Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 137rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mmmm.
I'd certainly hope it's seen as a victory for common sense.
A level playing field maybe?

Others should also be allowed 'THEIR' rights.
Hmm...a victory for financial sense.

I wonder what would have happened had these big companies had not released statements advising that they would no longer invest in Georgia if the plans had gone ahead.

But still...a win is a win.
Not sure about that. One man's freedom is another's prison.
AOG

If a company is allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay, how is that a level playing field?

The 'religious beliefs' excuse doesn't really stand up.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination - but it doesn't say anything about not employing gay people, or serving them in shops.

So anyone who has strong objections isn't really following the word it the Lord.

...because technically, if they really were, they should be campaigning to shut down every branch or Red Lobster in the state (shellfish), The Gap (mixed fabrics) and IKEA (no Bibilical connection...they're just rubbish).
-- answer removed --
divebuddy

I really don't think the opposition to the bill focussed on that specifically, especially when there were substantially more fundamental questions concerning housing, employment and legal spousal recognition. It was section six of the bill that was most contentious, because it was the one section that could be cited by businesses to get round the 'invidious discrimination' clause.

If anyone has been banging on about rest rooms, they have seriously misunderstood the bigger picture.
-- answer removed --
The restroom/toilet issue is one that always crops up, but in ladies loos we enter a cubicle with a lock on the door - we have no way of seeing who is in the next cubicle or indeed what gender they are.

It is only late at night one is likely to see semi disrobed young woman (nightclub etc) outside of the cubicles.
3T
are you feeling OK ?

the governor of Georgia is standing up for gay rights ....

[ the articles clearly imply it is a victory for American Industry ]
Radical gays can get on with the business of suing churches that won't marry them. (but not mosques, obviously)
// but in ladies loos we enter a cubicle with a lock on the door //

you use a mirror or pass on the floor to provide a reflection

chrissakes even I know that and the last time I was in a ladies loo was when I was 5 and chaperoned by my mother
I wasn't asking how to spy on the person in the next cubicle, I was curious as to why it may be a problem if the person in the adjacent cubicle was a different gender.
-- answer removed --
Mamy, I'm guessing you've not been in a US restroom?
Oh poor Mamya having to explain that she didn't want to 'spy' on the person in the next cubicle - how did you keep a straight face Mamya ... ?
How do know my face was straight Viv?


No I haven't been in a US rest room. Unisex toilets work in the right settings I feel.


Sorry TTT for adding to the digression here - I largely feel it is a step towards common sense however it has been arrived at.
Mamy, the thing about US restrooms, is that the cubicle sides and door end about 2 foot from the floor. there's absolutely no missing who's in the next trap.
Fair enough, poor design that.

1 to 20 of 137rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Victory For Common Sense?

Answer Question >>