Tim Said: March 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pmVictimised - not least by various Gays.
Being gay, bisexual, lesbian is not a choice. Being transexual is a mental disorder. Why should we support them?
Tim Said: March 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
They are in denial you can’t just cut your penis off a say your a female and a female can not grow a penis. You are what you are live with it and see a psychiatrist. I swear sometimes I think gay people will defend anything and anyone just for equal rights.
Sexual Orientation Bill Gets Large Turnout
The bill seeks to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, credit transaction and use of public accommodation.Such as Religion?
Opponents said the bill would have unintended consequences and argued that sexual orientation is a choice, unlike race or other characteristics that fall under protected classes.
A concern raised often by opponents was that the bill allows transgender individuals to use public restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.*Sigh*
Several, including Tom Frier of the North Dakota Family Alliance, said sexual predators would take advantage of that protection and target women and children in restrooms.
Committee member Rep. Kari Conrad, D-Minot, asked several times if people fear using the restrooms in Minnesota, which already has such a law.
The testimony from some opponents about sexual orientation elicited shaking heads and gasps at times, with at least five audience members walking out of the hearing.
The biggest reaction came after Fargo resident Martin Wishnatsky used some graphic language to describe sexual intercourse between same-sex partners.
Rich N. Fargo, ND 03/20/2009 1:04 AMCan anyone really be that thick? Because if so, there are just as few summary judgements saying he doesn't owe me $1,000,000 so by that "logic" obviously I'm entitled to collect...
This legislation is nothing more than smokescreen for a liberal progressive agenda. Did anyone who testified submit summary judgements of dismissed lawsuits citing the reason for dismissal was unprotected status under ND law? If not there is no need for this legislation.
Richard J. Ashbrook: Rental owners need Amendment 1
What you are not aware of is that most cases of deviant behavior in this industry do not make the local news. Our industry is forever constrained by privacy laws and we can not disclose problems we have with our residents – ever! With that said if I could relay to you my personal experiences, my thirteen years in this industry have resulted in multiple instances of deviant behavior with students living in apartments in Gainesville. All my peers in this industry agree that if they were not constrained by the Federal Privacy Act of 1973, their combined retelling of events in their communities would number in the hundreds over the last several years and each and every one of these events would curl the hairs on the back of your necks.My reply:
A no vote continues to allow cart blanch access for deviant individuals to get a free pass into the bedrooms of the young men and woman of Gainesville. I strongly encourage everyone to vote YES on Charter Amendment 1.
That perverts exist is indisputable. However, you have adduced alleged cases that exist regardless of the law protecting transgendered people. Do you know of a single case, anywhere, in any jurisdiction whatsoever, where an "unscrupulous individual" has even attempted to take advantage of such a law, let alone successfully?
The evidence we have is that laws protecting transgendered people have no effect whatsoever on the incidence of perverts committing crimes.
Should you say otherwise, that you have such evidence, but are not permitted to break confidentiality, I would of course take your word for it, but at least you could tell us the numbers involved, the state and the year, so we could quantify the problem. Because as far as we know, it's completely mythical, and to put it bluntly, not just a misrepresentation but a deliberate lie contrary to the facts. We rely of course on court records and police reports. But if an incident truly happened, surely the police should have been involved, and the incident not "covered up"?