Ex-cop: Arrest Target managers in transgender fight

[unknown]

Ex-cop: Arrest Target managers in transgender fight

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/ex-cop-arrest-target-managers-in-trangender-fight/

'Where is America's legal community on this insanity?'

Published: 7 hours ago
Cheryl Chumley

Carl Gallups, a former Florida law-enforcement officer who holds a special deputy status within the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff’s department, as bestowed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and who now serves as a pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, has an idea to take on what he calls the transgender “insanity” sweeping the nation that doesn’t so much involve politics – but rather police.

“Where is America’s legal community on this insanity and criminal behavior? Have they simply ‘caved’ and ‘checked out’? If so, we are now officially a nation of ‘lawlessness,'” he wrote, in an email to WND.

His logic, in context of discussing the corporate policy switch at Target to open all bathroom doors to both sexes, depending on their gender selections for the day, was blunt: In a nation run by laws, such choice would actually be regarded as criminal.

“It is still a crime for a man to purposely go into a women’s bathroom around women, teens and little girls and use those facilities,” Gallups said. “It is still a criminal offense for a boy or man to go into a girl’s shower or locker room and to expose himself in front of them. People are in jail or prison for such criminal acts.”

So, he asked, why aren’t members of the police community advising Target managers “we will arrest you for aiding and abetting in a felony”?

{..snip... see URL to complete article and embedded links to related topic...}

[markomalley]

Target is a business concern.

I do not like it when the government mandates that a restaurant or bar allows / doesn't allow smoking. I do not like it when the government mandates that a bed & breakfast rents a room to a same-sex couple, nor do I like it when the government mandates that a bakery bake a wedding cake for a sodomite "marriage" nor when the government forces a photographer to cover that event.

Likewise, provided there is no deception involved on the part of Target, I do not think it's the government's place to mandate who they allow to use the restrooms in that business concern.

NB: That doesn't mean I approve of Target's decision. I don't. But the way to get them to change is either a) take your money elsewhere and/or b) get enough people together to buy sufficient shares of Target stock to replace the CEO and replace him with one who will put an acceptable policy in place.

[unknown]

Target is a business concern.

I do not like it when the government mandates that a restaurant or bar allows / doesn't allow smoking. I do not like it when the government mandates that a bed & breakfast rents a room to a same-sex couple, nor do I like it when the government mandates that a bakery bake a wedding cake for a sodomite "marriage" nor when the government forces a photographer to cover that event.

Likewise, provided there is no deception involved on the part of Target, I do not think it's the government's place to mandate who they allow to use the restrooms in that business concern.

NB: That doesn't mean I approve of Target's decision. I don't. But the way to get them to change is either a) take your money elsewhere and/or b) get enough people together to buy sufficient shares of Target stock to replace the CEO and replace him with one who will put an acceptable policy in place.

Your point is accepted and generally I agree.

The point the cop was making is

“It is still a criminal offense for a boy or man to go into a girl’s shower or locker room and to expose himself in front of them. People are in jail or prison for such criminal acts.”

So, I guess in keeping with the private business discussion, if a man exposes himself in front of a girl what should happen. An analogy would be if there was a birthday party at someone's house and one of the invitees exposed himself to a girl in the bathroom, what is the role of the police?

Trump said the Caitlyn could use any bathroom he felt comfortable with in any of Trumps hotels. While I disagree with Trump on his position, I agree that they are his hotels and his property and his business. But again, what would be the role of the police if a Caitlyn exposed himself to a young girl on Trumps private business property?

[markomalley]

Your point is accepted and generally I agree.

The point the cop was making is
So, I guess in keeping with the private business discussion, if a man exposes himself in front of a girl what should happen. An analogy would be if there was a birthday party at someone's house and one of the invitees exposed himself to a girl in the bathroom, what is the role of the police?

Trump said the Caitlyn could use any bathroom he felt comfortable with in any of Trumps hotels. While I disagree with Trump on his position, I agree that they are his hotels and his property and his business. But again, what would be the role of the police if a Caitlyn exposed himself to a young girl on Trumps private business property?

I am not trying to champion transgender rights. Nor am I trying to champion a corporation run by a flaming leftist, like Target.

Having said that, what do you mean "exposes himself"? Do you mean that he unzips and does his business...or do you mean that he flashes the young girl...or do you mean that he pulls it out and starts ((self censored because this is a family site)) himself?

I really and truly don't care too much about the first one. Last time I checked, women's bathrooms all used stalls, so it's not like it will matter much. (And, well, if you talk about a woman exposing herself in front of a young boy, last time I checked, women don't have the hardware to use a urinal without some sort of prosthetic assistance).

And if you're talking about the second or third scenario presented above, those are covered by other laws. And, yes, the second and third should be dealt with by the police.

Here's the real point, though: if there is full disclosure, should you, as a parent, allow your young girl to go to the bathroom unaccompanied while shopping in Target (or some other loony bin that adopts the same policy)? I would say probably not, until she is old enough to defend herself.

You have that choice...even if you choose to give Target your money.

What I do NOT want to see is the government mandating this one way or the other. I don't want the government mandating that Chik-Fil-A open on Sunday. I don't want the government mandating that Hobby Lobby have unisex multi-stall restrooms. And, though I profoundly disagree with the policy, I don't want the government mandating Target go against their policy...as long as Target is very transparent on what the policy actually is and that they make sure that their customers and staff understand that policy before strolling in the restroom.

(And for that reason, I could actually see the government requiring businesses that allow transgenders to use the bathroom of choice to have some sort of signage at the entrance to the bathroom that so indicates...just to make sure that there is no question about that policy decision on the part of the business)

[bob434]

[[I really and truly don't care too much about the first one. Last time I checked, women's bathrooms all used stalls, so it's not like it will matter much.]]

And last time we checked, it was still illegal for men to use women's bathrooms in most states, against the law for men to shower with women, against the law for men to use the same changing rooms as women-- that is the point the officer was making-

[[Here's the real point, though: if there is full disclosure, should you, as a parent, allow your young girl to go to the bathroom unaccompanied while shopping in Target]]

The real point is that target may be breaking the law by allowing men to use women's bathrooms if the state hasn't passed laws allowing it- so a parent should not even have to worry about their child using a bathroom in a target store because it is against the law for men to use women's bathrooms- in a sane and rational world, we should be doing everythign we can to protect our women and children, not opening them up to attacks by perverts and sickos who WILL exploit these laws- We should not have to worry that some pervert is in the bathroom legally and protected by the state because he claims to be something he isn't

And it is not a good argument ot say "Transexuals have always used women's bathrooms- because first of all we're not talking about just transexuals- we're talking about allowing EVERY man that wishes to use the bathroom use it- that includes rapists, perverts, abusers etc-

Secondly,, while trannies did use the bathrooms before- they were very very discrete about it because they didn't want ot get busted-- but even then- if you haven't seen it yet, I would urge you to view this video- the author said it could have been many hours longer- but it showcases the fact that trannies are NOT benign individuals who 'just want ot be left alone' many are sick individuals as you will see from the video- and most trannies were sexually abused as children, and we know from statistics that sexually abused kids usually turn into abusers themselves-

And again- it's not just sicko trannies that will be hte problem, it's every pervert this side of hell that will abuse the issue- and the argument that 'there are laws against it' doesn't fly- we're putting our kids and women at much greater risk by opening the door and allowing them in legally-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

[markomalley]

[[I really and truly don't care too much about the first one. Last time I checked, women's bathrooms all used stalls, so it's not like it will matter much.]]

And last time we checked, it was still illegal for men to use women's bathrooms in most states, against the law for men to shower with women, against the law for men to use the same changing rooms as women-- that is the point the officer was making-

Really? It is? Can you please give me some citations? Enough to establish that "most states" are that way?

As far as I can tell, "most states" have statutes against indecent exposure. Most states have statutes against "lewd and lascivious" behavior.

For example, North Carolina's law,    § 14-190.9. Indecent exposure, says:

(a)Unless  the  conduct  is  punishable  under  subsection  (a1)  of  this  section,  any  person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons,except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or  aids or abets in any such act,  or  who  procures  another  to  perform  such  act;  or  any  person,  who  as  owner,  manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the  land,  building,  or  premises  of  which  he  is  owner,  lessee  or  tenant,  or  over  which  he  has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

(a1)Unless the conduct is prohibited by  another law  providing  greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person lessthan 16 years of age for the purpose of  arousing  or  gratifying  sexual  desire  shall  be  guilty  of  a  Class  H  felony.  An  offense committed  under  this  subsection  shall  not  be  considered  to  be  a  lesser  included  offense  under G.S. 14-202.1.

(snip)

If a person is in a stall, that person is not "exposing himself."

Frankly, if "most" states had a law about restrooms, with all the bathrooms (for either sex) that I've cleaned in my life, I should be in jail to this day. Why? If it's illegal for a male to be in a female restroom, then it's illegal. I wish that would have been the law, as I could have balked when my supervisor assigned me to restroom duty. (Nothing more disgusting in the world than a well-used female public restroom).

[[Here's the real point, though: if there is full disclosure, should you, as a parent, allow your young girl to go to the bathroom unaccompanied while shopping in Target]]

The real point is that target may be breaking the law by allowing men to use women's bathrooms if the state hasn't passed laws allowing it- so a parent should not even have to worry about their child using a bathroom in a target store because it is against the law for men to use women's bathrooms- in a sane and rational world, we should be doing everythign we can to protect our women and children, not opening them up to attacks by perverts and sickos who WILL exploit these laws- We should not have to worry that some pervert is in the bathroom legally and protected by the state because he claims to be something he isn't

Again, please give me some citations of state laws that make it illegal for a biological male to enter a female restroom or vice versa. I fully acknowledge and support laws about indecent exposure, but that is a different offense.
[quote[And it is not a good argument ot say "Transexuals have always used women's bathrooms- because first of all we're not talking about just transexuals- we're talking about allowing EVERY man that wishes to use the bathroom use it- that includes rapists, perverts, abusers etc-[/quote]
So what do you think about sodomites using public restrooms as a venue for a glory hole?

Since this happens should it also be illegal for males to use male restrooms?

Secondly,, while trannies did use the bathrooms before- they were very very discrete about it because they didn't want ot get busted-- but even then- if you haven't seen it yet, I would urge you to view this video- the author said it could have been many hours longer- but it showcases the fact that trannies are NOT benign individuals who 'just want ot be left alone' many are sick individuals as you will see from the video- and most trannies were sexually abused as children, and we know from statistics that sexually abused kids usually turn into abusers themselves-

OK, so do you want to make it illegal for a male to attempt to pass himself off as a female (and vice versa) -- a/k/a living transexualism? I could support that type of law a whole lot more than restricting businesses in this fashion. If you support the traditional definition of "gender identity disorder" as it used to be defined in the DSM and want to pass a law requiring these people, as a danger to themselves and to society, to be committed for life or until they are absolutely cured, I can support that as well. [I could also support that for homosexuals as defined in DSM-III and earlier, btw]

And again- it's not just sicko trannies that will be hte problem, it's every pervert this side of hell that will abuse the issue- and the argument that 'there are laws against it' doesn't fly- we're putting our kids and women at much greater risk by opening the door and allowing them in legally-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

If Target, Planet Fitness, or other businesses decide to allow men to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc., that is their business. I DO believe that the businesses need to fully disclose and make plain that they have a certain policy (appropriate signage, etc). If you shop in such a place, you should not be, in any way, surprised if a male in a dress is using the restroom where you send your daughter. And you should be armed with that information prior to allowing her to go into that restroom.

And I also believe that a business, having established that policy, should be liable for the consequences of their actions. If you have a wife or daughter who is assaulted in the restroom by a male wearing a dress, you should be able to bring a civil suit for damages against that store.

Here's my actual agenda: the way that our society is going, it won't be a matter of the government making it illegal for trannies to use the wrong restroom. It will be a matter of the government mandating that ALL businesses mandate this. It will either come as a result of Hillary Clinton's bureaucrats in the EEOC, DOL, OSHA, HHS, or the like making a regulation...or from some state that actually passes a "bathroom bill" (that you claim already exist) getting that bill overturned by the leftist Clinton-appointed SCOTUS...and the SCOTUS decision mandating "gender neutral" restrooms across the country.

Better to have liberty.

[bob434]

[[OK, so do you want to make it illegal for a male to attempt to pass himself off as a female (and vice versa) -- a/k/a living transexualism?]]

See, I'm sorry, but that's just a typical liberal discussion tactic- take the actual issue, ignore it and try to equate it to something totally unrelated

What in  the world does your question have to do with endangering our women and children further by allowing men to use women's bathrooms?

[[http://www.ehow.com/list_6809407_female-restroom-laws.html]]

You can do your own homework on htis- however- to get you started- entering a women's bathroom by a male IS considered lewd and harassing!

In many states, men are not allowed to enter a women's restroom and vice versa. This is for sexual harassment and safety reasons. Many state and local ordinances make it illegal for men to harass women, or to endanger them in any way- and a man will be arrested if he is in a women's bathroom for harassment- You silly bathroom cleaning distraction is an exception to the issue, as is a parent accompanying a child into the bathroom- however that parent can still be arrested if he or she is isn't careful about it- Why the hell do you think they want to pass a law allowing men to use women's bathrooms freely? Because they can't do so now because of ordinances against it- they want ot make all such ordinances illegal and allow every pervert this side of hell the ability to use women's bahtrooms-

[[I am not trying to champion transgender rights.]]

Actually you are- You are defending their false 'right' to use women's bathrooms-

[[Since this happens should it also be illegal for males to use male restrooms?]]

Again you set up a false liberal argument- There are always going to be people who break the law- that can NOT be helped- however  the solution is NEVER to open the door up to more perverts allowing them free access to their intended victims- Why the hell do you think we do not allow pedophiles within 500 years or whatever of schools and daycare centers etc? Because they are KNOWN risks to children- Now you want to legally open the door to them and allow them in with young girls and women and wives?

So damn sick of having to explain what should be obvious!

[[If Target, Planet Fitness, or other businesses decide to allow men to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc., that is their business.]]

it is NOT their busienss when it amoutns to endangering women and children knowingly- when states have laws agaisnt it

[[If Target, Planet Fitness, or other businesses decide to allow men to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc., that is their business.]]

nonsense- any business that KNOWINGLY increases risk to either their customers OR their employees is hauled into court and sued and fined and cited for violations-  Any business that removes safety equipment will face the same- any business that requires their employees or customers to engage in risky behavior the same- on and on it goes- NO business has a right to knowingly increase risk to customers or employees

I believe I rant into your liberal arguments over on Free Republic- and your defense of transexual causes, and your belief that women and children are not entitled to all the protection they can have under the law by refusing to admit that this WILL increase risk, has not changed one iota- I really don't care to discuss this issue further here on TBR- Your points are not valid, and they amount to coddling criminals and victimizing their victims further- and quite frankly it's disgusting-

[bob434]

and by the way- your arguments, as proven before- are disingenuous non sequitur argument in-that you claim it's just about transsexuals using 'stalls' behind closed doors- this is nonsense- the whole issue opens up ALL women's facilities to men- and it IS being exploited by perverts and men ARE using the law to expose themselves to women and children already and it's going to get worse-

Men are demanding they be allowed to shower with women- use women's changing rooms, etc-

Man Strips In Women’s Restroom, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Totally Legal

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/man-strips-in-womens-restroom-says-new-transgender-rules-make-it-totally-legal/#ixzz4BlQh1uSB


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/man-strips-in-womens-restroom-says-new-transgender-rules-make-it-totally-legal/

IF you open the door to men using women's facilities- claiming it's natural and perfectly ok, then you have absolutely NO right barring them from walking around naked in front of girls and women, because the moment you do so you admit that it is not natural for a male to be naked in front of women, after having already said that they have a natural right to use women's facilities- You are admitting there is something perverted about it and that there needs to be a law against it.

A senator's 'solution' was to 'put up curtains' in women's locker rooms- Why would you do that if it's perfectly ok for a man to use a women's locker room? Why? Is there something immoral about a man exposing his genitalia to women and children? OF COURSE IT IS, and if it is immoral to expose, it's also been considered immoral for them to even be in the same privacy situations where women use bathrooms or change or shower- that is hwy there are ordinances against it and why women CAN and DO cite harassment when a man enters a women's facility in most states- and communities- That is why local and state ordinances, and individual policies made it illegal for men to use women's bathrooms- because it is immoral - end of story-

Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed- assistant most people's wishes because we KNEW it would increase sexual attacks- and by golly it did just that

College dorms instated coed dorms, against most people's wishes, because we KNEW it would increase sexual assaults, rapes, attacks, abuse- and by golly it did just that!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that allowing men to use women's changing rooms, showers, locker rooms, bathrooms is going to result in way more sexual assaults, abuse, attacks, and rapes and violations of privacy- it's a no brainer!

You are defending the indefensible by claiming there is no good reason to keep men out of bathrooms- You obviously have not hat to watch a child assaulted by a pervert because soem liberal thought it was a good idea to allow perverts the right to use their facilities-

In Massachusetts, they voted to allow KNOWN and CONVICTED sex felons the 'right' to use women's facilities

Again- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what IS going to happen- and already is happening!

[markomalley]

@bob434 All I can say at this point is that I hope your head doesn't explode too badly when the courts create a brand new Constitutional right which takes it out of the business' hands and out of your hands. Just like they did with Lawrence and Windsor. If states start passing bathroom laws, that's exactly what will happen. Frankly, if states start trying to enforce indecent exposure laws in this case, as you propose, that will surely happen as well.

Once SCOTUS makes it "settled law"...then how do you propose protecting your wife and young daughter? It will be against the law to do so.

And don't fool yourself into thinking SCOTUS won't do that. If they managed to make sodomite marriage legal while Scalia was sitting on the court, imagine what they'll do after the Hildabeast has appointed his replacement and a replacement for Thomas.

[bob434]

the issue isn't about what the government might do- the issue is whether or not men should be allowed morally to use women's bathrooms- The idea that a man's 'right' to use a woman's bathroom, showers, locker rooms, changing facilities etc is indefensible- This isn't about what an immoral government might do or is likely to do- but in regards ot that there may infact be grounds for suits against a government that should decide ot violate a woman's right ot a reasonable expectation to privacy in women's facilities and showers etc- It has long been am oral precept that men's genitalia do not belong in women's facilities, and by allowing a breach of this moral precept, WHEN it devolves into attacks on women and children- then lawsuits will be forthcoming against the government for endangering the welfare of children and women-

It is astounding to think that a mother who allowed her child to walk a short distance to a public pool was arrested for 'child endangerment' yet our government thinks that allowing sicko perverts the 'right' to use the same facilities as children and women is not a case of endangering the welfare of a child- Funny how they exempt themselves over something that is far far worse than a child walking, with friends, a short distance to a public pool

Allowing perverts, rapists, sickos free access to women and children's showers, changing rooms, bathrooms and locker rooms is morally reprehensible - and hopefully lawyers will be jumping all over this issue WHEN the attacks begin in greater amounts than they already are-