Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

And "separate but equal" sounds better than "together but unequal", which is the situation we are currently in.

Oh boy... I've heard this claim many times from my own family. The problem is that transgender people like myself, are not "together but unequal", We are instead separate and unequal. There are several states that have mad it effectively illegal for us to even use public restrooms... out of fear that we are sexual predators. Some of our marriages have been ruled as invalided (for entering the marriage under false pretenses). And now there is a state (Mississippi I think), that just put a measure allowing mental health providers and health care providers, to refuse us service. By allowing people to refuse services based on their personal or religious beliefs, could cost us our lives when an ER staff member, police officer, school employees, and even life guards refuse services.

How is that together but unequal? sounds like separate but unequal to me when we don't even get basic human rights (like to pee).

AveryR1988 wrote:

And "separate but equal" sounds better than "together but unequal", which is the situation we are currently in.

Oh boy... I've heard this claim many times from my own family. The problem is that transgender people like myself, are not "together but unequal", We are instead separate and unequal. There are several states that have mad it effectively illegal for us to even use public restrooms... out of fear that we are sexual predators. Some of our marriages have been ruled as invalided (for entering the marriage under false pretenses). And now there is a state (Mississippi I think), that just put a measure allowing mental health providers and health care providers, to refuse us service. By allowing people to refuse services based on their personal or religious beliefs, could cost us our lives when an ER staff member, police officer, school employees, and even life guards refuse services.

How is that together but unequal? sounds like separate but unequal to me when we don't even get basic human rights (like to pee).

Well to be fair if the other party involved in the marriage did not know that is indeed false pretense and a grounds for marriage dissolution. Now if they knew that is a different thing. As far as public restrooms that is a private businesses choice and should not be a state matter. Finally the ER staff, Police and School are all state employees or receive state or federal funding and this have no such right to refuse service. When you are government funded you have no right to refusal of service as you are taking the peoples money without their say so you have to serve without your say.

Well to be fair if the other party involved in the marriage did not know that is indeed false pretense and a grounds for marriage dissolution. Now if they knew that is a different thing.

If you don't tell your spouse you broke your leg, does that give grounds for the state to invalidate your marriage? What about depression or anxiety? Gender dysphoria is a medical issue. Why does it matter if someone was born female, or transitioned to female (of course it can go the other way too)? I am legally recognized by my state and the federal government as female, if I didn't tell my partner, how is it any different then withholding something like a previous round of depression?

As far as public restrooms that is a private businesses choice and should not be a state matter.

I both agree and disagree. It should be left up to the owners. However the problem is the fact that current laws already give or take away that right. But should a business be allowed to tell colored people, that they can't use the restroom? Either way it's the same thing, just a different minority.

Finally the ER staff, Police and School are all state employees or receive state or federal funding and this have no such right to refuse service. When you are government funded you have no right to refusal of service as you are taking the peoples money without their say so you have to serve without your say.

They do. There are schools that are making rules that transgender students must use a single occupant (normally staff) restroom. In some cases there is only one. Problems arise when it's across campus, and staff members or other students are using it too.
Another example: A friend of mine had to wait 4 hours in the ER on a stretcher, because the on duty ER surgeon wouldn't touch her. She ended up loosing her leg due to the extra time.
And let me remind you of Kim Davis, the clerk who refused to give medical licenses to same sex couples in her district.

Guess what, no one has had their funding taken away yet.


I'm sorry if I come across as irritated, It's an issue that is very close to me and I get fired up over fairly easy. I promis I'm not upset with anyone on here.

Mental health issues or being born the incorrect gender (Please forgive if this is not the proper term I am not well versed in the proper language for the trans community) are things that could be deal breakers for the marriage as are some forms of other illness. As callous as that may be its a person right to know the person they are getting involved with. If you are marrying someone and they dont trust you to tell you that information you should not be married. At the end of the day its a contract and withholding information that could impact a persons choice to enter into that contract is not right. If you say its hard to speak about or personal well if you cant share it with the person you are marrying then why are you getting married?

I think a business should be able to refuse anyone for any reason. Just as I can refuse a business my money they should have the ability to refuse me their service. To force someone to give you something against their will in my eyes is theft and to force them to work for you against their will is slavery. Morally the people who are bigoted are wrong in my eyes and in business they are foolish because cash should be cash but that does not mean we should use force to decide that for them.

Finally those that take the public dime should lose their job if they cant serve the public. As for what happened to your friend not only is that sickening on a moral level its against the oath that I am fairly sure all medical practitioners take. So that is doubly messed up. So when you are funded by the tax payer yes I think we need to punish those things. I mean Kim Davis didnt lose her job that I know of but she did see jail so its something at least.
Edit:
Oh and you didnt come off as upset really. Your words were reasoned and points well made. Plus if you ever need to unload just PM me and go off. I've got thick skin and dont mind letting people vent if need be. So dont ever feel the need to say sorry for how you feel or how you word things.

MadHatter wrote: I think a business should be able to refuse anyone for any reason. Just as I can refuse a business my money they should have the ability to refuse me their service. To force someone to give you something against their will in my eyes is theft and to force them to work for you against their will is slavery. Morally the people who are bigoted are wrong in my eyes and in business they are foolish because cash should be cash but that does not mean we should use force to decide that for them.

I think in general, we tend to romaticise the world, maybe due to the influence of fairy tales and religion in our youth. We are taught the idea that things tend to "work themselves out": the good guys triumph, the villan gets punished, the princess gets saved by the knight in shining armor and they live happily ever after.

This magical thinking spills over into issues such as economics, where we also assume the capitalist free market with its invisible hand will balance out supply and demand to create the fairest and least wasteful market. In this make-believe fairy-tale world, business that practice bigotry go broke because people stop doing business with them, people can maintain a culture of openness and love even if surrounded by bigots.

I do not believe this is an accurate description of how the world works. In the "real" world, businesses scheme and manipulate markets, bigots influence people who would otherwise not discriminate, bad guys can go unpunished, and unthinkable crimes (such as slavery) can go on for millenia unless actively fought against.

I can sympathise with the libertarian "laissez fair" view, but I don't think we are evolved enough to advance as a society without a little help from proggressive laws.

Manu wrote: I can sympathise with the libertarian "laissez fair" view, but I don't think we are evolved enough to advance as a society without a little help from proggressive laws.

Which is fine I guess that you see it that way. However in my eyes advocating laws that force business and labor against peoples wills is no better then going in with a gun to rob the place. You are basically saying you have two options A) submit to my guns or be shut down or you give up the right to make your own living as you see fit and can starve. That is the choice you are giving people which is not right. Viewpoints that we do not like no matter how loathsome we may find them do not give anyone the right to enact force against the person that holds them. Unless of course said person is initiating force themselves. And telling someone no I wont work for you nor sell to you is not force. Should we force people to shop at business to prevent discrimination? Should we force people to work for places to prevent discrimination? How far should we take the concept of "fairness". I mean I think you would agree that you have no right to the labor or product of another person unless you have paid for it right? Well then by what right do you demand government guns forcing them to give it to you. I mean if they dont want to sell tossing money on the counter does not make it any less of a theft. The only difference between me kicking in someones door and taking their craigslist-ed tv then tossing money at them and what is suggested by these laws is we are getting a government and not a private citizen to make that threat.

MadHatter wrote:

Manu wrote: I can sympathise with the libertarian "laissez fair" view, but I don't think we are evolved enough to advance as a society without a little help from proggressive laws.

Which is fine I guess that you see it that way. However in my eyes advocating laws that force business and labor against peoples wills is no better then going in with a gun to rob the place. You are basically saying you have two options A) submit to my guns or be shut down or you give up the right to make your own living as you see fit and can starve. That is the choice you are giving people which is not right.

Just so we are clear, I acknowledge the logical truth in what you say, as you have framed it. However, there is also a historical precedent -- at least in the U.S. -- that progressive laws to force people to adopt another viewpoint have been necessary in order to stop discrimination. And yes, history shows that sometimes it is necessary for a big bad federal government to step in and tell business owners to cut the crap and treat people fairly. Sometimes it is necessary to enact laws that tell business owners they may not refuse to give people food and housing and service because of the color of their skin or the chromosomes in their cells.

But to the broader point, the issue actually playing out in North Carolina and Mississippi is not whether a supreme authority will come down from Washington and force people into the 21st century (which I haven't seen them do in the past few days), but whether businesses like PayPal and the NCAA (and xHamster, God bless 'em) will stand up en masse and say we will not deal with you because of this law. Is that not PayPal's or xHamster's right as well?

Atticus509 wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Manu wrote: I can sympathise with the libertarian "laissez fair" view, but I don't think we are evolved enough to advance as a society without a little help from proggressive laws.

Which is fine I guess that you see it that way. However in my eyes advocating laws that force business and labor against peoples wills is no better then going in with a gun to rob the place. You are basically saying you have two options A) submit to my guns or be shut down or you give up the right to make your own living as you see fit and can starve. That is the choice you are giving people which is not right.

Just so we are clear, I acknowledge the logical truth in what you say, as you have framed it. However, there is also a historical precedent -- at least in the U.S. -- that progressive laws to force people to adopt another viewpoint have been necessary in order to stop discrimination. And yes, history shows that sometimes it is necessary for a big bad federal government to step in and tell business owners to cut the crap and treat people fairly. Sometimes it is necessary to enact laws that tell business owners they may not refuse to give people food and housing and service because of the color of their skin or the chromosomes in their cells.

But to the broader point, the issue actually playing out in North Carolina and Mississippi is not whether a supreme authority will come down from Washington and force people into the 21st century (which I haven't seen them do in the past few days), but whether businesses like PayPal and the NCAA (and xHamster, God bless 'em) will stand up en masse and say we will not deal with you because of this law. Is that not PayPal's or xHamster's right as well?

Social and economic pressure are just fine and something I encourage. Anyone has the right to refuse business with people. Oh wait no not in all cases. So do you see the issue here? If someone is bigoted and I dont like it I can refuse to do business with them and people support this right because they like my reasoning. But why should we take away a right because we dont like the reason for exercising it? It is not moral to use force to make someone to do something against their will unless they have violated a persons rights in some manner. And no one has the right to the labor or property of others against their will.

MadHatter wrote: Social and economic pressure are just fine and something I encourage. Anyone has the right to refuse business with people. Oh wait no not in all cases. So do you see the issue here? If someone is bigoted and I dont like it I can refuse to do business with them and people support this right because they like my reasoning. But why should we take away a right because we dont like the reason for exercising it?

I do see the comparison you are making, though I disagree with it. Yes, I can refuse to do business with a racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe. I can refuse to do business with someone because of the content of their character. I cannot -- and will not -- refuse to do business with someone because of the color of their skin or the chromosomes in their cells.

The Supreme Court once articulated a distinction based in "immutable characteristics" like skin pigment or gender. So please indulge me when I ask, if we swapped out gender or perceived gender for race or ethnicity, would you still be making this argument?

Atticus509 wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Social and economic pressure are just fine and something I encourage. Anyone has the right to refuse business with people. Oh wait no not in all cases. So do you see the issue here? If someone is bigoted and I dont like it I can refuse to do business with them and people support this right because they like my reasoning. But why should we take away a right because we dont like the reason for exercising it?

I do see the comparison you are making, though I disagree with it. Yes, I can refuse to do business with a racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe. I can refuse to do business with someone because of the content of their character. I cannot -- and will not -- refuse to do business with someone because of the color of their skin or the chromosomes in their cells.

The Supreme Court once articulated a distinction based in "immutable characteristics" like skin pigment or gender. So please indulge me when I ask, if we swapped out gender or perceived gender for race or ethnicity, would you still be making this argument?

Yes I would. I might not agree with it. I would never do so myself. But I believe its the right of the businessmen to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It could be they dont like my face, my height, or my skin color, but it is their right. No one should be forced to do business against their will unless A: they signed a contract that binds them, B: They work for the government or are state funded thus are taking my money without my say, or C: They work for a business that refuses to allow such discrimination and as such can leave if they do not like the rules of the owner.
I am a Bisexual man and my boyfriend is Gay. We both support the bakers here in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a couple and think the courts violated their liberty by enacting the fines against them. I dont like what they did but I do not believe I have the right to use force to change that.