Church runs around Italy in fancy silk dresses (I know, they call them “robes” or “vestments,” but they are topologically identical), and they want to keep “guys in dresses” out of the little girls’ room. I’m asking because the Catholic church is currently paying out millions of dollars from diocese around the country for unspeakable acts performed on children spanning at least several decades. This was aided by a church hierarchy which actively moved the pedophiles around to avoid damaging the “good name” of the church – in effect they were harboring fugitives (people who would have otherwise been convicted felons) from the law.
Given the history of the Catholic church (which includes terrorizing Europe with “inquisitors” and burning people at the stake) should we really let their priests mingle unencumbered with our innocent children?
(And for the record, I was born, raised, and baptized in the Catholic Church, and I went to Catholic schools. In fact, I am a by-product of the church’s ban on contraception.)
Peace,
Cynthia
Paraphrased said...
Me: "America has a basis of freedom of religion."
You: Based on Christian principles. Regognizing that is important.
--
If religious freedom is already recognized and held up as being one of the most important tenets of society, why then the need to recognize this principle as being of a particular religion?
Such freedom is based on the Golden Rule. What does Christianity have to add to the moral principle of the Golden Rule?
Or is it that you feel that the Golden Rule, and the application of it, did not exist before Christianity?
CRG doesn't need to "go after" Catholic priests. There are plenty already on that bandwagon.
The Catholics got into this mess because it tolerated gays in its clergy. Because of the vow of celibacy, the priesthood attracted large numbers of gays who found a lifestyle where they could be socially acceptable without having relations with women. The Roman church knew this but looked away out of a misguided sense of compassion. This again shows why we need a religious exemption in this discrimination bill.
Priests aren't, however, going into girls' rooms, as you suggest.
Robes are necessarily women's clothes.
Most of the abuse situations have involved homosexual not heterosexual activity.
The Roman churh's ban on sexual activity for clergy is unbiblical and a major contributing factor to this crisis they are in.
As for the inquisition, it was wrong and, again, an example of the Roman church going astray of biblical principles. This is why we had a Reformation.
Having said that, the horrors of the inquisition have been greatly exagerrated. It was limited to professed Christian believers. The worse excesses came in Spain where the royalty took over the proceedings and used it as a political weapon.
The inquisition lasted 300 years. Any idea how many total people were killed over that span of time? Check it out.
For the record, Cynthia, I'm not a Catholic. As a Calvinist, I have profound differences with the Catholic church. Still, I have to say, the charges against them have been greatly exaggerated.
E
Good discussion we're having but I need to get some work done. Hopefully tonight I can get back to you.
OO,
You made a bad fallacy there. A man who molests a boy is not necessarily gay. Sorry, but that is not true and the APA backs me up on that.
I didn't make the remark Dana.
I don't believe I have said anything nasty about you, at all, though I have challenged that just because someone believes they are a different gender the rest of us need to automatically accept that - even to the extent of allowing persons with penises in ladies rooms. I feel this is an enormous infringement on my right to privacy.
I don't know anyone over at TVC.
And CRG has not used the kind of terminology that is on the TVC site or other sites....
I am a little shocked that after all the horrible things you have said about me over here that anyone would think I would be motivated to proactively go defend them.
theresa
Red Baron, the united states is not was not founded as a Christian nation no matter how much religionists like you lie about it.
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the caus