The 5 Worst Beliefs a Christian Parent Can Have in an Imploding Society

By Natasha Crain

America is changing fast, and not in the direction we’d like.

In light of recent events, I don’t think I need to detail all the signs that point to an imploding society. We see it. We feel it. We fear it.

Instead, I want to focus on our role as Christian parents within a society at such a point as this. In particular, I’m concerned about some very harmful beliefs—both conscious and subconscious—that I’ve noticed some Christian parents have.

Today I want to highlight five of the worst beliefs we can have when our society is spiraling downward.

The 5 Worst Beliefs a Christian Parent Can Have in an Imploding Society

1. I’m doing my part to make society a better place by raising kids with good values.

I’ve heard some variation on this way too many times. Let me make this very clear: Raising kids with good values is not the same as raising kids who love Jesus. And there are two important reasons why focusing on good values rather than on Jesus will never fundamentally alter society.

First, without universal acceptance of an objective moral standard (God), society will always disagree about which values are good. Without God as the standard, the goodness of a value system is simply a matter of opinion. One person can claim abortion is morally acceptable and another person can claim it’s murder. “Good” values can’t rescue a society when there will never be fundamental agreement on how to define what’s good in the first place.

Second, the fundamental problem in a troubled society isn’t a lack of values. It’s sinful human nature. Even if everyone agreed on the same set of objective moral values, they would still sin and act contrary to those values. Society’s deepest need for healing, therefore, isn’t more people with good values (however those values are defined)—it’s more people who know and love Jesus, who acknowledge the ever-present reality of sin as the world’s ultimate problem, and who accept Jesus’ sacrifice as the solution to that problem.

There will never be complete peace on Earth. But when we, as Christian parents, stay focused on raising kids who love Jesus—not just raising kids with good values—we are raising a generation who can impact society in an eternally significant way: by raising more witnesses for Christ.

2. I don’t need to waste my time teaching my kids the falsities of others’ beliefs when they’re better served learning the truth of Jesus Christ.

This is what someone said in response to one of my blog posts about the importance of helping our kids understand the secular worldview. And it absolutely belongs on this list of the 5 worstbeliefs a Christian parent can have in an imploding society.

It’s well known, based on multiple independent research studies over more than a decade, that at least 60% of kids who grow up in Christian homes turn away from faith as young adults.These kids learned the truth of Jesus Christ…but when they encountered false claims to the contrary, they were led astray.

In a society that’s quickly turning away from God, kids will be exposed to claims against Christianity at exponentially increasing rates. When they start to see their beliefs in the context of such claims, they have to know how to evaluate those competing views. Think of it this way: Just because a football team knows what to do when they have a ball at practice with no opponents around doesn’t mean they’ll know what to do when thousands of pounds of force come at them in a real game. If they don’t know what the other team will do, and how to respond, they’ll fumble…they’ll make poor plays…they’ll be pushed back. Similarly, our kids won’t be living in a Christian vacuum. Thousands of pounds of force will be coming at theirbeliefs. You can ignore it, but statistics show your kids’ faith will likely not stand up again after it’s been tackled by today’s opponents. Why wouldn’t you prepare them for that?

(If you need help learning about the specific faith challenges of today’s secular world, how to explain those challenges to your kids, and figuring out what all that means for you as a Christian parent, please check out my new book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith.)

3. God is in control, so whatever happens in our society is meant to happen. I’m not going to be concerned about it.

Allow me to be blunt: This is just plain laziness, whether a person wants to admit it or not.

Of course God is sovereign. But it’s not biblical to sit back and watch the world unfold because God is ultimately in control.

Did God tell the Israelites, “Just chill out. Don’t be concerned about Canaanite society. I’m in control and this ship is sailing regardless of what you do”? NO! He commanded the Israelites towage war against Canaanite society. The Israelites were used by God to execute judgment against them.

Did Jesus tell the disciples, “Just hang out here in Jerusalem after I’m gone and I’ll make sure the rest of the world hears the good news about me on my own?” NO! He commissioned the witnesses of his life, death, and resurrection to go out and tell the world about him…and to be willing to suffer and die in the process.

The fact of God’s sovereignty has never meant that we should relegate our faith to whatever status society wants to place on it. If we care about the world our kids are growing into, wemust be concerned about society’s changing moral and legal landscape and be willing to act on that concern accordingly.

4. My kids will learn what they need to know about the Bible at church.

If we’re going to raise kids who will represent Jesus in a society spiraling downward, they better be prepared to speak to the truth of the Bible—God’s Word to people in all societies. The Bible tells us where we came from (God), why we’re here (to have a relationship with God), the most significant problem we face (sin, leading to separation from God), the history of God bringing a solution to that problem (Jesus), how we should live our lives in response (putting Jesus first), and where we’re going (a final judgment of the whole world). I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s pretty relevant stuff for today…and always.

Meanwhile, research shows that fewer than 1 in 10 Christian families read the Bible together in a given week.

As Christian parents, we should collectively feel that like a punch in the gut.

The belief that kids will learn what they need to know about the Bible at church is not conscious for most parents. But when we don’t study the Bible with our kids, our lack of action speaks to that subconscious belief. And it’s an undeniably wrong belief that will ultimately limit our kids’ effectiveness in engaging with a secular society.

As I wrote in my post, Why Your Kids Can Spend 600-Plus Hours in Church and Not Get Much Out of It, we have to remember that over the years a child attends Sunday school, teachers vary, curricula vary, and churches vary (as families move). Kids are handed various pieces of Christianity during that time, which they collect and store internally. But unless there is a consistent, focused, goal-oriented spiritual trainer in their life—a parent—those pieces will almost certainly lie around unconnected. This is especially true when it comes to their understanding of the Bible.

Furthermore, there are many things kids need to learn about the Bible that are never covered in most Sunday schools: How were the books in the Bible selected? Why were books left out of the Bible? How do we know we can trust the Bible’s authors? How do we know the Bible we have today says what the authors originally wrote? What about the supposed errors and contradictions in the Bible?

All of these questions are favorites for skeptics to weigh in on. But your kids won’t know what to make of their claims if you’ve assumed they’ll learn all this at church. They almost certainly won’t.

5. I’m sure things won’t get that bad.

I have been guilty of believing this until pretty recently.

But what a giant, dangerous deception it is.

To be sure, there are places in the world where Christians face persecution of a nature we may never see in America. If that’s your standard of bad, it may be true that things won’t get that bad.

But there are other kinds of bad that would represent an enormous change in the way of life for Christians in America…kinds of bad that are quickly becoming a reality, faster than most of us would have imagined. Every week (dare I say every day) there is a new headline that has negative implications for religious liberty in our country. Those headlines will keep rolling in.

We can ignore them, assuming things can’t get too bad. After all, this is America! Or we can look at such headlines like canaries in a coalmine—advanced warning signals of a precarious future for Christians in this country—and start taking more action in the public square on behalf of the next generation:

  • Stay up-to-date on the latest news affecting Christians (The Stream is a great place to do so).
  • Share articles representing Christian viewpoints on your social media.
  • Actively discuss these issues with your friends–online and in person.
  • Write politicians regarding key issues.
  • Gain an active knowledge of what public schools in your area are teaching that may be of concern and act accordingly.

Rather than assuming things won’t get that bad, let’s work together to make sure they don’t.

The 5 Worst Beliefs a Christian Parent Can Have in an Imploding Society

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
174 replies
  1. Bob Seidensticker says:

    “But there are other kinds of bad that would represent an enormous change in the way of life for Christians in America…kinds of bad that are quickly becoming a reality, faster than most of us would have imagined. Every week (dare I say every day) there is a new headline that has negative implications for religious liberty in our country.”

    What are you talking about? If you’re saying that Christians’ ability to impose their religious beliefs on others (like Kim Davis or the anti-gay bakers), then yeah. That’s life in a pluralistic society and with a secular constitution. Is that it? Or are there real clues that religious freedom is being imposed upon?

    I’m an atheist, and I support First Amendment freedoms for Christians just like I demand them for myself.

    Reply
    • toby says:

      That’s life in a pluralistic society and with a secular constitution. Is that it? Or are there real clues that religious freedom is being imposed upon?
      That’s likely it precisely. They labor under the delusion that this is a christian nation and should follow whatever rules of the bible they like. As far as I know the bible doesn’t mention anything about not trading with pagan peoples. So the whole “I can’t make you a cake…because god” doesn’t stand up. It’s just a reason to deny people freedoms and force their beliefs on others.

      Reply
      • Bob Seidensticker says:

        They also forget that the Constitution calls the shots in this country, not the Bible. The Bible is legal, people can share their faith, churches exist, and so on because of the Constitution, not the other way around. Indeed, if things were the other way around, and we lived in an Old Testament theocracy, the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution would most certainly not be here.

        Reply
        • Rob says:

          Bob,

          I’m NOT in the USA, but it is plain in case after case that the consciences of Christians are being violated by the legal outworkings of the LGBTQ agenda.

          Ask yourself this simple question: If a Nazi or a KKK supporter walked into your cake shop and asked you to make a cake with a swastika or KKK symbol on it, would you be okay with saying “yes” to the request? Or what if Westboro Baptist ordered a cake with “I hate fags” on it, would you be cool with that?

          Should the government force you to make the cake, against your conscience? Yes, or no?

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            I saw a joke the other day that made me laugh.

            JESUS: love your neighbor, do not judge him, do good works
            EVANGELICALS: no cakes for homos, got it, but what about the bathrooms
            JESUS: ???

          • Kyle says:

            Hate speech is not protected. Also it is specified “against your conscience”, not against your religion. If you were getting in hot water for denying the swastika cake, you can easily claim reasons that do not involve religion. The only defense to denying the gay wedding cake is due to religious beliefs. I’d deny a cake that said “I hate Christians.” just as much as one that says “I hate fags.”

      • Ron says:

        Is there a cake maker shortage no. If someone feels defiled in honoring a union that goes against their faith and belief system as they interpret it, then they are the one injured the most .

        Reply
    • Ann says:

      If you are an atheist then why are you even responding to this post? This was addressed to Christians, so we do not care what you think.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        Because christians do not follow the teachings of jesus and keep their prayers in their closet. They also like to put their beliefs into laws even if they violate others rights.

        Reply
        • Aaron Brown says:

          You seem to have some interesting thoughts on this issue. Just wondering, in what way do you believe that Christians (like the bakers in Oregon) violate other people’s rights?

          Reply
          • Kyle says:

            The same biblical nonsense was used to deny blacks much of their rights. Homosexuals and transgendered peopled should be a protected class like race and religion. For the same reason it would be a violation for someone to refuse service to a black person it should be considered the same for gays.

          • toby says:

            I said they want their beliefs put into law. That doesn’t have anything to do with the various commerce controversies.

            Kyle—I’m sure no outrage would be generated by a business, maybe even a doctor, denying service to someone because they are christian.

          • Bob Seidensticker says:

            If you run a hotel, you can’t pick and choose the kinds of people you will let stay in your hotel. “We don’t serve your kind here” won’t work for any protected class of people, which prohibits discrimination by race, religion, national origin, sexual preference, disability, and so on. The legal concept is public accommodation.

            In the same way, anti-gay-marriage bakers don’t get to pick and choose their clientele. Not being able to impose their religious views is not a violation of their rights.

          • Bob Seidensticker says:

            Toby: you said, “I’m sure no outrage would be generated by a business, maybe even a doctor, denying service to someone because they are christian.”

            I don’t know where this “everyone is mean to me” attitude comes from–as an atheist, it’s hard to have much sympathy for someone in the dominant group–but every atheist I know would be as outraged by a business that said, “No Christians served” as one that said, “No gays served.”

            Get outside your Christian bubble and read a bit and you’d see that most atheists are looking for fairness, not an unfair advantage.

          • toby says:

            Bob—I am an atheist. I was being sarcastic. Such an event would clearly show the glaring hypocrisy of christians.

        • Aaron Brown says:

          So, let me understand you correctly. The bakers in Oregon violated the gay couple’s rights by refusing to take part in their wedding?

          Reply
          • Kyle says:

            They violated their rights the same way it would be a violation for a christian to use their religious freedom to deny a black couple a cake or a Jewish couple.

      • Bob Seidensticker says:

        Ann: I’m afraid it speaks volumes when you say that you don’t care what atheists think.

        Atheists commenting here is an opportunity that apparently you don’t want to seize. Don’t want to dialogue? You’ve got it all figured out? Or is it that your Christian beliefs are too brittle to stand critique?

        Reply
        • Rob says:

          Bob,

          The problem with you atheists is manifold. First you argue about objective moral values while denying that objective moral values and duties exist. In other words, you want to have you cake and eat it to (pun intended).

          Second, you atheists force a Godless secular morality (or im/a-morality) down the throats of Christians all the time. Filthy American secularism from the likes of Hollywood has permeated all corners of the earth. Your worldview of ultimate meaninglessness is all thru the secular school systems, and secular intolerance and bigotry persecute Christians in California (where a case was recently lost by your bigoted and intolerant side). Here is the video:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuGfMG9TDKA

          So Bob, once you can make a decent case that the invisible immaterial morality you apparently believe in by faith is actually real and that there is some reason why a scientist such as myself should actually believe in it and do what it says, then talk to me and convince my to join your side. In the meantime, I will continue to see atheism as an old friend of mine who died when I failed to believe in it any longer.

          All the best.

          Reply
          • KR says:

            Rob wrote: “The problem with you atheists is manifold. First you argue about objective moral values while denying that objective moral values and duties exist. In other words, you want to have you cake and eat it to (pun intended).”

            I’m obviously not Bob but I’d still like to respond to this. You seem to be implying that there’s a unified atheist stance on morality. This is incorrect. There are atheists who believe in objective moral values and there are those who don’t. I’m in the camp who doesn’t believe in objective moral values and I’ve always found it odd that Christians who do believe in such values tend to present the problem as a dichotomy: either there are objective moral values or there is no morality at all. Why are subjective moral values seemingly excluded from the discussion?

            This is especially puzzling given the fact that our society is very much guided by subjective moral values. The laws that regulate our behaviour are decided through a political process that is entirely subjective since it’s ultimately based on people’s opinions. It seems to me that to be consistent, a proponent of objective moral values cannot accept a democratic rule of law since this process can never guarantee that it will produce laws in accordance with any objective standard (if such a standard even exists). Do you see a democratic rule of law as a threat to morality? If so, what form of government would you prefer?

            “Second, you atheists force a Godless secular morality (or im/a-morality) down the throats of Christians all the time. Filthy American secularism from the likes of Hollywood has permeated all corners of the earth. Your worldview of ultimate meaninglessness is all thru the secular school systems, and secular intolerance and bigotry persecute Christians in California (where a case was recently lost by your bigoted and intolerant side).”

            The laws regulating our behaviour are the result of a democratic process. How does this constitute forcing a “Godless secular morality” down anybody’s throat? Again, do you accept democracy as a system of government? If not, what should we replace it with?

            The claim that atheism leads to ultimate meaninglessness makes no sense. I’m an atheist and I know plenty of other atheists and none of us have any problem finding meaning in family, friends, careers, politics, hobbies etc. The only atheists I have read about as struggling with finding meaning are invariably those who have lost their faith after having grown up in a religious environment. The fact that a fellow human being would think that the only way his life can have any meaning is if it’s provided by a supernatural deity is just sad – and a clear example of the pernicious nature of religious indoctrination. A person who, like myself, has grown up without having religion fed to them from birth would never even consider such a bizarre idea.

            As for the case of Mark Armitage, if he was indeed wrongfully fired then he should obviously be reinstituted and compensated. I’d just like to point out that Dr Armitage is a Young Earth Creationist, which means he does science backwards. Instead of studying the evidence and then coming to a conclusion, he does the opposite. He starts with the conclusion (that the Genesis account is literally true and the world is around 6000 years old) and then tries to make the evidence fit with his preconceived narrative.

            I found it interesting that Dr Mary Schweitzer was one of the reviewers of Dr Armitage’s article in Acta Histochemica. She is the paleontologist who was the first to report of putative soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. She also happens to be an Evangelical Christian. This is what she said in an interview for biologos.org from 2014:

            “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.”

            Is this statement an expression of Dr Schweitzer’s intolerance and bigotry? If so, it’s apparently not atheism that’s the source of it.

            “So Bob, once you can make a decent case that the invisible immaterial morality you apparently believe in by faith is actually real and that there is some reason why a scientist such as myself should actually believe in it and do what it says, then talk to me and convince my to join your side.”

            Should you believe in the law and do what it says? If not, how do you avoid chaos and anarchy? I’m an atheist but first and foremost I’m an empiricist, meaning I’d like to see the evidence before I believe in any proposition. There’s no problem demonstrating the existence of subjective moral values – human society lives by them every day as it has for thousands of years. Our laws are exactly that – subjectively derived moral guidelines. The proponents of objective moral values have a tougher time – so far they seem unable to demonstrate the existance of any such values. Until they do, I will remain skeptical of their existence.

    • PaulG says:

      Christianity is a lifestyle homosexuality is a lifestyle, Christianity can be proven to be good, homosexuality has never been proven to be good. Governments are forcing that which has never been proven to be good onto society. Thanks prove that homosexuality is good.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        What do you mean ‘proven to be good’? Homosexuality refers to what gender attraction someone feels. Why does someone have to demonstrate to you that the attraction they feel for someone else is good, and by what metric are you judging it?

        Would you say that having an attraction to someone of a different race is a ‘lifestyle’, and one that must be ‘proven to be good’? How would one go about demonstrating that it is, and why should anyone have do demonstrate it in the first place? Is mountain climbing good, is singing good? No-one asks for the good of those things to be demonstrated. If you want to curtail the freedom of others then the onus is on you to demonstrate that you’re preventing something bad – freedom is the default here.

        “Governments are forcing that which has never been proven to be good onto society”

        They’re doing no such thing, any more than the US Govt was ‘forcing’ inter-racial marriage on society when it struck down Loving vs Virginia in 1967.

        But all research shows that marriage brings many benefits to society, so sure, gay marriage is good for society.

        Reply
        • PaulG says:

          pedophiles have attractions to little children are those “good”. Since when did sexual attraction become a “right”.

          Reply
    • PaulG says:

      Pluralism for an atheist is ok as long as they don;t dare tell people about their God, that isn’t pluralism that is called shutting up people who believe in God. Further “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Pluralist maybe, but NEVER atheist get it. Stop trying to shove ape-man ideology into innocent mouths.

      Reply
  2. Aaron Brown says:

    You said that Christians “like to put their beliefs into law even if they violate other people’s rights”. Do you have any examples of this?

    Reply
  3. Aaron Brown says:

    Or let me rephrase my question, do you believe that the bakers in Oregon were wrong and discriminatory for refusing their services based on their beliefs?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      I’d say yes. If they were refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple based on their beliefs, would you defend them? I’d also question that baking a cake genuinely counts as ‘taking part in the wedding’. Would that also apply to the guy who sold tiaras to the flower girls or someone selling socks to a page boy for the ceremony? What if it’s against a man’s religious beliefs to let Jews, black people or indeed Christians sit at the front of the bus? I thought America already answered these questions years ago.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        I don’t think anywhere in the Bible it says that hebrews couldn’t have commerce with people of other beliefs. Does anyone know of anything like that? In a quick search I couldn’t come up with anything.

        It seems to me that once you open a business you are a public servant and the old phrase “the customer is always right” would have to be your motto. Otherwise your business is discriminatory. As a business owner you’re a capitalist, and if someone wants to give you money for your service and you don’t take it you’re a sad excuse for a business owner.

        What would you think of an atheist that opened a store that sold golf balls and they only wanted to sell them to other atheists?

        Reply
        • Louie says:

          I’d be fine with that. Their store, their dollars, their time and they can run it however they want.

          I disagree with the business owner being a public servant. This is not a government run business or a hospital that accepts government hand outs. If they built it themselves, they should be able to run it as they wish. The free market will decide if it remains open.

          Reply
          • Kyle says:

            Except they expect to be protected by police on the government’s dime. Roads to and from maintained on the government’s dime. There are many ways the government helps those who “build it on their own”. This same style of argument was trotted out and soundly defeated during the civil rights era.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            I’m pretty sure legal precedent is against you on this one, Louie. Funny though how it’s only ever white, straight, Christian guys who make this libertarian ‘refuse service to whoever you want’ argument. They’re the group least likely to ever be turned away by a business. If you’re the only black family in a small town or village and the only book store or food store decides it doesn’t want to serve you, the free market will have negligible impact on the store – it’s going to be that family who suffer.

      • Coriena says:

        Hello. Wake up people. Get a clue. This is totally ridiculous and totally illogical. For starters to say that providing a cake for a wedding doesn’t constitute participation in a wedding is like saying the only actual participants in a wedding are the two people getting married, the person performing the wedding ceremony and the maid of honor and the best man because after all LEGALLY you have to have two people to get married and since no one else is getting married and LEGALLY someone has to perform the ceremony also LEGALLY you have to have at least one witness, preferably two. Now, since you DON’T LEGALLY HAVE TO HAVE the following in order to have a wedding: special clothing (the wedding dress & the tuxedo), music, flowers, the invitations to family and friends to come to the ceremony, friends and family, the cake, the reception, food for the reception, the location (wedding venue), oh and let’s not forget about the wedding gifts and wedding registry, etc., therefore they are not part of the wedding, and therefore you are not participating in the wedding regardless of whether or not you provide any of these things for the couple. If that’s the case, then beyond those three things that ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED everything else that I mentioned is nothing more than a preference. That being the case then you are not legally entitled to any of these things. It is NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED of you to have it, NOR is it LEGALLY REQUIRED of ANYONE to provide it. That being the case, since all these things are merely preferences and not legalities then they are NOT part of the wedding, and therefore you should be perfectly happy and content to do without them. I challenge anyone who wants to get married to do exactly that. Just show up at the courthouse wearing T- shirts, shorts and flip flops with a couple of witnesses in tow, get the job done, then go home, get on with your lives, forget about all the rest and be perfectly happy and content with that. I, however, can 100% guarantee this will NEVER EVER happen precisely because 100% of the entire population of the entire planet does indeed consider ALL of these things to be part of the wedding, and therefore absolutely will include at least some if not all of them in their wedding. Even people who do choose to elope to the courthouse will absolutely get dressed up at least a little bit better than they normally do for their wedding, and they will have a reception with family and friends afterwards. Oh,and nobody has ever yet turned down wedding gifts when offered. So, yes, to provide anything at all for a wedding is to participate in that wedding, whether you or anyone else thinks so or not. Whether you like it or not NO ONE has either the constitutional, moral or legal right to force ANYONE to do something they don’t want to do if it is constitutionally and morally wrong. Not every law is constitutionally and morally correct, and therefore can and should be absolutely struck down. Everyone has the right to follow their conscience and beliefs so long as they DO NOT cross the moral and constitutional line, whether you like it or not.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          “For starters to say that providing a cake for a wedding doesn’t constitute participation in a wedding is like saying the only actual participants in a wedding are the two people getting married etc”

          The participants are the people getting married, the officiator and the guests.

          What if a taxi driver said that inter-racial marriage was against his religion. Does that mean he can refuse to drive people to weddings if it involves two people of different races getting married? How’s about a Jewish person tries to buy paper from a stationers to write a best man speech on, and the guy on the till says “Sorry, Jews marrying is against my religion, I can’t be a participant”? Where would it all end?

          Reply
    • toby says:

      Doesn’t it seem that the state was the “business” and the basketball association was the customer? If so, that’s what customers do. They choose where they take their business.

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      The extension of your argument is that any business that doesn’t have branches in every state in the US is denying citizens in that state a service. That’s not the same at all as having a business on a high street and serving some people but not others.

      Reply
    • toby says:

      What about all the other businesses that decided to pull out of North Carolina because of HB2?
      Not all states have a White Castle restaurant. Is White Castle discriminatory because they don’t offer indigestion to everyone?

      Reply
    • TGM says:

      I don’t see this line of argument helping you Aaron. It would be illegal for the Bobcats/NBA to refuse service to anyone regarding a protected class matter. But the league is under no obligation to offer a product. By denying the product to everyone, there is no discrimination.

      If your baker had refused to bake cakes for everyone, there would also be no issue.

      Now I don’t think your concerns are entirely unjustified on libertarian grounds. Why should you be forced to do business with your ‘opposition’? But as a culture, we’ve decided that you must. And I think there are compelling reasons why a small amount of freedom must be sacrificed for inclusivity; but the case is not crystal clear, and thus do we argue. I have a little bit more sympathy for a photographer because it’s not unreasonable to think that an artist might not be able to deliver their level of quality while working in an uncomfortable environment. But I don’t think the lawyers ever tried to make that case.

      You did not answer Toby’s question: What would you think of an atheist that opened a store that sold golf balls and they only wanted to sell them to other atheists?

      You probably would not care, and that’s likely because Christians dominate the marketplace. But imagine if Christians were only 10% of the population. How would it sit with you to be denied service by the 90% because of your religious beliefs?

      Reply
      • Chris says:

        Actually, true Christians make up a minority these days (for the record). As to the issue of sacrificing freedom to include someone else, why should someone have to do this? Isn’t that society forcing their beliefs on someone else?

        -And for the record, the race arguments with religion are completely faulty because they contradict Christian principles.

        Reply
        • Kyle says:

          No true Scotsman.

          If your view is that an LGBT person is not deserving of the same rights as you, that’s your own issue. Society has in the past and will continue to force this crazy notion that all men (up to and including women, children, people of all races, colors, creeds, the LGBT and those of religious affiliations you just find icky) are created equal.

          Just because you choose to either ignore history or remain blissfully ignorant of it, does not mean we will stand idly by while you attempt to repeat it.

          Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          Chris, for decades religion, and the bunker in particular, was explicitly given as a defence of slavery. Then a century later it was used to defend laws against interracial marriage. All the same arguments were then used a couple of years ago against gay marriage.

          It’s not up to the govt to decide whose interpretation of the bible is correct. You say the race arguments are against Christian principles, others will say your own arguments are against Christian principles. There are thousands of denominations of Christianity – by definition they all disagree with others about something. Many claim to be the only true Christians, and you’re no exception. But they all like to quote how many Christians there are when they want to make a ‘might is right’ appeal such as America being majority Christian.

          Reply
          • Rob says:

            Andy, while there are many Christian denominations, most believe very similar things. They disagree on the details as no nicely discussed by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity.

            And anyways, if disagreement was a good argument, then perhaps government should also be discarded, since politicians argue endlessly about almost everything.

            And of course, at the personal level, I’m sure you also disagree with other people, but so what? Should you therefore be dissed? Not at all. Let the best argument win, and the truth has nothing to fear.

    • toby says:

      Isn’t the NBA offering a product to the people of Charlotte?
      I suppose you could look at it as such, but in that case they’d have to be denying service to a specific group. They are choosing to not do business at all. And that applies to all groups.

      Reply
      • Kyle says:

        I think more specifically, geographic location is not a protected class. You won’t be forced to serve some loud hooligan just causing trouble because being a jerk is not protected.

        Reply
  4. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, that is not my point at all. My point is the NBA can discriminate against the people of North Carolina because of what they believe and be hailed as heroes. But when a Christian baker refuses to sell a a cake for a gay wedding,(they did not refuse to serve the homosexual couple only would not sell cake in their wedding which they deemed immoral) they lose everything in a lawsuit. This makes it not about discrimination as much about who you discriminate against. The NBA refuses to serve the people of North Carolina specifically based on their beliefs.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      First off geographical location is not a protected class. I’m sure there are atheist LGBT allies in North Carolina that will suffer from this decision as well, so it is not targeting religious people for their religion. This is also in direct response to a political move from state level officials that specifically undermined a city’s laws. Political identification or affiliation is also not a protected class. Hypothetically if you have a business in a town with gays/blacks/Christians/atheists you must serve them all. If you are instead a business looking to expand and you notice a town is predominately gay/black/Christian/atheist, there is nothing that will force you to expand to this area for any reason, even outright hatred and bigotry.

      Reply
      • Chris says:

        FYI: A: LGBT individuals only make up around 2-4% of the population.
        B: Charlotte’s ordinance was not a law, and it was overturned primarily for being an unconstitutional overreach of authority by the Charlotte city council. Under the state constitution, they can’t actually make regulations like that.
        C: most of the people harmed by the businesses leaving are people who were against the ordinance. In fact, most of the petitions against the ordinance originated in Charlotte. The city council literally refused to listen to the people.

        Reply
        • Kyle says:

          A: Irrelevant. They are still people deserving of the same rights as you or I.

          B: It was not overturned. HB2 was passed to make it obsolete. It hasn’t been challenged yet so the official opinion is up in the air as to whether they could or not.

          C: There was a time when the abolition of slavery had the same opposition. Same with civil rights throughout history. As always the left will carry the religious right kicking and screaming into progress.

          Reply
  5. Aaron Brown says:

    TGM, The thing is they are not denying their product to everyone, only the people of North Carolina because of what they deemed them to believe. I will answer Toby’s question, I think that the Christian Bakers should be allowed to refuse services based on their beliefs and I think the NBA should be able to refuse services. So I guess I am taking what you consider to be the libertarian view on this issue. If Christians were only 10% of the population I would hope that people like you who seem to be staunchly opposed to discrimination would speak out against an injustice of that kind. Consider that the LGBT community makes up about 3% of the population and yet, when someone refuses service to them a great many people speak out against it.

    Reply
  6. Aaron Brown says:

    Toby, I have one question for you. If I denied service to a community because there was a large amount if homosexuals in that community do you think that would be ok?

    Reply
    • toby says:

      It depends on circumstances. Are you talking about where you choose to locate your business? A person can put their business anywhere they choose even if their reasons are horribly discriminatory, but putting it in the middle of somewhere (an ethnic neighborhood for example) where they hate the ethnic group and refuse to serve them would not be ok and would also be the epitome of a horrible entrepreneur.

      The point is once you open a business you’re in public service and should serve the public. The public is everyone.

      I really don’t see how selling someone a cake is “supporting” anything. Can you answer my previous question about commerce in the bible? does it say anywhere that hebrews couldn’t trade with pagans and other cultures?

      Does a hardcore christian cashier have the right to refuse to sell condoms? Is selling condoms supporting contraception?

      Reply
      • Chris says:

        Starbucks announce two or three years ago that if you didn’t accept Homesexuality, they didn’t want your business. Isn’t that discrimination?

        Reply
        • Kyle says:

          Did they actively deny anyone service? Is homophobia a protected class? A business could say they don’t want to serve women, but if they still serve women it’s not illegal. Might not be a good move for the business, but not illegal.

          Reply
  7. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, but they were retaliating against what they considered bigotry. They were attempting to discriminate against the majority(around 70% of North Carolinians support HB2) of others were caught in the crossfire.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      I’m sure there were towns with 70%+ white people in the 60’s that felt they were being oppressed for having to consider treating blacks equally. Would you make the same argument to those invoking religious freedom for their “right” to discriminate based on color? Calling them the majority only means they share the same views, it does not mean they are right.

      To answer your question to Toby if I may, you would be well within your legal rights to deny your services to a community that had a large amount of homosexuals. I personally think you would be wrong.

      Touching on your response to TGM, you mention taking the libertarian view. This is one area I disagree with libertarians on. The notion is that the government should stay out and let the market decide. Imagine a smaller town with only one grocery store or hardware store. If we take your 3% figure on its face and a town with a grocery store that refuses service to gays, what possible market pressure could such a small subset of the community hope to put on that store to get them to change their ways? This is why these laws exist.

      Reply
  8. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, I’m not saying that the majority is always correct. My point is that the NBA singled out North Carolina for what the majority of its people believed. Do you think the NBA refusing to hold the All Star game in Charlotte because of what the majority of of North Carolinians believe was wrong?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      No. I believe what the majority of North Carolinians believe is wrong. If you pass bigoted and immoral laws, you might just be singled out.

      To clarify, the NBA is on solid legal ground, and I personally feel on solid moral ground, to refuse service in this fashion to the entire state. On the other side if it was a Christian organization refusing service in a similar fashion due to race or LGBT discrimination, they would be on solid legal ground, but I personally feel they would not be on solid moral ground.

      Reply
  9. Aaron Brown says:

    And to your last comment. Someone could start a business and would have a larger customer base because of the discriminatory business cutting their amount of potential customers for no logical reason. The reason businesses are not likely to make a move like that is because it lowers the amount of potential customers.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      So you would be perfectly fine with a business going into a town and explicitly refusing to serve black people? Christians?

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      So do you think the bus company was right to send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus? Give me an honest answer – don’t say ‘that’s different because it was a govt-run bus company’ or something. Would you honestly defend the N Carolina law if it was discriminating against black people or Christians or Jews or whatever?

      Reply
  10. Aaron Brown says:

    Nice straw man, I am absolutely against discrimination. But businesses can serve whoever they wish. I would boycott any business that pointlessly discriminated against blacks and encourage others to do the same. Businesses have the legal right to do so, but that would be morally wrong and should be stopped. Kyle, why is the NBA on solid moral ground but me refusing to serve in a community with a large homosexual population is wrong?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      No strawman, Aaron, we were just asking you what your view is. As for the law, are you certain that businesses can choose not to serve, say, Christians, Hispanics, old people or whatever group they don’t want to serve? I thought that most US states had specific laws against such discrimination, though I understood the new ‘bathroom laws’ could be used as an exception to that.

      I don’t see how the NBA is the same as a shop on a high street. The shop is set up as a business to the local community. Kyle has explained several times now why the NBA differs from that. I just scrolled up – he’s literally addressed your question several times.

      Reply
  11. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, I understand your comments, but sometimes a question is not for the purpose of inquiry, but to make a point. I am not surprised that there are laws prohibiting discrimination, but that does not mean they are right. I understand there are some differences between a shop and the NBA. I eliminated this difference asking if it was ok for me to discriminate against a community because I didn’t agree with the lifestyle of some of the people living there. So there really isn’t any relevant differences between these comparisons(unless you have one that you have not spoken of) which is why I don’t really believe he has answered my question. I’m curious, what specifically so you think is discriminatory about HB2?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      The difference between the NBA and your hypothetical business is that I find discrimination to be immoral. The NBA is not discriminating against Christians, they are explicitly not supporting a state that allows discrimination. There are many Christians who don’t have a problem with LGBT individuals. As to what about HB2 is discriminatory, it explicitly eliminates anti-discriminatory protections for LGBT people on the city level as well as legislates who is allowed to use certain bathrooms. Again, this happened exactly in the 60’s. The parallels are astounding and the mental gymnastics performed by its proponents are breathtaking.

      Reply
      • Chris says:

        Fun fact: HB2 adds legally-binding protections for people who are Trans. It undid the Charlotte protections because they were unconstitutional, and they literally outlawed bathroom signs… Yeah, they were radical…

        Reply
        • Kyle says:

          Unfortunately HB2 was deemed unconstitutional by the DoJ and the Attorney General of North Carolina said he would not enforce it and would actively help business against it.

          Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      ” I understand your comments, but sometimes a question is not for the purpose of inquiry, but to make a point.”

      Quite possibly, but it’s best to save the accusation of ‘strawman’ for someone deliberately misrepresenting your viewpoint, rather than someone simply asking you to clarify your view. I’m always delighted to be given the latter opportunity – it can only help everyone.

      Reply
  12. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, many people make claims about the bill, but have never actually read it, which is why I was wondering if you had.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Again. Deflection with no substance. Point out the relevant part of the bill if that is your aim. But since this seems to be the road you want to go down, the bill explicitly defines “biological sex” as what is on your birth certificate. This bill is mostly political grandstanding as it is devoid of any actual crime, penalties, or guidance on how to enforce it. Furthermore it forces someone like Buck Angel (google at your own risk – potentially NSFW) to share the bathroom with women. You can almost feel the grannies clutching their pearls at the thought. At best this is a severely misguided attempt to placate the masses from their fear of a non-existent threat. At worst… I can’t actually tell what would be the worst between religious bigots directly targeting this minority of people to demonize or politicians knowingly taking time and money to pass a bill for which there is no prescribed way to enforce and for which there is no actual crime detailed, all to garner support from the seething fearful masses they legislate to.

      Reply
  13. Aaron Brown says:

    I am not sure how you see this as a deflection. I am simply attempting to understand your logic. Have I said whether or not I support the bill?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Your last three comments have only been questions about whether or not I’ve done sufficient research on this subject. Those were immediately after I answered your question about what was discriminatory about HB2. Most of this post you have been seemingly on the side of the religious and their supposed right to discriminate against the LGBT community. Did you have an angle in those last three questions? Do you have a position you can clarify? Do you have a response to any of my comments that is not “Did you read the bill?” Do you have anything of substance?

      Reply
  14. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, you made the claim that HB2 was discriminatory. I do feel that it is necessary that you read a bill before you make claims about it which is why I asked if you had read it.

    Reply
  15. Aaron Brown says:

    Have you considered that the original Charlotte ordinance was unconstitutional?(the North Carolina constitution doesn’t allow cities to regulate business)

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      If it was against the North Carolina constitution then it should have been addressed that way. There would have been no need for a new law to revoke the city ordinance. This leaves us with two possible conclusions, either it wasn’t clearly in violation or it was clearly in violation and law makers wasted time and taxpayer money passing a redundant and worthless law (again pointing out how it didn’t guide enforcement or provide a penalty or crime). Also the Attorney General of North Carolina stated HB2 was unconstitutional and that not only would he not defend it, he would defend businesses against it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act#Attorney_General.27s_decision_not_to_defend_the_bill

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      And through my, admittedly cursory review, I’m not finding where the state constitution prohibits cities from regulating business in this manner.

      Reply
  16. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle,You are correct that the North Carolina Constitution does not implicitly prohibit the cities from passing such an ordinance, but it clearly states “The General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable.” So whereas it does not deny them the ability to regulate business, they were never given that power in the first place by the General Assembly. As to the Attorney General, I am afraid he is far more concerned with his gubernatorial race than upholding the Constitution of North Carolina.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      It explicitly gives them the power. “provide for the organization and -government- and the fixing of boundaries”. That is the part explicitly giving these counties, cities, and towns the power to govern themselves.

      The Attorney General was saying, and evidenced by the actions of the Department of Justice (seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act#Litigation_between_North_Carolina_and_the_United_States), that HB2 was unconstitutional with respect to the US Constitution. You can no more argue Roy Cooper was acting in his own self interest than you could to say Pat McCrory was acting in his. Given your previous statistics of 70% in favor of the bill, it would actually seem particularly against one’s own self interest to oppose the bill in this way.

      Reply
  17. Aaron Brown says:

    But does that give them the authority to regulate private business? As to your last comment I would say that it was a poor political move by Roy Cooper and that he is more about pushing the leftist agenda.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Yes. That is exactly what it does.

      You say poor political move to push an agenda. I say great moral and legal move to stamp out bigotry and hate at the cost of some political capital.

      Reply
  18. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, I disagree with your interpretation of the Constituttion, but part of this probably is the result of our conflicting views on the the size of government. What bigotry and hatred are you referring to?

    Reply
  19. Kyle says:

    The great thing about us having different interpretations of the constitution is that when you get down to brass tacks, our opinions don’t mean anything. What does matter is the department of justice’s opinion on the matter. If you go back to the last link I posted and refer to the comment it is in, it is drawn out in explicit terms. The DOJ told governor McCrory in no uncertain terms that this law violated federal law and he must acknowledge that and instruct his executive branch to not attempt to enforce it. You can’t disagree with that fact.

    If you’d like to pretend that laws and actions that directly target the LGBT community in a negative way don’t fit the criteria for hateful bigotry that’s your own issue. Just know you are in the company of those segregationists from the 60’s that fought to keep black people oppressed.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Finally, something of substance. It’s like pulling teeth to get more than conjecture out of some of you. It seems there is actually a fairly relevant law on the state level that might make the city one be a bit of an overreach. This is why it needs to be challenged in court and not just enact some crazy politically and fearfully motivated piece of legislature. You can easily come up with an argument for why the ordinance was not, mainly that the law specifies “state or federal legislative intent” where one could easily argue that with no attempt to update any of those laws there is no intent. Also some laws only reference gender where others have been updated (since the ordinance passed) to include “biological sex”, so there is some ambiguity in how the laws are constructed.

      Reply
  20. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, I do not understand why you think that in under to defeat a statement, You must provide evidence against it. If the statement is not logically sound, it defeats itself. My main concern with the Charlotte ordinance is unintended negative consequences with allowing those who identify as the opposite sex being allowed to use the bathroom that correlates with their “sexual identity”. I understand that they may feel uncomfortable using the bathroom of their biological sex, but think of the women who feel uncomfortable with having a biological male in the same bathroom as them.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, won’t women feel just as uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a female-to-male transitionee, born a woman but now with a beard, six-pack, muscles etc, who looks just like a man but has to keep using the women’s bathroom due to the Charlotte law?

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      As Andy is pointing out, there could be unintended consequences of forcing transgender people to use the bathroom of their biological sex. There is nothing logically self defeating about claiming transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. I don’t understand at all what you are trying to get at with that argument.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      That is a completely baseless argument. Nothing is physically stopping them from entering whatever bathroom they choose if that is their plan. If they truly want to attack someone in a bathroom, some ill-conceived law like HB2 isn’t stopping them. Furthermore, predators don’t only attack victims of the opposite sex. No gender law would protect someone in a bathroom with a predator of the same sex. Lastly, strangers are the least of your worries. Most predators are known to their victims. They would be in your home, not the public bathroom. All your argument does is give granny more of a reason to clutch her pearls and curse a demon of your making.

      Reply
  21. Andy Ryan says:

    How would this law help prevent predators? It makes it no easier to stop someone who looks like a guy from entering a woman’s restroom. With this law, a guy can just say ‘Hey, I was born a woman, I’d much rather use the men’s but the law says I have to use the ladies’.

    So I don’t buy that this is out of concern for women in bathrooms at all. Further, unisex toilets are common in Europe and I’ve never heard of that causing problems with predators.

    Reply
  22. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle and Andy, it’s not that the law makes it harder for sexual predators but that the Charlotte ordinance made it so easy. Also the people you refer to as being born as a man but really is a woman makes a very small minority in America. Do you have any issue with the bathroom laws in New Orleans?(where the NBA moved the All Star game)

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, the predators are a very small minority too. You’ve not shown that the Charlotte ordinance made it any easier than the ‘bathroom law’ for predators. If someone is going to lie to get into a bathroom they they can do so with either law, so again I don’t buy that predators are the real reason for the law. Particularly when the same groups using the ‘predator’ argument are generally the worst people for defending women and children from predators – they’re generally the same people defending rape culture in universities and the ones defending pedophile priests. Now suddenly they’re concerned about sexual predators? It’s very unconvincing.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Aaron, you seem to continue to miss the point. You mention that it’s not about making it harder for predators to get in, but preventing it from getting easier. You are ignoring the explicit facts that public bathrooms are not a typical venue for attacks. You are ignoring the fact that having the city ordinance does nothing to actually make it any easier for them to get in. You are ignoring that everything you are currently trying to argue stems from nothing more than baseless religious fear-mongering intolerance.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      And? There was a single case of a transgender person in that whole list. At the bottom there is a link to more that had zero transgender cases but plenty of cases where the predator goes for victims of the same sex. Shall we delve into how many priests and pastors have some sort of sex crime in their past? Should we ban them from bathrooms? Churches? The article mentions finding an alarming number of these cases and only presents 8. Target has over 1700 stores in the US. That actually seems fairly small. They don’t mention what the rate of those incidents are before the rule change either. How do we know if the rate of incidents is going up or down?

      Again, all you are able to resort to is baseless fear-mongering. You still have offered no argument for why it is less safe with the city ordinance. Since you are intent on trying to derail this conversation with useless propaganda, please explain what you are going to do to combat the prevalence of sexual violence within the Catholic church where 81% of the victims were underage males. Or is your “protect the children” shtick nothing more than a smokescreen for your prejudice?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#United_States

      Reply
  23. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, how do you think these men got into the girls changing rooms? It’s because Target made themselves vulnerable for such activity by essentially adopting the Carlotte ordinance. As for the sexual assaults in churches, such things are COMPLETELY against Christian teaching. Unfortunately, some people who indentify as Christians act completely differently and honestly, I would seriously question their faith. There are some occasions of same sex assault, but they are greatly outnumbered by the number a heterosexual assaults.

    Reply
  24. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, how do you think those men got into the bathroom? Nobody could stop them because they could just say “I identify as a woman” and go into the changing facilities. I’m making the argument that sexual predators will use this law to their advantage, not that transgenders are sexual predators. Also I would say that your comment about the Catholic Church is irreverent to HB2 or the Charlotte ordinance. The incidents mentioned in that article were found from a simple Google search. You could probably find many more such occurrences if you did extensive research. Kyle, whether or not the rate is going up is not the question at hand, rather are these sexual predators out there and attacking in bathrooms?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Did you miss the part where I mentioned a number of them had the perpetrator and victim of the same sex? You can’t stop that with any law. Saying you could find many more, is not finding many more. It is the hope that the number of occurrences will somehow redeem this cause. How many would you feel justify your position? And yes it absolutely matters if the rate is going up or down. If the rate goes up after enacting this ordinance, then maybe your position has some teeth. If it goes down or stays the same after the ordinance your argument falls flat. That should be easily quantifiable and much better than your fearful conjecture that predators are going to do bad stuff in bathrooms now because of this ordinance.

      Reply
  25. Andy Ryan says:

    “Kyle, how do you think those men got into the bathroom? Nobody could stop them because they could just say “I identify as a woman” and go into the changing facilities. I’m making the argument that sexual predators will use this law to their advantage”

    And we’ve pointed out to you several times that they could also use the NC bathroom law to their advantage, saying “I was born a woman, I’m forced by law to use the women’s bathroom”. Thus the law is useless to prevent the predators you say you want to stop.

    Reply
  26. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, My point was just that we were not debating whether or not there has been a rise, rather do these predators do such things in public bathrooms. I do think it is important what the statistics show. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/ Kyle, I would argue that it is irrelevant in this discussion mention those instances, because we are debating whether or not sexual assault is happening in public facilities, and I gave you numerous cases of such occurrences.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, you’re missing the point still – how will the bathroom law do the thing it’s supposed to – stop the predators?

      Reply
  27. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, As I explained earlier, I am concerned the Charlotte ordinance would have made it easy for them. That is my point, because HB2 essentially removed the Charlotte ordinance, it returned us to the states quo with was much more difficult for sexual predators.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      What you are doing is cherry picking data. You know what doesn’t make the news or get written about on a website? The millions of people not committing these crimes and the millions of people not getting assaulted. Saying here’s 20 instances of predators makes as much sense as showing you twenty videos of car crashes and saying we should ban cars. Again I have to point out that what you would need to defend your position is a change in occurrences from before and after. Imagine you have a leaky pipe. You have a plumber tighten stuff up and he calls it fixed. But the pipe is still leaking. If it’s leaking less he did something good. If it’s leaking more he hurt it. If it’s leaking the same amount he did nothing. Without knowing what the leaky rate from before or the occurrences of assault were before you have literally nothing to base any results on. This is the issue. You are showing nothing by pointing out these occurrences are happening. If nothing had changed your law hasn’t fixed anything and the ordinance didn’t hurt anything. Show me a change and we can get somewhere.

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, how would the Bathroom laws that you support have prevented any of the incidences cited in that Breitbart article? Instead of saying they were biological men who identified as women, all of those predators could instead claim to be post-op biological women who identified as men. Sure we can agree to disagree, but I want your view on how the laws to prevent predators will actually make any difference. Because if they don’t, what’s the point of them – how are they addressing your fears?

      And I get Kyle’s point – if you have no data to suggest Target’s policies made it easier for predators, then the Breitbart article is purely anecdotal. Twenty cases sure – but is that up from five or down from two hundred, or have attacks stayed level for some time, or what?

      Reply
  28. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, with the status quo (before the Charlotte ordinance) it was difficult for sexual predators to get into the women bathroom because if somebody saw you, they could call the police. But under the radical Charlotte ordinance, you could call the police, but you couldn’t know if they ‘identify’ as transgender; and if they did ‘identify’ as transgender you could be fined for discrimination. Unfortunately, the statistics you want are nowhere to be found. But all of the incidents mentioned occurred in the last sixteen months, showing that there has been a great many incidents since they changed their policy.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      But how is this law you support returning things to the status quo, given the problem with it I’ve mentioned several times? If the guys mentioned in that article were getting caught under the ‘radical Charlotte ordinance’ then it suggests they weren’t managing to get away with it. And if you don’t know if there were similar incidences BEFORE the ordinance then again you don’t know if it was responsible.

      Btw, I find it funny that the Breitbart article is claiming to care about safety but acts horrified about Target wanting to stop people carrying weapons into stores. So the article thinks men in women’s bathrooms are a danger but is happy to force people to share bathrooms with people carrying assault rifles or whatever.

      Reply
  29. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, my point is that if it is harder for someone to get away with an illegal act, they are less likely to do it. Btw, why do you think people being able to carry firearms into Target poses such a serious threat to security?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      I really don’t understand how you have not grasped the concept yet. I have worded it multiple ways. You are showing nothing. You have not shown a change. You have only shown that bad things are possible not more possible after the ordinance. How is it easier given it was entirely possible before?

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, you’ve not explained how the new law actually makes it any harder for them to commit an illegal act! That’s what I’ve been trying to find out.

      As for guns posing a threat, do I really need to post links of occasions when people have committed crimes with guns? You just posted a link when the threat was a guy using his phone to take a photo of someone – you don’t think a gun can cause more damage than a phone? Aaron, sorry but your argument strikes me as quite funny!

      Reply
  30. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, yes I can see how you thought my question rather humorous, but what if two or more people carried a gun into the store? Kyle, I’m not concerned with what is possible, rather with what is more likely. It is more likely that a sexual predator will attack someone in the bathroom because anyone can basically go into either bathroom without hindrance by simply saying they feel like transgender. I hope this answers your question. You have brought up the point that sexual predators could say they were born a woman in order to use women’s facilities. My argument against this is, why haven’t they? In North Carolina we have had it this way(where you can only use the facilities correlating with your biological sex) for a very long time and I have never heard of this being a issue.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      In no way does that help your argument. Now you are just saying you -feel- like predators would use this to their advantage. I feel predators would be less likely to use this ordinance to their advantage. Now that we have two opposing opinions they cancel each other out. We are back to square one. You still have yet to prove they are more likely beyond your emotions. Emotions do not make for good legislation.

      Reply
  31. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, let me rephrase my question, what if two people carried firearms into Target? I mean couldn’t somebody like shoot the shooter?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Or they could both start shooting people – two shooters. Or they could start shooting each other and others could get hit in the crossfire. Or the good guy starts shooting the bad guy and a second armed good guy thinks the FIRST good guy is bad and starts shooting at him. Better none are armed, surely?

      That aside, there are no instances I’m aware of when a bad guy with a gun gets stopped by this fabled ‘good guy with a gun’ bystander. I’m not saying you won’t be able to dig up any instances, but generall it seems to be police who stop these murderers or he shoots himself.

      You can say, ‘outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns’, but it ignores the police and also ignores that if only outlaws are armed then it makes them very easy to stop. In Europe if someone walks around with a gun then you know right away to call the police as he’s up to no good. In an open carry culture then it’s only when the guy starts shooting that you know something is wrong.

      But seriously, the argument that the guy with a camera is more dangerous than the guy with a gun strikes me as absurd. If you want to say that any guy’s right to be armed in a bathroom trumps my kids’ right not to be shot in a bathroom then that’s fine. But don’t also claim that you’re concerned about my kids’ safety.

      You can say that it’s still against the law to murder people, and that lawbreakers would find a way even if open carry of firearms was banned… but that argument would also apply to keeping perverts out of bathrooms, no?

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Mass shooters prefer gun free zones? We keep hearing that terrorists prefer America in general because guns are so easy to get and carry. We don’t hear that they avoid America because they’re scared of ‘good guys with guns’.

      And following this logic, why not have as many men using women’s bathrooms as possible, so we have ‘good men’ to capture the predators? And in fact if we’re reporting anecdotes, there’s been a rise in men barging into women’s bathrooms and grabbing women they suspect of being men in disguise. Women they think don’t look feminine enough. And these are the guys supposedly on your side!

      Again, like Kyle I want to know if the danger you fear has genuinely risen. If you listen only to right-wing commentators you’d believe attacks on police have risen hugely under Obama. The reality is that the decades-long trend in falling police deaths has continued under Obama – the fear whipped up by commentators with an agenda just isn’t matched by reality.

      Reply
  32. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, I have never heard about terrorists getting guns in America, I would say it’s not that difficult to buy illegal guns off websites on the Dark Net. Let’s stay on the topic of guns, because your analogy is not comparable. I thought you were the one saying there was a danger allowing people to bear arms everywhere unhindered?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “The video — titled “Do Not Rely on Others, Take the Task Upon Yourself” — surfaced in June 2011, a month after the death of Osama bin Laden. In the clip, Adam Gadahn, an American-born Al Qaeda spokesman who would be later killed by a CIA drone strike, advised would-be jihadists in the West to arm themselves by taking advantage of the gaps in U.S. laws and treating the country as a veritable gun bazaar.

      “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,” Gadahn says in the video. “You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.

      “So what are you waiting for?”

      Reply
  33. Aaron Brown says:

    I would also like to mention that terrorists use weapons other than guns, like trucks knives, planes, ect. So if its all about making it difficult for terrorists to get weapons then we need stricter security on these items.

    Reply
  34. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, the reason I believe this is basic logic. If you make it easier for someone to do something morally wrong, don’t be surprised when morally wrong acts ocur more often.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      The reason I believe you are wrong is basic logic. Nothing has truly prevented people from using the bathroom of their choice until now (and HB2 really doesn’t even do anything in that regard anyways) and we haven’t seen this epidemic of predators you seem to believe is coming. Also, making something illegal does not prevent people from doing it, especially not when the law is (as has been mentioned many times before) worthless with regards to enforcement and punishment. So we still come back to the religious right’s need to oppress people they find icky for some imagined demon that doesn’t truly exist.

      Reply
  35. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, Nothing ever prevented people from using the bathroom of their choice? It was illegal in North Carolina to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. Of course making something illegal doesn’t completely stop people from doing something, but it makes them think twice. I’ve shown 20 cases of sexual assault at Target in the last sixteen months. If you won’t accept the evidence I have shown it might be better if we just agreed to disagree.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      If it was illegal before the ordinance was passed, then why was HB2 necessary? And as I mentioned earlier all you have is 20ish instances. Did you even read some of those? Reading through some one is a guy who undressed in a women’s locker room and claimed to be a woman in protest of the laws (courts would absolutely knock this down for the fake claim it is). Multiple ones of men dressing up as women which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple arrests due to recording in private residences, which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple offenses of same gender recordings, which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple offenses where it is never explicitly stated it is a single gender bathroom which leads me to believe it is a unisex bathroom (explicitly stated in one incident that it was unisex), which the law wouldn’t stop. Add on top of that, these are from all over the country and even in Canada. It never explicitly mentions whether there are state or local laws like either HB2 or the Charlotte ordinance. More fear-mongering with horrible anecdotal evidence that doesn’t even support your claim. If you can’t even be bothered to read your own articles perhaps it is best if we just agreed to disagree. I like to deal with facts and evidence, not baseless emotional conjecture and fear-mongering.

      Reply
  36. Aaron Brown says:

    Honestly Kyle, I think we should just agree to disagree. Every one of these instances happened in a Target department store, which basically implemented the same the Charlotte ordinance which allows transgender folks to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity. Actually, I would say these instances where we have same sex assault proves my point. Because if I’m right, then we should every pervert in the country(and Canada) should be heading for Target, so it doesn’t surprise me that such people are in Target. Are you referring to the article on BreitBart? Because I didn’t see anything where somebody committed an sexual act in a private residence. I think it would be best if we agreed to disagree on this issue.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Sorry bout that. It was the breitbart page I was mainly referring to . The point I made previously still stands. You have only found 20 instances and are calling it a day. Target services millions of people per day. You are advocating for legislature that could affect millions of people because you found twenty instances over 16 months out of tens of, if not hundreds of, millions of customer interactions. And the same sex assaults do not prove your point unless you are moving the goalposts. You have been arguing that the ordinance made it easier and HB2 made it harder. Neither one has any effect on a man going in a males only bathroom and assaulting someone. How can you possibly face an argument against odds like that in the name of safety. Unless you live in a bubble you won’t find absolute safety. People will find ways around the HB2 law (even though it was deemed unconstitutional). There will be sexual assaults regardless of bathrooms. At the end of the day, the score is oppressing millions for the 20 out of hundreds of millions. You don’t win that argument.

      Reply
      • Toby says:

        Make all bathrooms with stalls and genderless. Problem solved. Unless you’re too embarrassed to break wind in front of the opposite sex.

        Reply
  37. Aaron Brown says:

    Well Kyle, I could probably find more if you would like; though I doubt it would satisfy you. I would argue that the same sex assaults do not directly help my case,but they do indirectly. Because, as I explained before, if I’m correct every pervert in the the country should be heading for Target. So it does not surprise me that some of them are going after the same sex. Toby, don’t you think we could find a more subtle approach that would than making all bathrooms genderless? I also think it is worthwhile to mention that HB2 allows private business’s to make their bathrooms unisex.(Target) Kyle, in your last comment you mentioned the “score pressed millions of people for the twenty out of hundreds of millions”. Would you mind explaining that in further detail?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      If every pervert in America was heading to target I should think there would be more than 20 incidents in 16 months. As I’ve mentioned before just the number of incidents will never be enough, whether it’s zero or thousands. You keep implying things would change for the worse if the ordinance were in place, yet you continually fail to show any evidence of change. You just feel like perverts would do this. How do you know the number of incidents hasn’t gone down since the change? Until you can provide any proof to the contrary I’m free to assume it has. The last comment was to highlight how such a law could potentially affect millions of LGBT people negatively for the sake of so far only 20 people out of the hundreds of millions of customer interactions Target has had in those 16 months. 0.00002% of their customers are being affected (unless you can show me where these numbers are wrong).

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “Well Kyle, I could probably find more if you would like; though I doubt it would satisfy you”

      Aaron, like Kyle says, we have no idea if 20 incidents is more than before or less or about the same. Without that data all you’ve got is feelings and conjecture.

      Reply
  38. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, you do understand that transgender people make up 0.3% and the entire LGBT community is only about 3% of the population. I’m not saying this to argue that we shouldn’t care because they make up such a small minority, but rather we shouldn’t turn the world upside down for such a small minority. As for that not being enough evidence, I would recommend you look up up “arrests at target” there are numerous instances of sex crimes happening at Target.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “As for that not being enough evidence, I would recommend you look up up “arrests at target” there are numerous instances of sex crimes happening at Target.”

      But is Target more of a ‘target’ than anywhere else, and did it get worse since the laws you disagreed with and did it get better after the laws you agree with? That’s what you need to show to make your case.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      0.3% of the US population is ~1 million. I daresay the rest of the LGBT community would argue that they are affected by this as well bringing the number to over 9 million. Since you have repeatedly refused to offer any sort of evidence I decided to do your job for you. After googling “arrests at target” it led to some of those articles you linked. After doing a little more research the Target policy only was announced on April 19, 2016. The 16 month time frame came from you referring to that 25 incidents Breitbart article that I tore apart in a previous comment. Those were just times people were arrested for sex crimes involving bathrooms. Now the 20 Target incidents article had ZERO cases since the announcement (the latest incident was April 8, 2016). So now we have a drastic reduction in incidents since this policy went into effect by your own sources. So we stand with 20 Target arrests (and multiple bathroom arrests elsewhere) before the policy change and zero after. That’s much safer.

      Reply
      • Chris says:

        Kyle, while you cite some nice stats, lets wrap up this discombobulated conversation by agreeing to the following:
        The HB2 ordinance has nothing to do with the overall LGBTQIP community, it simply affects transgender and transsexual individuals. Thus, it affects a very small percentage of people spread out across the nation. As for the issue of good or bad with being LGBT, that is irrelevant to this matter because this is simply about public policy. Public policy is only good when it benefits the general public. Businesses are free to make up their own minds about what is good, but customers and clientele the right to boycott stores. As we can see, this is happening with Target. Target is free to do as they wish, but it is costing them substantially. Good or bad, the Charlotte ordinance needed to be repealed as it was unconstitutional. If you sacrifice the constitution, you give away freedom.

        While these pro-transgender policies do not allow sexual crimes per se, they make it much easier to get away with them or even commit them in the first place. Also, while many people say HB2 is discriminatory, that’s entirely based off of the idea that a man or woman who simply identifies (says they are) of the opposite sex, is in fact of the opposite sex that they were originally. Fact is, however you can think anything you want but it doesn’t change who you are. Don’t get me wrong, some people have confusion about this and I pity for these people- they need love and people to guide them to the right path. What’s bad is when they are given privilege. Now granted, while having sex reassignment surgery still doesn’t change the facts, it can make it uncomfortable for someone who’s Trans to walk into the proper bathroom which would make it more practical for everyone for that person to go into the bathroom with people they look like. Besides, it’s not truly Transsexual individuals that pose a threat, it’s people who abuse laws like this AND THOSE PEOPLE DO EXIST. Aaron has already done a good job of listing some publicly know instances so I won’t waste time reiterating them. Anyway, at the end of the day this basically boils down to something that never should have been an issue but became one because leftists wanted to push an agenda. You can call me homophobic or whatever, but I’m simply stating the facts. The truth is sometimes a very inconvenient thing. Anyway, there’s no sense in continuing a useless discussion over this issue and I move we all adjourn by agreeing to politely disagree.

        Reply
        • TGM says:

          I’m always amused by people who arrogantly intrude on fruitful discourse by declaring their opponents’ positions null, then condescending toward them, all under the guise of taking the high road. The trans community neither wants, nor needs, your pity, Chris.

          HB2 was a reactionary law, passed by stealth, sans appropriate debate, with vague penalties and clumsy provisions for enforcement. The bill is entirely unworthy of passage, regardless of whether it would address a legitimate social question… a question that has yet to be studied sufficiently.

          Kyle and Andy have reasonably sought the answer as to specifically how this bill will protect the vulnerable and I’d love to see an answer. All we have so far are anecdotes and suspicions. My own suspicion is that if there was respectable evidence that harm would be done absent this bill, they would both relent and seek a practical solution to conflicting social priorities. I know I would.

          I move to see the dialogue continue.

          Reply
        • Kyle says:

          The truth can truly be inconvenient. I’ll give you that. So let’s talk about the truth. If you think this doesn’t affect the general whole LGBT community, you are wrong. It’s not the LGB community and the T community.

          “While these pro-transgender policies do not allow sexual crimes per se, they make it much easier to get away with them or even commit them in the first place.” – Baseless claim with no evidence.

          “Also, while many people say HB2 is discriminatory, that’s entirely based off of the idea that a man or woman who simply identifies (says they are) of the opposite sex, is in fact of the opposite sex that they were originally.” – Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

          ” Now granted, while having sex reassignment surgery still doesn’t change the facts” – In fact it does in some states. It is the requirement to change your gender on your birth certificate.

          “Aaron has already done a good job of listing some publicly know instances so I won’t waste time reiterating them.” – And I will just go ahead and not reiterate the numerous posts I’ve made debunking all of those. Seriously, he didn’t even look at his own sources or check how it wouldn’t prove anything he was claiming. Not one instance that these laws, ordinances, or policies would have protected against.

          ” Anyway, at the end of the day this basically boils down to something that never should have been an issue” – I whole-heartedly agree.

          ” but became one because leftists wanted to push an agenda.” – Sorry, you must have misspelled “rightists”.

          “You can call me homophobic or whatever, but I’m simply stating the facts.” – Sorry, you must have misspelled “opinions and baseless claims”.

          “Anyway, there’s no sense in continuing a useless discussion over this issue” – Perfect! Can we continue a useful discussion with facts?

          ” I move we all adjourn by agreeing to politely disagree.” – I second TGM’s motion.

          Reply
  39. Aaron Brown says:

    Actually Kyle, I would say that in such a short time frame, it is too soon to be able to intelligently discuss the effects of the policy.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Absolutely not. While we were both under the impression that those twenty instances at target were from after the policy change you were more than happy to use those as your evidence. Now that I finally took the time to check dates with respect to the policy and not just general facts of the incidents of your source, suddenly we need more time? That’s not moving the goalposts that’s just removing them and asking to play a different game because you were losing. You are wrong. Plain and simple.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      An opinion piece that can be quoted as saying “It’s not clear when this became official policy, but one can ASSUME it started in 2014…” (emphasis my own)? This is your source. Even if we took Jan 1, 2014 as the start, your twenty incident source only has 16 after this effect. None of these, yes you heard that right, NONE of these would be affected by anything discussed here. No laws, ordinances, or store policies would do a thing to prevent or make illegal anything we have talked about. I stopped trying to count the different variations, but there was I think there was only a single incident of the bathroom being the actual place targeted and it was a family bathroom. Most were in the store itself and not the bathroom. The one claim that could almost fit was from 2009. A man just walks into the women’s bathroom to peep on them. He doesn’t claim to be a woman to try and get out of it. So once again, we are back to you having literally nothing to support your claims. Again I shall await your moving of the goalposts.

      Reply
  40. Aaron Brown says:

    TGM, in you comment you spoke of HB2 not being worthy of “passage”. Would you mind giving us a little more detail on what you mean by “worthy of passage”?

    Reply
    • TGM says:

      I’m sorry, wasn’t it clear? I will requote myself for convenience…

      “…passed by stealth, sans appropriate debate, with vague penalties and clumsy provisions for enforcement.”

      Any bill that does not receive adequate consideration and is unable to bear the burden of its own implementation is unworthy of passage. I would think this to be self-evident in a country fraught with too many laws, too little introspection, and too little discourse. I would be surprised to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but fire away.

      Reply
    • TGM says:

      From wikipedia. Note that even the bill’s co-sponsor Dan Bishop admits there are no penalties…

      House Bill 2 does not contain any guidance on how it is supposed to be enforced, and does not name any specific crimes or penalties.[26] It is unclear if bathroom patrons are required to carry birth certificates or if police departments are obliged to post officers to check them.[27] Police departments in Raleigh, Greensboro, Wilmington, and Asheville have expressed a lack of clarity on how the law should be enforced and an unwillingness to devote police resources to monitor bathrooms.[27] A number of departments indicated a willingness to respond to complaints of violations, but said none had been received.[28] In spite of this ambiguity, the law does order cities’, counties’, colleges’ and school boards’ compliance.[26]

      Republican State Representative Dan Bishop, a co-sponsor of the law, acknowledged that “there are no enforcement provisions or penalties in HB2.”[29] Democratic State Representative Rodney Moore was more emphatic, saying: “There is absolutely no way to enforce this law, as it relates to the enforcement of the bathroom provisions. It is an utterly ridiculous law.”[27]

      Reply
      • toby says:

        Odd how conservatives decry government intrusion in everything except when it forces their religious beliefs on people. Then they go and vote for a dictatorial-type “strong man” candidate like Trump. I don’t think these people know what they want or they have no self-awareness.

        Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, it’s not volume but quality that’s important. You’ve identified a claimed problem but not shown:
      a) That what you claim are the effects of it are caused by the supposed problem
      b) That the effects have got worse since the problem
      c) That the supposed cure has lessened the effects

      Or to put it another way – have the attacks got worse since the ordinance, did the ordinance cause the attacks (or make them easier), would the attacks not have happened without the ordinance, has the new law made the attacks less likely.

      Kyle has to my mind undermined all the evidence you have produced. The ordinance didn’t seem to have any effect on the attacks and the new law hasn’t made the attacks less likely.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Seriously? How many different ways can I debunk your “evidence” and show you that you have actually offered nothing substantive? If you are reading my comments as well as you read the links that you posted, this is a lost cause. When you comment on my critiques of your sources, then we might be able to get somewhere. When you can only fall back on asking questions I have answered multiple times already, it is obvious you are fighting a losing battle and just unwilling to admit it. Until you can respond to those critiques or admit they were wrong, you have failed.

      Reply
  41. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, I am very confused about much of Kyles comments. Numerous times, he has said that the incidents were not in the time frame. This is impossible because they all happened within a 16 month time frame. He has said numerous times that they didn’t all occur in Target which is also completely false. We cannot truly know if the cure (HB2) lessened the effects of the ordinance because the ordinance was never implemted. We cannot know if the effects have gotten worse since the problem because we do not know when Target implemted its policy. This leaves with nothing but your first point, in which I must ask the question, do you think this is a normal trend for sexual assualts?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Allow me to clear the confusion. The 16 month time frame came from this post – http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/

      My previous comments “Reading through some one is a guy who undressed in a women’s locker room and claimed to be a woman in protest of the laws (courts would absolutely knock this down for the fake claim it is). Multiple ones of men dressing up as women which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple arrests due to recording in private residences, which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple offenses of same gender recordings, which this law wouldn’t stop. Multiple offenses where it is never explicitly stated it is a single gender bathroom which leads me to believe it is a unisex bathroom (explicitly stated in one incident that it was unisex), which the law wouldn’t stop. Add on top of that, these are from all over the country and even in Canada. It never explicitly mentions whether there are state or local laws like either HB2 or the Charlotte ordinance. More fear-mongering with horrible anecdotal evidence that doesn’t even support your claim.”

      For the ones that did happen in Target (article here http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/26/top-twenty-sexual-crimes-committed-target-stores/), here are my comments “An opinion piece that can be quoted as saying “It’s not clear when this became official policy, but one can ASSUME it started in 2014…” (emphasis my own)? This is your source. Even if we took Jan 1, 2014 as the start, your twenty incident source only has 16 after this effect. None of these, yes you heard that right, NONE of these would be affected by anything discussed here. No laws, ordinances, or store policies would do a thing to prevent or make illegal anything we have talked about. I stopped trying to count the different variations, but there was I think there was only a single incident of the bathroom being the actual place targeted and it was a family bathroom. Most were in the store itself and not the bathroom. The one claim that could almost fit was from 2009. A man just walks into the women’s bathroom to peep on them. He doesn’t claim to be a woman to try and get out of it. So once again, we are back to you having literally nothing to support your claims. Again I shall await your moving of the goalposts.”

      To recap, the 16 month timeframe came from an article that did not center on Target specific incidents. The twenty incident one had zero instances that these laws or ordinances would have addressed within our best estimate of the policy being implemented.

      To your question, “We cannot know if the effects have gotten worse since the problem because we do not know when Target implemted its policy. This leaves with nothing but your first point, in which I must ask the question, do you think this is a normal trend for sexual assualts?” What do you mean by normal trend? Also as I accurately predicted, the goalposts have moved again. Now you admit we don’t know much of these instances but are insisting we cure this epidemic anyways because… reasons?

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “do you think this is a normal trend for sexual assaults?”

      I have no idea – do you? We’re talking about America, where more people get shot a week by toddlers than are shot by ADULTS in other Western countries. Normal crime rules don’t seem to apply in America!

      “We cannot truly know if the cure (HB2) lessened the effects of the ordinance because the ordinance was never implemented”

      It was never implemented? I thought your argument had been that the ordinance was responsible. Now I’m confused.

      I just looked at one of your links. The author says:

      “The question that needs to be asked is: How did these men gain access to the dressing rooms and restrooms to begin with? The linked stories don’t mention how they were dressed or whether they asked permission to enter or if there was even an attendant around to ask”

      Seems to me that given the lack of information the author is in no position to say what was responsible. Do many stores/shops/restaurants have attendants guarding the entrance to bathrooms? If not, then it seems the whole trans thing is a red herring – men can walk into women’s restrooms either way. There’s nothing physically stopping me walking into women’s changing rooms in most swimming baths, right? Once I’m in, people will complain, call a manager etc. But what’s that got to do with transgender people? How is me doing that any different to the examples given in the articles you link to? The men doing that in the examples were stopped and charged or chucked out, right?

      Reply
  42. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, let me clarify my position. My argument is that if implemted, the ordinance would have put women at risk. Which link are you referring to?

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      Oddly enough, all those people getting in trouble were charged under existing crimes (not associated with going into the wrong bathroom). It’s laughable to think that some or any of the criminals featured in this video would suddenly balk at the thought of entering a bathroom because it is *gasp* illegal!.

      Reply
  43. Aaron Brown says:

    Thank you Kyle, for the clarification. I apologize if I was rude in any way. I must disagree with your last comment, even if it is unlikely that they will turn away from entering the bathroom doesn’t mean we should make it legal. Using the same reasoning, would it be ok for us to legalize theft if we knew people weren’t stopping because it was illegal? I think we would be far more likely to institute harsher punishments rather than making it legal.

    Reply
    • Kyle says:

      There are laws against theft because there is a definite victim. That alone is enough for punishment. Going into a bathroom doesn’t immediately wrong someone. I’d want consequences for anyone and everyone who stole from me. I could care less who is using the same bathroom as me. If they are taking pictures or trying to touch me that’s a different story. A story that has its own laws. And to anyone who wants to argue that they would mind certain people using the same bathroom as them, remember there used to be “colored only” bathrooms around.

      Reply
  44. Aaron Brown says:

    Kyle, have you ever considered rape victims? The very sight of a man in the in the women’s facility, can be very unnerving. So while it may not bother you as a man, it can be at the least very uncomfortable(or on the other side PTSD) for women to have the opposite sex in the bathroom. The issues with connecting this to the civil rights movement are many. First off, there is a definite difference between the the two sexes, unlike the difference in skin tone. Also the LGBT community is not being forced to use any other bathroom than any else. There is no bathroom with a sign that says “transgender” that is significantly worse than the other bathrooms.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Aaron, your query about the effect on a rape victim of seeing a man in the rest room would apply equally to seeing a woman in the restroom who now looks like a man after hormone therapy, surgery etc. The law you support would force such a person, by all appearances a man, to use the woman’s bathroom.

      And again, if we’re worrying about how victims of crime are affected, wouldn’t victims of gun crime (or indeed anyone) be made uncomfortable by the presence of people openly carrying assault rifles, hand guns etc, but that’s always rejected as an argument against open carrying.

      Reply
    • Kyle says:

      I suppose you would like to ignore male victims of rape. That’s a pretty convenient argument. Have you noticed how your arguments are getting more and more nuanced and ad hoc? And there absolutely are signs involved in this. Ones that say male that someone who identifies as female doesn’t want to use and vice versa.

      Reply
  45. Aaron Brown says:

    Andy, you are actually incorrect. There are ways after going under treatment that you can change your birth certificate in North Carolina. As for victims of gun violence, first off, the ability to bear arms is a right and if you feel uncomfortable with what someone might do with that firearm; I would recommend that you carry also.. The ability to use either bathroom is not a right, however, and therefore is not in the same category.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      So making other people uncomfortable is a right? Can women made uncomfortable by the presence of men just bring their own man in? This line of argument doesn’t convince me, but I accept that the whole ‘it’s my right’ thing on guns is non negotiable – something we’ll just have to disagree on, as you say!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *