Dumb Political Correctness

It is what we used to call males who knew they were male and females that knew they were female...or more succinctly, NORMAL.

Because somehow, normal rational people allowed themselves to be cowed by hulking males in makeup who decided that opposition to the delusions warranted doxxing and no-platforming. When your job is being jeopardized by the freaks, it is often (sadly) easier to capitulate.

In the old days (basically pre-1995), trannies were not shoving themselves into politics and in front of every camera. They tried to blend into society and simply get on with their lives. Sure, you saw some of them, but most were just average. With the advent of the internet, you began to see them abandoning their families as they took the family nest egg and chose to go live out their delusions.

 

Pop has turned out to be quite the ***

 

He is definitely that, but some of those NBA dance teams do seem pretty skanky. Just sayin'.

 

However, some of the ones in THAT picture do not seem to have skimped on the cheeseburgers. Just sayin'

 

He lost me when he tried to out-Trump-bash Robert DeNiro. You're a frickin basketball coach, can't you just keep your mouth shut and see about winning games (which I notice you have not done a lot of since you went on this tangent)?

 

Tough one for self-styled "progressives"?
They are probably checking there intersectionality guidebook to see where to come out on this

Is it as simple as -- if you can force a Christian to participate in a wedding against her beliefs, then you can force a Muslim to interact with a biological male against her beliefs?

 

That actually sums up that mindset very well. Opinions based on the ranking of what stereotypes and demographics fit a person best, not based on the merits of individual situations.

 

From the article: "She never once asked for a leg wax [from] us," Mad Wax manager, president, and CEO Jason Carruthers told PJ Media. "She said, 'Women have penises and women have balls and if your staff is not comfortable then they can look for another job.' That is clearly referring to a brazilian wax, which involves the genitals."

 

Not surprisingly, this story is getting remarkably little news coverage, but my understanding is that this happened in Canada. I'm pretty sure that gender identity is a prohibited basis for discrimination up there. If that's the case, then the Muslim girl and the salon will probably lose.

Even from a Muslim, I don't think Canada's courts are going to be receptive to a religious freedom argument on this kind of case. In other words, the transgendered are higher on the intersectional hierarchy than Muslims are.

I also think trans who haven't had surgery are higher on the hierarchy than those who have. To the intersectional SJW, nothing trumps a "girl" with an actual penis. They think that's about the coolest thing in the world.

One other thing, I don't care what gender this person thinks he is, that's still a scrotum. If you want that waxed, that is messed up. That's the kind of thing a Medieval emperor would order to be done to torture somebody.

 

Bad timing for the Seattle suburbs

 

Anyone shocked?
Being a liberal Dem was, for many decades, cover for being a serial sexual harasser.
Wonder if he will blame Russia?

 

Not sure Vancouver, BC is a "Seattle suburb" any more than San Antonio is a suburb of Austin.

 

^ I like to think of Austin as more of a suburb of San Antonio.

 

I like to think of it as a suburb of Waco.

 

Assuming the courts side with the customer, would the salon have grounds to fire the employee for not being able to perform her job as a waxer? The salon only has one waxer so it's not like the owner could assign another employee to it. But then couldn't the employee sue for religious discrimination? He would be firing her for her Muslim belief that she can't touch a scrotum outside of her family...

 

North Austin is basically a suburb of South Dallas....

 

Of course, I don't know exactly how the law works in Canada, and the US doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. This place could have a "No Trannies Allowed" sign on the door, so if this case happened here, the customer would lose, and there wouldn't be an issue for the employee.

However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this business was in the US, that the Civil Rights Act applied to this business, and that Title II of the Civil Rights Act prohibited gender identity discrimination in public accommodation, which would mean the store had to serve this customer. The store would be in a dilemma because it has to serve the customer, but it also has a duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to provide "reasonable accommodations" for the employee's religious beliefs, so long as they don't constitute an "undue hardship" on the employer.

I'm not familiar enough with how this kind of business operates to know what kind of accommodations could be made for this employee. To accommodate the employee, would they have to hire another permanent employee just to serve the trans-"woman" who happens to show up every several years? If so, that's probably an undue burden. Accordingly, if the Muslim woman wasn't willing to "wax the tranny," they could fire her for it. Is there some less burdensome accommodation that could be made? Maybe, but I'm just not sure.

 

If I’m the high-priced coffee local competition, I’m handing out flyers with the new policy and a map to every nearby Starbucks to every homeless person I can find

 

Have the SJWs moved on from white men to white women?
Feels that way, doesnt it?
My theory is that white men just stopped giving a crap. So they moved on to what they perceive as a more vulnerable target
Maybe one of our SJW-insiders can confirm this?

 

No thanks Starbucks, going to have to pass on t this one

 

In case you missed it -- lefties were busy tweeting this all over the world on Sunday
On Monday, they got busy deleting it from all over
Why?
They figured out the pic was from the time of Obama
I guess they are no longer neither 'speechless' nor outraged -- LOL
What a bunch of lying hypocrites

 

I wonder if the faux indignant idiots understand how how stuff like this makes them look.

 

There's not a great thread for this but it blew my mind. I also don't have a link.

Quotation from the judge in the Tommy Robinson trial in the UK where he was sentenced to jail for broadcasting on Facebook Live outside a courthouse. (I think I got all that right...)

"I respect everyone's right to free speech. That's one of the most important rights that we have. With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law."

So basically in the UK, you have the right to free speech unless the government decides you don't. Good stuff.

 

We have speech limits here too, right? Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, defamation, etc.

We have gun limits too.

That fact that ProdigalHorn knows who Tommy Robinson is tells a lot about how far right he's traversed since he joined this board.

This article details why Robinson was jailed. He's violated previous court orders not to broadcast trials. It's CENSORSHIP I say...CENSORSHIP! Why would a court not what a trial taped? Maybe to ensure a fair trial for the accused?

 

Deez: I can't find it but stumbled across a post where you said Magic didn't have HIV/Aids. Is this accurate?

 

Is it accurate that he doesn't have HIV/AIDS or that I said that I don't think he does?

 

I guess either. You seemed to state is as a fact but I can see why someone might go there. Not being critical or anything, I was just curious about the logic/source as it was the first I'd ever heard of it.

 

This show jumped the shark pretty quick so I dont care that it was canceled. However, the Soros justification is just wrong. Soros did work with the real Nazis.

 

Obviously there's no source, because he's not going to admit it, and he has control over what medical information comes out. There's no way for the public to verify it one way or the other, and of course anybody who questions it (and some have) is called a racist. I'm not sure I understand how or why there's a racial element to it, but to some there is. And of course, once that's raised, the issue is shut down as happens in most such discussions.

Anyway, here's why I don't buy it. First, when he was allegedly diagnosed, HIV/AIDS was a virtual death sentence for pretty much everybody (even if they had the money to buy the best drugs, which weren't very good at the time). People lived a few years while the virus was inactive, got sick, and were dead within months. Somehow, none of that happened to Magic.

Second, Magic's wife doesn't have it, even though the alleged diagnosis almost surely occured months or even years after he contracted the disease. Obviously nobody's going to have the balls (or tastelessness?) to push that issue, but I can't help but question how she managed to avoid it. If I had HIV, I guarantee you that Mrs. Deez would have it too.

I've heard some suggest that he might have used rubbers with is wife and avoided giving her the disease. Two problems with that. First, one of the reasons a man gets married is to not have to wear a rubber. How many guys have you heard say, "I can't wait to get married so I can start using rubbers?" Exactly. None, because no man has ever said that in the history of civilization, because they're unromantic and gross. Second, to accept that he has HIV and she doesn't, you virtually have to accept that he used rubbers with her but didn't use them with the hookers and strippers who supposedly infected him. Does anybody seriously buy that bizarro-world, backwards, ******** logic? Call me a racist, but I don't.