Title: BATHROOM BACKLASH: OVER HALF A MILLION SIGN PETITION TO BOYCOTT TARGET “Target's policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims," petition states Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.infowars.com/bathroom-ba ... gn-petition-to-boycott-target/ Published:Apr 25, 2016 Author:Staff Post Date:2016-04-25 14:52:44 by Horse Keywords:None Views:459 Comments:20
A petition calling for a boycott on Target over the store’s new bathroom policy promoting “gender inclusivity” has reached over half a million signatures. Featured at the American Family Association website, the petition contends Target’s new policy “means a man can simply say he ‘feels like a woman today’ and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there.” Furthermore, the petition asserts, “Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims.”
The new bathroom policy also disproportionately endangers female bathroom users, according to the petition.
“Clearly, Target’s dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters. We think many customers will agree. And we think the average Target customer is willing to pledge to boycott Target stores until it makes protecting women and children a priority.”
Last week, Target announced via its corporate website it would be changing its bathroom policy to “welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” in the name of inclusivity.
Backlash immediately ensued with several parents taking to social media to vent their protest.
“Basically Target just told us – and millions of concerned parents – that we’re no longer accepted, respected, and welcome in their stores,” wrote dad Izzy Avraham last week in a viral Facebook post. “My friends, Target has crossed a line, and I believe this is a test case.”
Others vented on Twitter under the hashtag #BoycottTarget:
As a solution, the petition’s author suggests, “Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided.” Watch: Infowars reporter Joe Biggs asks customers at Target stores in Austin, TX whether they are comfortable with Target’s recently “restated” policy allowing men who supposedly identify as females to enter women’s bathrooms and changing rooms.
"No, we don't have a problem with transgendered people!," infowars.com reporter joe biggs says to a target consumer who supports the pervs.
wow. better vet them better next time, alex!
Regarding position 3:22 - 3:39 in the video, where the woman being interviewed stated, "it's transgender people, what the concern is";
In the context Biggs replied to what she said, he was trying to put that instance aside to inquire what the woman thought about "bad people" possibly using the new rule as a loophole.
In a true brain dead in-denial reaction, the woman said "I don't see it as a loophole", then later added she had two little girls. I wonder what she'll "feel" if her little girls were to be molested by a cross-dressing man in the ladies room at Target next time they go there.
well technically, it doesn't even have to be a cross dressing man in order for him to use the bathroom, since transgender and cross dresser are not necessarily the same thing. any weirdo can claim he feels like a woman and can use a womans restroom and target would be open to lawsuit if they discriminate, mow that they have announced this policy.
also, I understand biggs was trying to clarify his "bad people" example. which the dumb woman didn't even comprehend, but at 3:27 when biggs says "whoa, no no, we're not concerned about transgendered because we know there's normal people..." WTF is that supposed to mean? none of those people are 'normal'. that only reveals his Politically correct weirdness and attempted appeasement of the pervs, stating that he agrees with the freak woman that this freakish garbage is normal, and that its only pedophiles who are abnormal, not bruce jenner types. oh sure, jenner is perfectly normal. No, they are not, and I'm not even sure if such a person is NOT a pedophile. just as the majority of priests who molested kids were in fact pederasts, and fags, a pesky fact that the corporate media and the fags within the church tried to sweep under the rug.
I don't buy into ANY of this stuff and agree with the old guy who said that theyre all pervs who're going to hell. (if they don't repent.)
I wouldn't get so worked up over it. I'm pretty sure he was just trying to get the woman to tell him whether she agrees that "bad people" would use the loophole.
As far as hell, it could be argued that ALL of us are already there, or in various stages of purgatory at least.
Who knows, maybe it's all just a bad dream within the Matrix.
it reminds me of when mike adams of naturalnews wrote about a lawmaker who was arguing that newborns should be allowed to be killed., and adams was stating that infanticide is wrong and evil, but he prefaced it by emphasizing that (paraphrasing) 'now we're not talking about normal abortion here, we're talking about in the 9th month.'
these people at infowars always sugar coat some evil whole trying to argue against supposedly 'worse' evils. just something I've noticed over the years.
In terms of abortion, I think the defining point is whether or not a person believes in the existence of a soul, and what value they place on souls.
I'd say, if there is in fact a soul, which I do myself believe, then it's wrong to kill the life that is attached to that soul.
However, that would also apply to ALL sentient creatures, but we DO need to eat, so we end up buying animal flesh in stores, tossing it on the BBQ or having it prepared for us in restaurants.
So in realistic terms, and in purely humanistic terms, I'd say the limit on when a "procedure" should be performed would be within the first several months, before that egg and sperm can physically evolve into a somewhat sentient being.
But if I were to hold ABSOLUTE beliefs with no "gray areas", then I'd ALSO have to eliminate any and all animal flesh in my diet, as I believe that they ALSO have souls and thus should not be killed, and should not be treated cruelly when they are alive, simply because they're going to end up as somebody's "meat".
In terms of abortion, I think the defining point is whether or not a person believes in the existence of a soul, and what value they place on souls.
I'd say, if there is in fact a soul, which I do myself believe, then it's wrong to kill the life that is attached to that soul.
I agree with you 100% up to that point.
as for the rest, I believe that animals are creatures created by God, and that God cares about them, that we should not mistreat them, but that they don't have souls per se like human beings do. for example, animals do not have the capacity to sin like humans do. they only act on instinct.
I do believe God gave humans dominion over the animals and that it is perfectly OK to eat them, not immoral in any way.
I also believe that humans have a soul at the point of conception and that abortion is never justified.
one interesting point that we encountered a few years ago with our beloved dog Maxine, was this issue. (I'll proabably be sorry to bring this up, ;-) people generally believe that 'putting a dog down' when theyre suffering is standard, and 'humane' for canines, but when it comes to people, most religious folks see 'mercy killing' as wrong and immoral (assisted suicide). - murder!
thankfully Maxine died naturally but about eight months before that time, she had been outdoors while visiting my folks and it was a very hot day, and flies got to her, and then to my horror a few days later, she had maggots infesting her body, it was the most horrific thing ever. we rushed her to the vet and he suggested we put her down. the only other option, he said, was to clean her all up, shave the area, and that she'd probably as he put it, "have maggots inside, her, coming out of her eyes" etc. Holy shit, what a vile thought. As much as I loved her, I was ready to put her down, so I called my wife, (who was at Disneyland with her family) and she insisted I not do a thing and not dare euthanize Maxine. she didn't believe the vet because Maxine had been pretty good otherwise, aside from being old.
so she leaves Disneyland and drives very far to the vets office, insists that we get her cleaned up and see how she is. ill be damned if Maxine was not running around happy and chipper in a bright neon pink bandage an hour later, and lived almost another year. she died naturally in my arms.
I was so happy that my wife rejected this and saw through the lies of the vet. she gave Maxine a second chance, and her own papa was gonna kill her! You see, I met my wife 10 years earlier, while walking Maxine at the beach. that is how we met. she was a very special dog, and her mommy saved her! :-)