Posted on 04/23/2011 3:47:08 PM PDT by kristinn
A Baltimore County McDonald's owner announced on Saturday afternoon that an employee who taped the violent beating of a customer — a video that went viral Friday — had been fired.
"My first and foremost concern is with the victim," franchise owner Mitchell McPherson said in a statement, adding that action might be taken against other restaurant workers as well. "I'm as shocked and disturbed by this assault as anyone would be. The behavior displayed in the video is unfathomable and reprehensible."
The video of a beating the Rosedale restaurant went viral Friday, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on websites and prompting the fast-food giant to issue a statement condemning the incident.
SNIP
The three-minute clip was apparently first posted on YouTube, then taken down by administrators who said it violated the site's policies. But it popped back up on other sites and was ultimately linked from the popular Drudge Report, which gave it top billing for much of the day.
County police confirmed that the attack occurred April 18 in the 6300 block of Kenwood Ave. Police said the 14-year-old girl has been charged as a juvenile, while charges were pending against an 18-year-old woman.
Equality Maryland said the victim is a transgender woman and called on state Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler to step in and investigate the case as a hate crime. Police and prosecutors said they did not know whether the victim is a transgender woman.
Update from Sun reporter Justin Fenton via Twitter:
We've spoken with the victim of the Rosedale McDonald's attack ... an update on our site will be posted soon 31 minutes ago
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Here’s a quick and entertaining way of losing any fears of subtly expressing racism:
I don’t think that subtlety is a really big issue, here.
technically, she doesn’t admit to flirting with him - she says HE addressed HER. but we’ll probably never know if she brushed him off or winked or what. As I’ve noted elsewhere, for many black women the slightest inference that a white woman would be interesting to her black man or vice versa is incendiary.
Getting back to the “jist” of the story.............anybody with the gall to do that should be severely beaten by everybody in my family. Ca. 1966
How then do you explain children of all ages who are pre-sexualized, who have no history of abuse, raised in solid, often very Christian homes, who are firmly convinced they are in "the wrong body"?
Viewed objectively, and without the retrofitting of trying to force reality into an arbitrary cultural prejudice, there's no logical explanation for the phenomena except a congenital condition.
Further, there are a number of physically documentable intersex conditions which result in a child neither "fully female" or "fully male" physically.
this is not speculation or psychology but something you can LOOK AT scientifically.
now, consider this:
We know, as a given, that birth defects can and do occur, do we not?
We know that birth defects can affect any organ of the body including the brain, (autism, for one example) do we not?
We know that birth defects can and do affect primary and secondary sexual characteristics, do we not?
Why then is it logical to conclude that it is impossible for a birth defect to occur which affects the gender-related functions and areas of the human brain?
Answer - it's not logical.
One is free to have whatever religious and moral view they like about whether or not a person so "defective" is at liberty to accept it or whether they are morally obliged to suppress it. I do not propose to debate anyone out of a faith based position on that. (albeit I cannot accept the notion of a God that demands such people live in misery and often spread misery to those who love them in order to conform to a societal and cultural tradition but that's just me) HOWEVER the argument that "they are not born that way" is simply irrational and illogical and makes no real sense. there is no evidence to support that assumption.
This being the case, the question in my mind is does society impose upon such people an arbitrary restriction which forces them to live in misery (and very often take their own lives) or do we show compassion and love?
Militant sexual degeneracy is threatening to crumble our society because it corrodes perniciously the taboo structure which underlies a civilization.
there was a time when there was a huge societal taboo against divorce. More suffering and cultural decay has occurred due to divorce and single parenthood (and don't tell yourself it's only ghetto black girls having babies) than from all the iky gayness you can imagine.
And yet, one wonders how many Freepers who rage against moral decay are divorced? At the last Southern Baptist Church I attended, probably half the congregation is divorced and it's never addressed from pulpit or podium.
not to say that there was ever a time when there wasn't a lot of "degeneracy" behind closed doors, but there was a time when the taboo structure was in place. if you are convinced we need to go back to Victorian taboos, or whatever, then good luck with that. I salute you for having taken on probably the biggest challenge any human being ever assumed to themselves.
But then, if you are willing to take the heads of all who disagree, maybe you got a shot, eh?
For my part, when I stand before God, I'm probably more comfortable being the "man in a skirt" than I am being "the man with the guillotine"
On another note, there have been cases where a boy was born with at least one functioning ovary. There are documented cases where one twin 'absorbs' the other in utero (at morulla stage usually) and can be born with both X and Y chromosomes. The two mentioned phenomena make for a very chemically confused individual and such fellow humans are due our compassion and if possible medical assistance.
On the other hand, we have cases like a serial killer incarcerated for life without parole who avails the prison system of hormones to make 'himself' as effimitae as possible and a fairy friend to the men also incarcerated with the freak. Why should society pay for such degenerate rot when a death penalty would rid the world of demon spawn like that?
Point of continued order: confusing the two above citations is something intelligent, educated people should not be doing. Do either of us know enough about the 'Christopher/Chrissy' of this case to place this victim in either class of the above scenarios? What we have is evidence of primitives attacking a sex-changed individual. We don't know how the individual was using that change or if the attackers had been tipped to the tranny state or if the attackers even realize the victim was a tranny. ... Or maybe you have data I'm not privy to?
It's all too easy for those who have never experienced what another person has to judge them. It's also unwise.
This begs the obvious question: how do you tell the former from the latter? Well, there are clues. I've seen photos of a man in walmart in a skirt and a full beard - this is not a transsexual. A person who never gave any sign to anyone until AFTER they were in jail, might be suspicious (although it's not entirely impossible they had been repressing) and so forth, but ultimately, except for the glaringly obvious - you can't. (I lay aside the "should we pay for his treatment" question as beyond what i'm talking about)
But here's the real meat of the situation, IMO. People are in an uproar because they are enforcing NOT moral standards, but CULTURAL standards.
Examples: in Europe, many females do not shave under their arms or their legs, in the US, almost all do - so if a man shaves his body, is he behaving in an objectively feminine way, or only within the context of the culture?
Some Pentecostal churches insist that for a woman to wear pants is a sin (and makeup, and jewelry, and cut their hair) while women attending other churches which depend on the exact same Bible read it differently. How do we know which group, if either, is behaving properly female? both can cite Scripture to support their positions. how can we moralize about clothing choices when Christians can't even agree among themselves what is proper for a female to wear?
and again, for any Biblical verse which can be cited to condemn transsexuals, you can find another verse by the same author giving instructions which the modern Christian church does NOT adhere to.
for these and many other reasons, it's obvious to conclude that the displeasure with transsexual is a result of a cultural bias, not because of an actual violation of morals.
After all, a wide variety of people behave immorally on a routine basis with little if any open condemnation from their more well-behaved neighbors.
in other words, we put up with the fact that we live in a world of people who don't always live up to our standards.
I love that movie!
Mr.Happy....LOL! Most women do not want a man in their bathroom,myself included.I am against violent acts being carried out against a man who wants to use the ladies’room because he thinks he’s a woman,but I have no problem with other women who push a man out of the ladies’ room. He does not belong in there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.