No. Categorically false. "Because I say so" is not all the reason you need for a business. Sorry. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
I think Albert is correct. Unless the business is taking government grants/contracts that require a certain behavior. The right to refuse service is god given. Even though it's bad for business.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but I will treat you as not. Refusing service for reasons like race, sex, etc absolutely is not "God given". If such a thing even existed, it's certainly not enumerated in the Bible. Civicly, it's also not a given right. At least, it hasn't been since the civil rights movement.
Because you were very explicitly arguing it wasn't a trans ban. The treatments that many trans men are on would make them ineligible to join many women's sports. Rules that prevent trans people who are undergoing treatment for their situation from participating can be referred to as a trans ban, by the same standards used in other situations. Note that nothing in this post is about the validity or logic of those rules, but merely about the fact they exist, and the consequences of them. Whether they are considered good or bad would not change the result that rules like this are effectively a ban on many trans individuals participating in sports at all.
Show me where it's against the law. There may be some states and locales legislating this but I doubt it's enforceable. Goes off to Google gay wedding cakes. Was that in Colorado?
Baker 1 gay couple 0. Colorado had anti discrimination laws but expressed hostility towards the baker's religion resulting in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the baker but did not address the larger 1st amendment issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
Only 13 states plus DC have laws preventing discrimination in public accommodations i.e. cakes. Colorado is one. There is no federal law. Al don't live there. https://www.nclrights.org/wp-conten...tProhibitDiscriminationAgainstTransPeople.pdf
And I was being facetious about the god given right part. But we live in a theocracy. It's only a matter of time until the feds rule in favor of religion. Better apologize to Al.
What does that have to do with you lying about the contents of the settlement agreement? It's there in plain English, with well-defined terms. The fact that your brain cannot comprehend it, and your attempts at deflecting when you are so clearly wrong, does not change what it says.
Been making this EXACT argument for some 15+ years and...the zealots never even admit the notice it, let alone attempt to rationalize.
Your entitled ass might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Nor does hiding behind the law.
So "gotcha" bullshit it is. They are not banned if they are allowed to compete with people of their own biological gender. If their elective medical treatments break some rule intended to ban steriods, that is a seperate issue
Depends. Can we get genital inspectors involved? Some kinds of segregation are diabolically important. To the point of genital inspection. So, by Randian logic, all forms of segregation need a genital inspector.
My view is I don't fucking care, but if you're going to have a rule, it must apply to everyone exactly the same.
I again refer you to the text of the settlement agreement. I recommend following along with a dictionary to ensure you understand what it says.
And whether or not those individual issues are valid or not is all irrelevant to this point: A set of rules that collectively means that trans individuals going through the medically recommended treatments for their situation cannot participate at all can be colloquially referred to as a trans ban. For example, when same sex marriage wasn't allowed, some conservatives tried to argue things like "it's not a ban on gay people participating in marriage, they have exactly the same rights to get married to someone of the opposite sex as everyone else". Despite that, it was still valid to refer to them as gay marriage bans in conversation.
They are welcome if they comply with the rules, so no ban. Here we go with the false comparisons. Superficially similar AT BEST. Same-sex marriage requires the consent of both participants, and doesn't sacrifice anyone else's athletic career in the name of "inclusion."
As someone who inflicted a straight marriage on a gay person, he gets it. He's just playing dumb, and thinks it's clever to do so.
