Kasich tells supporters of religious freedom laws: 'Get over it'

[ABX]

John Kasich said Sunday that people who favor laws allowing businesses not to serve gay couples need to "calm down" and "get over" their opposition to lifestyles that differ from their own.

"What I'd like to say is, just relax," Kasich said on CNN. "If you don't like what somebody's doing, pray for them, and if you feel as though somebody is doing something wrong against you, can you just for a second get over it? You know?"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kasich-tells-supporters-of-religious-freedom-laws-get-over-it/article/2588757

[Wingnut]

How liberal of our little John.   Get over it?   Nice.

[Frank Cannon]

Kasich is running on unifying with the Left. He embraces all of their kooky beliefs from Global Warming to Open Borders. It has been really effective too. Just look at all the delegates he has gotten since Rubio dropped out....

Cruz - 143
Trump - 66
Rubio - 2
Kasich - 0

[Bill Cipher]

Should we have laws that allow people to not serve others based on the skin color of those others?  How about based on the others' religion?

[geronl]

Remember how Trump did not defend Kim Davis. Trump also said that gay marriage was the law of the land, like abortion and he doesn't want to change those.

[truth_seeker]

Should we have laws that allow people to not serve others based on the skin color of those others?  How about based on the others' religion?

No, and no.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Found on Twitter:

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Should we have laws that allow people to not serve others based on the skin color of those others?  How about based on the others' religion?

It's a good point, but what is the alternative? Fining people $150,000 for refusing to bake a bleep cake?

This country is off it's rocker in a big way.

[sinkspur]

Not intending to cause problems here, but does anybody know how many transgendered males have accosted females in restrooms?

According to this article, it's none:

http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.5Ro8q1oss

It seems to me that males who identify as females will go into female restrooms and use the stalls.  Females who identify as males will obviously have to go into the stalls.

Is there current data that back up the rationale behind a bill like HB2 in North Carolina?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not intending to cause problems here, but does anybody know how many transgendered males have accosted females in restrooms?

According to this article, it's none:

http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.5Ro8q1oss

It seems to me that males who identify as females will go into female restrooms and use the stalls.  Females who identify as males will obviously have to go into the stalls.

Is there current data that back up the rationale behind a bill like HB2 in North Carolina?

http://theavtimes.com/2013/05/14/palmdale-man-arrested-for-videotaping-in-womens-bathroom/

PALMDALE – A 33-year-old Palmdale man who allegedly dressed as a woman while secretly videotaping females using a department store bathroom was charged with several misdemeanor counts Tuesday, authorities said.

It was just a matter of time. Transgenders in bathrooms doesn't bother you or I, cause that would be biological females in men's room for us. Which doesn't seem too big of a threat. But I could see it bothering women or those with daughters. Irrational to say it wouldn't.

Not that I support the bill, it probably would have been smarter to just let local authorities deal with the rules.

Lots of all sorts of issues with transgenders... remember that transgender woman who was beating up women in MMA. Basically a dude who became a woman so he could beat the shit out of woman.

[geronl]

Is there current data that back up the rationale behind a bill like HB2 in North Carolina?

http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault-women-in-shelter/

TORONTO, March 4, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed “indefinitely” last week after being declared by a judge a “dangerous offender.”

Pro-family leaders are pointing out that this is exactly the type of incident they warned of as the Ontario government passed its “gender identity” bill, dubbed the “bathroom bill,” in 2012.

Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.

You don't need any rationale to keep a man away from showering middle school girls I hope. It's just common sense.

[HonestJohn]

It's a good point, but what is the alternative? Fining people $150,000 for refusing to bake a bleep cake?

This country is off it's rocker in a big way.

It's not a fine for refusing to bake a cake, it's a fine for refusing service.

[Bill Cipher]

It's a good point, but what is the alternative? Fining people $150,000 for refusing to bake a bleep cake?

This country is off it's rocker in a big way.

I don't know, which is why I asked the question.  I think that as a matter of pure theory, one can say that if you decide to do something as a business - that is, commercial/profit motivations predominate - then your conduct in that area is subject to a lot more acceptable regulation - and so people who decide to bake cakes as a commercial endeavor can be regulated in ways that may not be completely comfortable with their personal religious beliefs.

[HonestJohn]

Not intending to cause problems here, but does anybody know how many transgendered males have accosted females in restrooms?

According to this article, it's none:

http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.5Ro8q1oss

It seems to me that males who identify as females will go into female restrooms and use the stalls.  Females who identify as males will obviously have to go into the stalls.

Is there current data that back up the rationale behind a bill like HB2 in North Carolina?

The problem with the North Carolina law is that it's based of birth gender and not of outward appearance.  Which means that it's unenforceable as no one carries their birth certificate around... nor is there anyone in a restroom to ask for it.  Furthermore, if complied with, it forces those who have undergone a 'sex change' to use the 'wrong' restroom, with 'guys' in the ladies room and 'women' in the men's room.

Furthermore, if taken to the extreme, it makes it illegal for mothers to take their young sons into the ladies room.

So the 'cure' here is far worse than the 'disease'.

[geronl]

The problem with the North Carolina law is that it's based of birth gender and not of outward appearance. 

ridiculous. Their real biological sex is the only measure. As it should be.

[sinkspur]

http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault-women-in-shelter/

You don't need any rationale to keep a man away from showering middle school girls I hope. It's just common sense.

I saw that. The guy didn't even look like a female.  Anecdotal.

Need some comprehensive data.

[sinkspur]

The problem with the North Carolina law is that it's based of birth gender and not of outward appearance.  Which means that it's unenforceable as no one carries their birth certificate around... nor is there anyone in a restroom to ask for it.  Furthermore, if complied with, it forces those who have undergone a 'sex change' to use the 'wrong' restroom, with 'guys' in the ladies room and 'women' in the men's room.

Furthermore, if taken to the extreme, it makes it illegal for mothers to take their young sons into the ladies room.

So the 'cure' here is far worse than the 'disease'.

And North Carolina is taking it in the economic shorts over THIS?  Why not leave it up to individual communities?

McCrory is going to lose his job as governor. Over pissers.

[HonestJohn]

And North Carolina is taking it in the economic shorts over THIS?  Why not leave it up to individual communities?

McCrory is going to lose his job as governor. Over pissers.

It had been up to the local communities.  Some of their large cities passed ordinances that allowed transgendered use.  And the social conservative base in the state went bat-s#!t insane over that, demanding that the state override local control. 

[HonestJohn]

ridiculous. Their real biological sex is the only measure. As it should be.

How do I know you aren't biologically female?  Do you carry a birth certificate with you to the public restroom?

The only viable way for such a law to be enforced is through civilian enforcement.  And their only tool to do so is by eyesight.  Visual recognition.

If the person in the restroom looks male/female and is in the restroom that fits the visual identification, then it's good.

North Carolina upturns that.

[sinkspur]

It had been up to the local communities.  Some of their large cities passed ordinances that allowed transgendered use.  And the social conservative base in the state went bat-s#!t insane over that, demanding that the state override local control.

And look what happened. 

Just how much damage is McCrory willing to endure before he says "enough" and demands that this insane law be repealed?

He was on Meet the Press this morning and he was just lost in trying to justify this.

[Fishrrman]

RAT Patrol wrote (in an excellent post above):
"How about if someone wanted you to make a cake celebrating rape.  Would you do it?  Should the government force everyone to do it or be faced with fines and even loss of job?  What about a KKK cake?  Should you be forced to cater their event with mock lynchings?  How about a Nazi cake?  There are zillions of examples.  How about adultery?  How about pornography?  Should you be forced to make a pornographic cake?  Should a video production company be forced to produce pornographic videos?  If not, why not?   How about if someone comes and wants to order a cake with a picture of your mother eating kitty litter.  Should you be forced to provide it?"

Once again, a pic for ya:


"You are not advancing freedom if some people get to impose their will on other people, violating the deeply held convictions of the imposed upon.  You are picking winners and losers."

That's what the left is all about. Always has been. Always will be.

"Liberty is meaningless if government can force you to violate your own conscience before God, to act in an immoral way."

Better enjoy what's left of "liberty", while it lasts.
Wish I could offer encouragement, but...  I can't.

[Bill Cipher]

No on the skin color.  Yes in some instances on religion.  If it requires participation which one finds objectionable, of course they should be able to refuse. 

How about if someone wanted you to make a cake celebrating rape.  Would you do it?  Should the government force everyone to do it or be faced with fines and even loss of job?  What about a KKK cake?  Should you be forced to cater their event with mock lynchings?  How about a Nazi cake?  There are zillions of examples.  How about adultery?  How about pornography?  Should you be forced to make a pornographic cake?  Should a video production company be forced to produce pornographic videos?  If not, why not?   How about if someone comes and wants to order a cake with a picture of your mother eating kitty litter.  Should you be forced to provide it?  Is there any line you would draw, or is the overseeing government allowed to force your submission in absolutely every area?

You are not advancing freedom if some people get to impose their will on other people, violating the deeply held convictions of the imposed upon.  You are picking winners and losers.  So on the one hand, you push this with a libertarian argument.  But that same argument applied equally totally smashes the "get over it" position.  So what, libertarian for what you find acceptable and totalitarian for what you don't?  What about the rest of us? 

Liberty is meaningless if government can force you to violate your own conscience before God, to act in an immoral way.

The problem is the element of subjectivity, where the line is drawn, and what sort of evidence is necessary.  I'm not taking a definite stance, so I wish a certain fisherperson would lay off the inflammatory rhetoric for the time being.

[Fishrrman]

HonestJohn wrote above:
"Which means that it's unenforceable as no one carries their birth certificate around... "

Wrong, son.

In 1976, I went to the local City Hall, and got a wallet-sized copy of my birth certificate, certified with a seal.

I've carried it on my person since then. And will until I'm gone.

Do you have any other statements of certainty to offer us?

[Bill Cipher]

HonestJohn wrote above:
"Which means that it's unenforceable as no one carries their birth certificate around... "

Wrong, son.

In 1976, I went to the local City Hall, and got a wallet-sized copy of my birth certificate, certified with a seal.

I've carried it on my person since then. And will until I'm gone.

Do you have any other statements of certainty to offer us?

So the government should start issuing national identity papers then?

[HonestJohn]

Just remember, if you want the ability to deny sales of an items sold in your establishment based on religious belief...

... you allow the teenaged Muslim working at McDonalds to refuse you a bacon-topped burger.

And allow the Somali taxi-driver to refuse service to a blind person with a seeing-eye dog.