Updated 08:10 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Society|Sat, Jan. 10 2009 12:58 PM EST

Fla. Conservatives Fight Transgender Restroom Rule

By Associated Press Writer|Ron Word

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A blond girl heads from a playground into a women's restroom. A scruffy man, lurking outside, darts in behind her. "Your City Commission Made This Legal," the words on the TV screen read.

The dark ad came from opponents of a gender identity provision added last year to the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, which now allows the city's roughly 100 transgender residents to use whichever restroom they're most comfortable using.

Foes want to repeal the new protection with a March 24 ballot measure that has divided Gainesville, a generally gay-friendly university city surrounded by staunchly conservative north Florida.

Those who support the transgender protections say their opponents are really unleashing a broader attack on the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender individuals in general.

The city commission approved the restroom provision by a 4-3 vote a year ago. Before the ink could dry, Bible-quoting opponents angrily began working for its repeal.

"You are trying to operate in a realm you do not have the authority to operate in," one pastor, George Brantley, told the commissioners.

The debate is expected to become noisier as the ballot nears with opponents resorting to more TV ads and campaigns pegged to such slogans as "Keep Men out of Women's Restrooms and vice versa."

Organizations defending transgender rights are mustering their own campaign.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force notes 108 cities and counties nationwide have similar transgender protections. An attempt to repeal an ordinance in Montgomery County, Md., failed when a court ruled opponents did not collect enough signatures to place it on the ballot.

Citizens for Good Public Policy, the group behind the commercial that aired last summer in Gainesville, collected more than 6,000 signatures last summer to win a referendum. If approved, the repeal measure would also prevent the commission from adding protections beyond what the state requires: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability and marital status.

Cain Davis, chairman of Citizens for Good Public Policy, said the issue is about regulating a "government gone wild" and ensuring public safety, charging that sexual predators could now simply enter a women's restroom claiming to be a transgender individual.

"We know when men go into women's restrooms, bad things can happen," Davis said.

City Commissioner Crag Lowe, leader of a group called Equality is Gainesville's Business, called the ads from Davis' group a grossly distorted attempt to whip up fears.

Lowe's group believes anti-discrimination protections for people who change their sexual orientation are good for business and foster diversity. He noted that 433 of the Fortune 500 companies have policies covering sexual orientation and 153 cover gender identity.

Since the ordinance took effect, police have reported no problems in public restrooms stemming from the law.

Retired postal worker Donna Lee, who became a female with surgery in 2001, moved to Gainesville from Ocala last March after hearing about the anti-discrimination ordinance. The 60-year-old is working to save the protections.

"We just want to live our lives with the basic civil rights that everyone else has," Lee said.

But some are taking no chances.

Computer programmer Clare Holman, who was born male but now lives as a female, said she simply stays away from public toilets.

"I don't want to run afoul of the law by using the wrong restroom," Holman said.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet wrote:

    "Let me clafify what I said:

    It means exactly what I said."

    I'm glad he clafified that. Now I get it.

    (Just kidding........so that everybody's doesn't jump on MY typos, which are plentiful on this site!)

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sure, just know that the last thing you said didn't help your point because it wasn't understood.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I've already made my point how insane "moral relativism" is, so I think we can drop it.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A response to what? The comment you had made previous was an incomplete sentence and was hard to follow. Please rephrase your question/point, or we can just drop it.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It means "I didn't figure I'd get a response."

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well what you said didn't make any sense, which is why you didn't get a response. Clarify, or we can just drop it.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Let me clafify what I said:

    It means exactly what I said.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hey mike/mtgburrell,

    I wasn't sure where you went. I thought you fell of the edge of the world.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I figured I wouldn't get a response. Except now."

    Precisely, Mike. Meaning what, indeed? (Maybe this guy does too much "figuring," without taking into account human emotions. He's perhaps just too theoretical.)

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Meaning what?

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I figured I wouldn't get a response. Except now.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    If you disagreed with someone, and they killed you because of it, and their morals said it was okay. You would have to accept that.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I must have missed this question: "Mike/mtgburrel,
    I figured you wouldn't answer the question. If you answered yes, then you would have to either accept the consequences of "moral relativism" or change your tune. If you answer no, then you do not truly believe in "moral relativism."

    Prophet, I have forgotten what question you asked (followed by your smug "I figured you wouldn't answer the question.") But I can respond, anyway. Of course, I accept moral relativism. Any sensible person would.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike
    Unfortunately, as I pointed out. Take away the law, and it's consequences, and find out how few people are truly moral. It's sad that it does require the law to keep people on the straight and narrow. But it's those Christians who are a law unto themselves that will gain the greatest reward, because they understand the truth about the law. That is does not hold them in bondage, but rather it is fulfilled in who they are. And not many people will mature to that place. Only a remnant.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Mike, as a child, I knew Jesus as Saviour, but did not understand Him as Lord. He saved me from hell if I believed in Him. I knew I did lots of bad things and easily understood that I needed a Saviour. I was mean and angry. I couldn't care less about anyone else or anybody. I was competitive and being the best was the only thing that mattered. There are many people walking around calling themselves Christians that are in this state. As a teenager, I learned about and accepted Jesus as Lord of our lives and it tranformed me in a very short period of time. I suddenly cared about relationships and no longer held anger. I do many "caring" things now, not out of fear of hell, but in response to the goodness of God. The goodness of God leads to repentance, but my life is submitted to him. Anything craving or desire inside of me that is not holy. I lay at the alter. "It is no longer I who live but Christ in me" My temptation, particularly when hurt, is to go back to the closed off person who doesnt care what anybody thinks. If there were no heaven, I would be hell on earth. The heart of man is corrupt. I just got a call as a foster mom, asking if I would take in a 3 month old with cracked ribs. I doubt the person did this because there was a heaven, it is in heaven that people will be good for goodness sake.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I think a lot of people throw the Bible around simply because they're afraid of hell. I love the song "Imagine there's no Heaven, its easy if you tried..." not because I don't believe in Heaven, but because what a beautiful idea! Imagine if people were good for the sake of being good, not because you slammed a book in their face and told them repent or burn in hell.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I believe that is why Paul was saying that we are not in bondage to the law. A person with no morals may still obey the law out of obligation to duty. A person with Godly morals will fulfill the law because he has become the law. He fulfills the law because it is who he is.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I agree with Prophet, moral relativism is about what people believe is right for themselves, what they don't relize in that logic is that what may not be right for you, can be right for someone else. Yall brought up murder, which is a good example of that, in isn't right for quite a few people but for some it is like a common occurance hindered only by the law. If we say that laws are only relative, chaos will break out because of this idea that truth is only relative.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you want to see what a person's (or peoples) morals really are? Take away the law and the its consequences, and you will see what type of morals people truly have.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    "we know that to murder is not acceptable." But the problem is that some people know murder is not acceptable only because the law says so. If the law were not there to say it was wrong, there are some that would not find anything wrong with it.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "but I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."

    This is exactly what Jesus spoke about to His disciples over and over again. Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who tried to mesh the Bible with their world view.

    As for how Prophet has treated you.... I have a son who is in the Army now. Been there for 2 years. He joined the Army because he was tired of people like me telling him what to do.... (insert eye roll here). You're posts remind me quite a bit of how he spoke to people before becoming an expert at push-ups!

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *insert eye roll here* Glad you listened.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."

    This would explain why many, though claiming the Christian name, are still conformed to this world. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Ro 12:2).

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wilderness, you are wasting your time trying to decide who does and does not know Jesus, and that is a matter which does not concern you. Think what you could do if you turned that energy into love for your fellow man.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, DP, I have been reading the comments on the website for months. I've just only started posting. I have generally agreed with Prophet, but some recent boards bothered me. I am absolutely agree that people should be dealt with in different manners. Jesus dealt with people very differently. Paul says to save some with fear and some with compassion. (and I wholeheartedly agree that compassion involves telling the straight truth. As you hear more from me, you will see that) For those who have ears, let them hear...

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."

    This would explain why many people claiming to be Christians, including "Christian" homosexuals, really do not know Jesus. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:10).

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I more meant that morals are relative to a given situation. I think you have morals without ever reading the Bible or hearing a lick about Jesus because as a society, we do have them. In American society (and I classify so we don't get into the discussion of "what about cannibals?") we know that to murder is not acceptable. I think it becomes relative to a situation because we have discussions about what murdering means to people. I think we'd all agree, even a gang banger, that it is wrong to walk up to someone and shoot them point blank for money or drugs, yet we argue about abortion, capital punishment, and going to war for ethics of "murder." Many views are taken from the Bible, because I don't think any of us living today truly grasp the original text, so no matter how much you deny it, we do in fact interpret the Bible due to our own life experiences (if you're raised conservative, you might have a much more conservative view. I went to a conservative college, but met many liberal professors who raised interesting questions about Biblical interpretation, which IS NOT scriptural twisting.) Also, Prophet, MTG and I are not the same person, please get that through your head.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike/mtgburrel,
    I figured you wouldn't answer the question. If you answered yes, then you would have to either accept the consequences of "moral relativism" or change your tune. If you answer no, then you do not truly believe in "moral relativism."

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey, guys. We've been away this evening visiting our son.

    "If someone said that they believed that murdering someone who insulted them was morally acceptable to them....you'd agree with them?"

    It's foolish taunts such as this that sometimes make me wonder if there is any point in trying to conduct a sensible discussion on this Web site. Still, I learn things on CP every time I look at the site.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    So Mike,
    If someone said that they believed that murdering someone who insulted them was morally acceptable to them....you'd agree with them? That's what moral relativism is...morality is relative to the person with such morals. Moral relativism is chaotic and unstructured. God has a set of moral standards. It is impossible to be a moral relativist and a Christian.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."

    Which would explain why one would accept evil. "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father" (Gal 1:4).

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I think you can be a moral relativist and a Christian, and its not your place to tell me if I am or not.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."

    Which would explain why one would accept wickedness:
    "...the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1Jn 5:19).

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mike,
    Actually, it is a sign of a declining morality. Homosexuality is a sin, and the acceptance of it being okay is showing that mankind is caring less and less about sin. Thus it is declining morally.
    Now, to a moral relativist (someone who is not a Christian) they would view the acceptance of homosexuality as an "awakening" or even "tolerance", both of which aren't Biblical in the least.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP, I actually never said I believe in a social gospel, but I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed. You are quite blatantly lying that Prophet has been more than kind to me, which makes me question which Bible you follow.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "That being said, you say alot of truth, but lack compassion and humility. "

    Looks like 'nolady' is kind of new here as she has no real idea from months of posting that Prophet has been more than kind to Mike and the other pro-gay people. Still, Jesus got kind of stern with people at times. So, did Jesus sin? Was the way he treated the Pharisees sin? Mike has finally gotten to the point where he has admitted that his is a social gospel and not based on the Bible. His gospel is based on arbitrary absolutes instead of the absolutes cleary stated in the Bible.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I don't think people accepting gays means morals are declining at all."

    Christians consider Biblical morals as the absolutes of life. They define what is right. Therefore, Mike, you would not see the shift towards your social gospel to be a problem. This is simple logic.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, I don't think people accepting gays means morals are declining at all. I think you may be hinting at the slippery slope argument, but the thing is that there are multiple groups working for their own causes, and its not like we're in line at a toll booth so once one group gets through, the next one steps up to bat. I'm curious how you know that God's view never changes.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtgburrell/mike

    True...hences the phrase "most of the time for the worse". That phrase means "not all the time" or "sometimes it's different".

    The slow acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle is one of those examples of the morals of people declining.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet: "Society and their morals change from generation to generation (most of the time for the worse)."

    Not always. Ask most black folks. The world is remarkably improved for most African-Americans, not to mention other suppressed group, including - dare I say it? - homosexuals. It's not like the "good ole days" when my people ran everything: our city, our state and our country. But, hey, let's give some other people a chance.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    My view isn't a social view. Society and their morals change from generation to generation (most of the time for the worse). God's view never changes. That is why secular Christians despise people like me. They want God's Word to change to suit their current moral and ethical opinions. I rather to change myself into His image, than to try and change Him into mine....though it seems the latter would be "easier" and more advantageous to me.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good point....

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike/mtgburrell,
    You are right to a certain extent. But when social social views conflict with spiritual views, then it becomes a problem.
    Jesus said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". That is a social/political view. Too many people think that Jesus was talking about giving to the government whatever they ask (even if it meant their rights). Unfortunately for that "social view", they are wrong. Jesus was talking solely about paying taxes. If the government told us that preach the gospel was illegal, the social view would be "give to Caesar what is Caesar", and they would yield. The spiritual view would be "give to God what is God's" and they would continue to preach the gospel regardless of what the government wanted.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A few weeks ago, I heard an interview on the radio. A man was there with his mother, discussing his new book. He had lived until age 29 (I think) as a female. After gender reassignment, including surgery) he claimed he was living a happy and normal life. His mother concurred, and the interviewer though he seemed OK. What struck me is that this person is now living as a gay man. I try to be pretty open-minded. This guy left me scratching my head, I must admit.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Thanks, Mike. I guess that was a ways back when some people thought you and I were the same person. It odd, but I suspect you and I are very different in our daily lives and or jobs (actually, I'm retired) and in interpretation of Biblical scripture and in other ways (including sexual orientation), but I find you to be the most like-minded poster here. (Like-minded with me, I mean.) There is so much fear in the world. People are fearful of other races, other religions, other viewpoints. Of course, I know that some posters are here to taunt. (I've done that.) Others love God, love his Word and love strangers (you and me) so much that they feel compelled to warn us about a view that will lead us and others to destruction. As a matter of fact, these people feel that they are commanded by scripture to tell you and me the truth. That's a hard job. But for all the ones who make snide or nasty remarks to you, Mike, I read very thoughtful and caring posts. You know, I have had almost no contact with a transgendered person (that I know of, anyway). That way of living seem sad and pitiful (pitiable?) to me. However, I am aware (from radio interviews and other sources) that such people exist. It is about as hard for me to imagine a transgendered person living a relatively normal life as it must be for some of your critics to imagine that you live a normal life. I DO believe that God intended a comma - not a period - on scripture. (I know there is a warning about adding anything, too.) God is still speaking. Don't let your detractors drowned God out. Keep bearing those fruits of the spirit.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Sure it is. Having a social view doesn't mean someone isn't also spiritual. I work in the human services field. My entire undergrad focuses on social interactions with people and it fascinates me, and that's where I get my knowledge base from. I believe very strongly in the presence of God working in our world today and believe that things like yoga are fantastic ways to meditate on God's role in your life. I think you want me to admit I am not spiritual because you could classify me better, but that wouldn't be truthful.

    MTG, he was posting that about me. I have no problem calling our someone's ignorance, and I did on another posting. I don't think that's a personal attack or mean prophet, but I think ignorance is a very destructive force.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, my referring to "ignorant" was just a reference to your joke about yourself. Sorry if you thought that I was calling you ignorant. I guess that I was wrong in your age, I was guessing that you were younger than 30.

    You are wrong on many points. I do not call it prideful to speak the truth. It is prideful to not speak the truth in love and humility as is scripturally mandated. I was indicating that prideful is
    "The conversations we have with Mike and his ilk, aren't those of trying to save him. I view this as a place to debate the truth" If you believe someone is headed for hell, then why is it more important to debate truth than to represent Christ. Yes, unashamedly, speak uncompromising truth, but speak 1) the truth in love and 2) bring correction with humility knowing that you are capable of falling also.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet: "mtgburrel said "know, I "hear" much more kindness in Mike's comments than I do from so many of my fellow heterosexuals on this board."

    "Does that include his post from another thread where he said "Wow, your ignorance just popped up to say hello."?
    I would say that is not very kind."

    I never said that. I've probably said worse, but I never said what you quote me as saying above, Prophet.

    And do you have any idea how patronizing it sounds when you say you are "amused" with nolady's posts? So superior...

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtgburrel said "know, I "hear" much more kindness in Mike's comments than I do from so many of my fellow heterosexuals on this board."

    Does that include his post from another thread where he said "Wow, your ignorance just popped up to say hello."?
    I would say that is not very kind.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mike, but that's not what you said earlier. You said "Prophet, you have a Biblical view of sexual immorality, I have a social view". That's not very spiritual of you, now is it?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a