RIP Canada: "Protect 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Act"

You nailed it. I have to think it’s md or lawyer your quibbling with. It’s futile with those two.

 

I knew that, just wanted to see if you'd admit it. I'll give credit where credit is due. Bravo.

Yeah, you may not "identify" as a (D), but for all intents and purposes, you are one.

 

I think it’s great that you are so open minded to all of it. I don’t want to be the guinea pig for this liberal experiment.
No thank you.

 

Nah, to be completely honest I ignored md because all of our talks were just semantics and wordplay. He also never actually goes out on a limb and makes a claim himself, he just pokes holes in what others say with semantics. You don't get anywhere and it's just a stupid game.

I actually still talk with lawyer. I strongly disagree with him on almost anything, and the way he personally attacks people really rubs me the wrong way, but he knows the law and he keeps me on my toes. Even if those conversations get ugly sometimes, I know they make me better.

 

I think I get that.
I put md on ignore months ago for the same reason you stated.
Lawyer put me on ignore.

 

I thought this thread was about me. I've never been to Canada.

 

I imagine those same words were spoken decades ago by white people who opposed desegregation. They were certainly spoken by those who opposed gay marriage.

We shouldn't punish and discriminate based on the actions of individuals. Especially those who may not even be a part of the group being discriminated against. That's not equality and justice for all. I happen to believe in those words are more than just words. They are ideals that while we my never fully achieve, it is worth striving to attain.

I have no problem with my daughter (high school senior) sharing a locker room with a transgender girl who has identified as a girl for years, is taking puberty blockers, and has never once did anything that even comes close to breaking the law. It' better for the trans kid, who has never done anything wrong, and should not be punished for the actions of others. And I know my daughter wouldn't care one bit.

 

Literally Jim Crow guys.

 

A letter in the WAPO which hits the mail on the head:

“farmerdean: Specific to the transgender issue, some people identify as something other than their genitalia suggests. That seems like established fact, not something made up by liberals. The question then is: How should society accommodate people who are in these gender gray zones?

One side, the liberal side, mostly says live and let live. Let people be themselves so long as it doesn’t harm others. The other side says no, you can’t do that, because of women’s sports or bathrooms. Well, okay, we do need to set some rules so that people feel protected from unfair competition or, I suppose, sharing a bathroom with someone with male (it’s always the male issue) parts.
But can’t we manage this without going to war over it? Don’t we have larger problems that need our attention?”

Hard to avoid war when one side doesn’t believe in live and let live and insists on bringing up bathrooms and/or their children.

 

What other country? And are you familiar with the previous "hateful" posts that I was referring to? Are you even aware of why I am air quoting the work "hate" here?

The point is that this is not freedom and Soho basically agreed.

 

I mean, did I even come close to saying that? I clearly said HERE. (Here being THFSG).

 

Well, this law would have absolutely nothing to do with something said here. It is entirely based around specific events even if it has been passed. So what was your point, exactly? That if there was a different, more expansive law, it would be different and more expansive?

 

He is probably moving to Venezuela as we speak.

 

My point was that the person ripping the OP basically agreed with the OP without realizing it.

 

I guess if you don't at all challenge the false claims by the OP, including what the law does, that would certainly be possible. But the OP was full of false claims. And it would be false to equate what this law does with a restriction on online posting.

 

Given that the law specifies the procedure necessary to restrict it at a physical location, you need to fill in a bunch of nonsense to get there.

Yeah, I'd love to hear how you go from a law that stops a person from harassing people in person at a specific event that needs to be properly announced and is itself temporary (only for the length of the event's occurrence) can be used to restrict online speech, which occurs at no particular location and does not have such time limitations.

 

Why are you concerned about a proposed law in a community in another country that gives people sanctuary for a limited time from being threatened and harassed for who they are?

 

Your 2nd paragraph is an argument against all things DeSantis as well as the Dobbs decision.