# NC bans anti-discrimination



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

There is nothing like taking away the ability of a people to govern themselves. NC's state government has passed a bill that removed a city's ability to effectively govern itself, or to incentivize people moving to their city/county. For a republican controlled house they seem pretty anti-free market. Isn't taking away power from the lower units and giving it to the central power what Republicans should hate more than anything?(other than immigrants,gays, Obama, and women's rights)

McCrory signs bill barring LGBT protections against discrimination :: WRAL.com

Obviously I'm against this, but not just for the discrimination piece. They are also keeping cities from changing minimum wages, and in my eyes trying to remove their ability to govern. Anyone have any reason this is good? Or necessary?


----------



## Centermass (Mar 24, 2016)

Me personally? I could care less. Problem is this "Feel good" piece of legislation brought forward by Jennifer Roberts took into consideration the rights of the LGBT community without really thinking about how predators and perverts could use this as a cloak when it comes to women and kids. Not to mention the reworking of facilities and the city of Charlotte setting precedence for it happening statewide.  

More thought before hand into how this would work in all practicality could have precluded this. Instead it was a knee jerk reaction in response to the situation of this happening in a school elsewhere in the country.

Sorry, but if their safety trumps this legislation, I'm all for it.  

Aw yes.......the great state of Mecklenburg in action once again.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Me personally? I could care less. Problem is this "Feel good" piece of legislation brought forward by Jennifer Roberts took into consideration the rights of the LGBT community without really thinking about how predators and perverts could use this as a cloak when it comes to women and kids. Not to mention the reworking of facilities and the city of Charlotte setting precedence for it happening statewide.
> 
> More thought before hand into how this would work in all practicality could have precluded this. Instead it was a knee jerk reaction in response to the situation of this happening in a school elsewhere in the country.
> 
> ...



Did you read all of what the bill entails? Removing the status of all people currently covered under anti-discrimination clauses, including veterans. 

The stuff about minimum wage and other economic things bothers me a great deal.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 24, 2016)

Personally, I think that is simply one more instance of where a "bigger" government dictates what a "smaller" government can do.

I don't see any good reasons or purposes for it other than possibly "someone's personal agenda."


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

I have been following this story for a couple reasons.  For one, I am transgender.  No, I am kidding.  The _prima fascie_ reasoning was the LGBT/unisex bathroom thing.  That, I get, and I fully support.  To me it isn't about discrimination at all.  It's not like they are forbidding LGBT from using _any_ bathroom.   Polling showed a majority of the (Mecklenburg) county residents were against LGBT/unisex bathroom; the county caved to the cries of "discrimination".  The state in deciding this not only carries the support of that county's voters in this _specific _case, but also those in the state in general.

For two, and this is where I really start having problems, are all the riders attached to the legislation, slipping in several items that may not have passed on their own.  It's not a "R" thing or a "D" thing but a typical political power-and-control thing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I have been following this story for a couple reasons.  For one, I am transgender.  No, I am kidding.  The _prima fascie_ reasoning was the LGBT/unisex bathroom thing.  That, I get, and I fully support.  To me it isn't about discrimination at all.  It's not like they are forbidding LGBT from using _any_ bathroom.   Polling showed a majority of the (Mecklenburg) county residents were against LGBT/unisex bathroom; the county caved to the cries of "discrimination".  The state in deciding this not only carries the support of that county's voters in this _specific _case, but also those in the state in general.
> 
> For two, and this is where I really start having problems, are all the riders attached to the legislation, slipping in several items that may not have passed on their own.  It's not a "R" thing or a "D" thing but a typical political power-and-control thing.



Except this is a R and a D thing, as not a single democrat voted for it, and they actually walked out of the meeting. R's have a majority in the NC house and Senate, therefore they can basically do whatever they want. The riders in this are absurd.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> For two, and this is where I really start having problems, are all the riders attached to the legislation, slipping in several items that may not have passed on their own. It's not a "R" thing or a "D" thing but a typical political power-and-control thing.



Agree with you 100%.  I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a bill pass or not pass, not based on the bill itself, but on the last minute attachments.  There is something just wrong and shady about that - especially when it is done at the last hour.  Happens here in MN all the time.

At the same time, I'm a self-proclaimed hypocrite on that topic as that is how much of Minnesota's very good "conceal/carry" legislation has gotten thru.  Including this years repeal of the Silencer Ban.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> ...and they actually walked out of the meeting.



I completely and totally disagree with their ability to do the above quoted portion. They should be admonished and punished -- in some form -- for not voting. When the electorate votes a Congressman or Senator into office, it is for them to "VOTE." Unless they are dead or in a hospital bed, they should vote.

If they don't like something...man up and vote, don't do the reality TV bit and throw a fit and walk out like a kindergartner does.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 24, 2016)

I used to live in Charlotte. There's a pretty big gay population in "The Queen City." The public restrooms at city parks, especially Freedom Park, which was near my home, were notorious hangouts for promiscuous gays. You take your kid to the park, you walk into the men's room and dudes are blowing each other. There was no shortage of predators, lone men sitting in their cars watching everybody. It was creepy. Fuck that. Get a fuckin room.

My only opinion about gays is...It's an exit not an entrance.

As far as the OP I defer to the more learned gentlemen above.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Except this is a R and a D thing, as not a single democrat voted for it, and they actually walked out of the meeting. R's have a majority in the NC house and Senate, therefore they can basically do whatever they want. The riders in this are absurd.



Yeah, no argument from me.  The R's are getting a big kick out of their power, what with being on the other side for so long (and I am not justifying it....I actually hate the way they are acting).

Edited to add, clarifying about not a R/D thing, it is typical of whichever party is in power.  They both do it.  The dems did it for years when they held the majority.  I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.  Not about "party", it's about power.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Agoge said:


> I completely and totally disagree with their ability to do the above quoted portion. They should be admonished and punished -- in some form -- for not voting. When the electorate votes a Congressman or Senator into office, it is for them to "VOTE." Unless they are dead or in a hospital bed, they should vote.
> 
> If they don't like something...man up and vote, don't do the reality TV bit and throw a fit and walk out like a kindergartner does.



I totally agree with you! I found it disgusting that they walked out. They were elected to fight not walk out like bitches.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Also, looking at this as only a bathroom thing or a LGBT thing is myopic. Discrimination can be based on way more variables and all of those are at risk now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 24, 2016)

With something like the bathroom thing , sometimes it feels like we are trying to create a solution for something that isn't even a problem.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

Are there already laws protecting against discrimination?

I hate creating protected classes. LGBT and Veteran communities shouldn't be given any more freedoms than anyone else.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are there already laws protecting against discrimination?
> 
> I hate creating protected classes. LGBT and Veteran communities shouldn't be given any more freedoms than anyone else.



They are taking those away, and not allowing new ones. 

You aren't given more freedoms, you are not allowed to be discriminated against. Currently in some places people can not hire you based on veteran status(that is BS) they can not hire you because you like to fuck other dudes(also BS).


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

I think the point of local government is to represent the people in the community. If for example the city of Durham wishes to raise the minimum wage to $20 dollars an hour, they should be able to. Whether that is a good choice or not is up to them, and it will reflect in the growth or depression of the population and businesses. 

Same for these other laws. If a city wants to be welcoming to LGBT or other groups than they should be able to make laws that impact the citizens of their city. They should not be prevented by a state government somewhere that doesn't reflect their values. This is just like "state's rights" which many on here have said should be the norm when it comes to many social issues we have discussed here. This is an example of the Republicans in my state doing what they claim to hate so much.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> They are taking those away, and not allowing new ones.
> 
> You aren't given more freedoms, you are not allowed to be discriminated against. Currently in some places people can not hire you based on veteran status(that is BS) they can not hire you because you like to fuck other dudes(also BS).


That's why businesses don't tell you why you're not being hired. They absolutely should be able to choose who they want for whatever reason they want.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> That's why businesses don't tell you why you're not being hired. They absolutely should be able to choose who they want for whatever reason they want.



So they should be able to not hire someone because they are black? Latino? Come on dude, that is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 24, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> That's why businesses don't tell you why you're not being hired. They absolutely should be able to choose who they want for whatever reason they want.



I have to disagree with you on this.  Maybe I should not take you literal, but the way you put it, a business person should have the right to not hire someone based on race/gender/orientation.  As a person who does a lot of hiring, I can tell you that I do not need laws to make me hire (or not hire) someone based on those criteria.  But I know A LOT of folks who would make their decision based on it.  

Here in Minnesota they just changed the law so that you cannot ask the "have you ever been convicted" question on the initial application.  The reason?  It was found that Target (HQ is in Minneapolis) and most places for that matter, would not even call someone for an interview who answered 'yes' to that question.  With the way it is now, at least a person can get a face-to-face interview and maybe impress a potential employer enough to take a chance on them when it comes to the conversation around background checks.  I'm about as socially and fiscally conservative as they come, but I also know the difference between what is right and what is just wrong.  Some don't, or don't care...and need a law or two to keep all things relatively equal.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 24, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> There's a pretty big gay population in "The Queen City."



What kind of pillow cases would be the most popular around those parts, fuchsia or aquamarine..?


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So they should be able to not hire someone because they are black? Latino? Come on dude, that is fucking ridiculous.


 
I'm not seeing your point. Do a little critical thinking here. A business doesn't hire who they don't want. If a business doesn't hire someone because they are a black or latino, that will happen regardless of what the government says is can or cannot happen. Unless you are advocating for government mandated diversity.
Now if the business starts advertising that they are discriminating against certain groups, than what? Hit them for discrimination, or let the free market work itself out and people won't go because they don't agree with it.

Businesses should be hiring whomever they feel is best for the job, not on a mandated diversity kick. There's already unfair hiring practices on protected classes in the STEM industries.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I have to disagree with you on this. Maybe I should not take you literal, but the way you put it, a business person should have the right to not hire someone based on race/gender/orientation. As a person who does a lot of hiring, I can tell you that I do not need laws to make me hire (or not hire) someone based on those criteria. But I know A LOT of folks who would make their decision based on it.


 
Maybe you are taking me too literal. A business should be able to not hire someone. Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire. This happens now. Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?

Let the market figure itself out.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

I think the whole thing could have been avoided, completely, if instead of taking the issue of LGBT/bathroom use to the state they took it to court.  There is no discrimination in requiring biological males and biological females to use bathrooms commensurate to their biological gender assignment.  The issue of discrimination would come into play if they were flatly refused ANY bathroom use because of their sexual orientation.  I don't give a flying rat's ass what gender you _think_ or _feel_ you are.

And I imagine that aside from the I-85 corridor in North Carolina that if I beat the living crap out of someone who looked at my kid sideways in a LGBT-friendly bathroom that couldn't be in said bathroom before the law was passed, I would be acquitted.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Maybe you are taking me too literal. A business should be able to not hire someone. Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire. This happens now. Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?
> 
> Let the market figure itself out.



I have been in this position, twice actually, and for the same reason: As a hiring paramedic supervisor, and as a hiring nurse manager, I was told that I would hire an employee with partial hearing loss not because they were the best candidate but because if we did not they could sue (they were both middle-of-the-pack candidates).  The medic actually left the job because he couldn't hack it; the nurse, well, once hired he got the hospital to pay for hearing aids.  he eventually quit because he couldn't hack that particular job, but was successful in another, slower, less acute unit in the hospital.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I have been in this position, twice actually, and for the same reason: As a hiring paramedic supervisor, and as a hiring nurse manager, I was told that I would hire an employee with partial hearing loss not because they were the best candidate but because if we did not they could sue (they were both middle-of-the-pack candidates).  The medic actually left the job because he couldn't hack it; the nurse, well, once hired he got the hospital to pay for hearing aids.  he eventually quit because he couldn't hack that particular job, but was successful in another, slower, less acute unit in the hospital.


 
And that is the problem. Like I said before, certain protected classes get preferential hiring into communities for diversities sake. That in itself should be criminal.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 24, 2016)

Frank S. said:


> What kind of pillow cases would be the most popular around those parts, fuchsia or aquamarine..?



Fuchsia was a big seller when I lived there. And doilies. doilies were a hot item.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I'm not seeing your point. Do a little critical thinking here. A business doesn't hire who they don't want. If a business doesn't hire someone because they are a black or latino, that will happen regardless of what the government says is can or cannot happen. Unless you are advocating for government mandated diversity.
> Now if the business starts advertising that they are discriminating against certain groups, than what? Hit them for discrimination, or let the free market work itself out and people won't go because they don't agree with it.
> 
> Businesses should be hiring whomever they feel is best for the job, not on a mandated diversity kick. There's already unfair hiring practices on protected classes in the STEM industries.



So in your mind there is no discrimination? It is a slippery slope to "no blacks need apply" from today forward. 


Florida173 said:


> And that is the problem. Like I said before, certain protected classes get preferential hiring into communities for diversities sake. That in itself should be criminal.



Affirmative Action programs are different than anti discrimination laws. I feel like you are confusing the two.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 24, 2016)

No employer in any state is required to tell an applicant why they weren't hired.  Most don't tell the applicant anyway in case they suddenly decide the "real" reason was discriminatory, or because of the fact that having an awkward conversation with someone who isn't working for them is a bad use of time.


IME, I take the subject from a utilitarian perspective; the decision on who to hire into my office is mainly based upon how useful I think one will be in the job they're hired to do.  There can be other factors within the bounds of the law, but that's the biggie.

Paying attention to other BS like race or whether you're a lady who loves the ladies is just needless distraction, and illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So in your mind there is no discrimination? It is a slippery slope to "no blacks need apply" from today forward.
> 
> 
> Affirmative Action programs are different than anti discrimination laws. I feel like you are confusing the two.


Sure there is discrimination.  But it's not overt.  No amount of legislation will fix that.  It's also a slippery slope to blacks must hired.  I don't see what you are getting at. The discrimination will be there regardless.   

The anti discrimination could lead to  an affirmative action.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> No employer in any state is required to tell an applicant why they weren't hired.  Most don't tell the applicant anyway in case they suddenly decide the "real" reason was discriminatory, or because of the fact that having an awkward conversation with someone who isn't working for them is a bad use of time.
> 
> 
> IME, I take the subject from a utilitarian perspective; the decision on who to hire into my office is mainly based upon how useful I think one will be in the job they're hired to do.  There can be other factors within the bounds of the law, but that's the biggie.
> ...


Also why i can't specifically ask in an interview how old someone is or which race they are.  Among plenty of other questions.  I hire from merit,  or potential alone.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2016)

We are getting into the discrimination plenty, but the riders are still a huge pet of this. Taking away a city's rights to impact their own economy is fucking crazy. I cannot believe that part went through.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2016)

You can reject people based upon X all day long and until the end of time with the right wording. You can say the technical interview didn't go well or another candidate had better "soft skills" or one of a billion reasons.

If you want true equality you remove any possible connection to race, gender, age, etc. from a resume. All of it. Volunteered at the local NAACP office? "Volunteered x hours for political action group" or some such nonsense. Strip all of it away. Make a resume a "plug and play" format to remove those pesky qualifiers or just fill out a questionnaire.

You can refuse people of certain groups and maybe a law suit will catch up to you, maybe not, but using the right verbiage will go a long way towards safely rigging the game.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> We are getting into the discrimination plenty, but the riders are still a huge pet of this. Taking away a city's rights to impact their own economy is fucking crazy. I cannot believe that part went through.



A city's job is to administrate the city and encourage the economy,  not dictate it.


----------



## Brill (Mar 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There is nothing like taking away the ability of a people to govern themselves.



Whoa there.  Isn't that EXACTLY what the Democrat party endorses (strong government to take care of the people)?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 25, 2016)

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/abux?_ccid=false&_cc=__dbbl


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 25, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> A business should be able to not hire someone.


Sorry for the late arrival. I agree with this statement. However,


> Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire.


This I strongly disagree with. If you are not going to hire someone there needs to be a documented reason why. As someone who has spent several years going through oral boards, interviews, tests, and more it is frustrating to no end to not get any constructive feedback on what is happening. For the past five years I have applied to every law enforcement agency within 50 miles of me and have only once been given a reason why I was not hired. Now, I am not blaming all of them or even most of them, but some constructive feedback would be helpful, and it would allow me to determine if a previous employer is actively sabotaging my efforts for employment.

Quite frankly, it is bullshit for businesses or agencies to not provide a legitimate reason as to why someone is not an acceptable candidate. It costs the company nothing to provide the reason as whoever does the hiring has already singled them out for one reason or another. Is it wrong to know that reason? How else is the work pool supposed to grow and support the market? How else do we stop people from discrimination and keep the system in check? As @Freefalling metioned, there is a way to minimize the odds against being sued, but at least the individual will have a simpler time going up against a corporation/business that will have vast more legal resources than the applicant. Forcing companies to interact better with the applicant pool will save them liability in the long run, and help to increase the quality of the applicant pool. It will also help to deter people from applying for jobs that they are not qualified for.



> Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?


No, never. In a perfect world these would not even be a consideration, but let's face it. This world is anything but.



> Let the market figure itself out.


The idea that the market can self correct a problem is wishful at best. There are rare instances where it has, but overall it does not. How do you propose a large company like Microsoft, Apple, or Google correct itself when they are leaders within their respective fields? As we see in politics, the public (also sometimes the market) has a very short memory. As with anything in life, balance is the key. Companies do not need free reign to do as they please, but they also do not need to be constricted to the point of being micro managed. Make it an even playing field for all to succeed on their merits alone.  Additionally, what if the hiring body is government, then what recourse is there for correction?

Sorry for the split quoting, but there were parts I agreed and disagreed with. This made it easier to split them out.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> Whoa there.  Isn't that EXACTLY what the Democrat party endorses (strong government to take care of the people)?



Apparently that is also what the GOP is doing here in NC. I have found that most often democrats want to add services, while the republicans want to legislate morality through government. Both want to add government, don't get it twisted.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Apparently that is also what the GOP is doing here in NC. I have found that most often democrats want to add services, while the republicans want to legislate morality through government. Both want to add government, don't get it twisted.


Agreed, although not typically in a benign manner. Usually it is to add services whether the public wants/can afford them or not. Both do it to line their pockets at the expense of the electorate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 25, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Agreed, although not typically in a benign manner. Usually it is to add services whether the public wants/can afford them or not. Both do it to line their pockets at the expense of the electorate.



I agree.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You can reject people based upon X all day long and until the end of time with the right wording. You can say the technical interview didn't go well or another candidate had better "soft skills" or one of a billion reasons.
> 
> If you want true equality you remove any possible connection to race, gender, age, etc. from a resume. All of it. Volunteered at the local NAACP office? "Volunteered x hours for political action group" or some such nonsense. Strip all of it away. Make a resume a "plug and play" format to remove those pesky qualifiers or just fill out a questionnaire.
> 
> You can refuse people of certain groups and maybe a law suit will catch up to you, maybe not, but using the right verbiage will go a long way towards safely rigging the game.



Absolutely.

And you'd have to have interviews through an intermediate surrogate so potential employers wouldn't  be influenced by a candidate's features or voice.

Ask anybody over 50 what kind of excuses they get when they're turned down for employment. Rampant discrimination--for whatever reason--exists and as far as I can tell there's very little anybody can do about it without an outlay for legal help.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Apparently that is also what the GOP is doing here in NC. I have found that most often democrats want to add services, while the republicans want to legislate morality through government. Both want to add government, don't get it twisted.



I would argue that the Republicans are not regulating morality but preserving the rights of everyone. If the owner of a private company has personal, religious, etc  reason against (pick a topic), who is the Government to intervene and demand services?  

If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a military retirement, let market forces dictate whether that business thrives or dies. Edit: you absolutely CAN be a racist in this country however there are CIVIL penalties involved (judge says you owe money cuz you're an idiot).  You don't bake a cake for a same-sex couple and the penalties are CRIMINAL (judge says you're going to jail because you may hold a religious belief)! WTF?

If the State of Alabama doesn't want gay marriage why is there public outrage yet when the State of Mayrland doesn't M4s, it's ok? Gun ownership has become a moral decision in blue states.

Democrats are shoving shit down the people's throat and obviously they're not ready for it. They need to settle this in the ballot box and if (when) the people don't like it, start grassroots or move.

GA's bill is actually worse than NC's.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 15, 2016)

Funny how NO ONE in the media has made mention of the fact that the Charlotte ord., which started this whole debacle, originated with a convicted SEX OFFENDER.

North Carolina Offender Registry

And here's our idiot mayor applauding his efforts in doing so.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Funny how NO ONE in the media has made mention of the fact that the Charlotte ord., which started this whole debacle, originated with a convicted SEX OFFENDER.
> 
> North Carolina Offender Registry
> 
> And here's our idiot mayor applauding his efforts in doing so.



It is also funny that the Governor has now made an executive action allowing the protections he took away from normal citizens for state employees. It is such an obvious indicator of the absurdity of a law like this.


----------



## Etype (Apr 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There is nothing like taking away the ability of a people to govern themselves. NC's state government has passed a bill that removed a city's ability to effectively govern itself, or to incentivize people moving to their city/county. For a republican controlled house they seem pretty anti-free market. Isn't taking away power from the lower units and giving it to the central power what Republicans should hate more than anything?(other than immigrants,gays, Obama, and women's rights)
> 
> McCrory signs bill barring LGBT protections against discrimination :: WRAL.com
> 
> Obviously I'm against this, but not just for the discrimination piece. They are also keeping cities from changing minimum wages, and in my eyes trying to remove their ability to govern. Anyone have any reason this is good? Or necessary?


R vs. D has really just become two warring organized crime factions.  You can't stay on top of the political racketeering game when your underlings (counties, cities) are doing whatever they want.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So they should be able to not hire someone because they are black? Latino? Come on dude, that is fucking ridiculous.


Federal law prohibits that type of discrimination, so your example is disingenuous.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Federal law prohibits that type of discrimination, so your example is disingenuous.



Yeah because states never push the boundaries?


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 15, 2016)

Libs Don't Want You To Know This HUGE Fact About N.C. Bathroom Law...

I have not been following this story closely,  and I question how much work this person is a actually involved in, but it puts facts on paper that allowing anyone to pick the bathroom they use puts children in danger. I don't want a guy going to the bathroom with one of my children in there.  Living very close to the NC border,  this is something that would impact me in making the decision to head to one of our favorite restaurants to eat dinner at.  While I fully support the rights of lesbians and gays,  I cannot stand behind a bill that has too many gray areas that can be abused by anyone,  in particular sex offenders.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Libs Don't Want You To Know This HUGE Fact About N.C. Bathroom Law...
> 
> I have not been following this story closely,  and I question how much work this person is a actually involved in, but it puts facts on paper that allowing anyone to pick the bathroom they use puts children in danger. I don't want a guy going to the bathroom with one of my children in there.  Living very close to the NC border,  this is something that would impact me in making the decision to head to one of our favorite restaurants to eat dinner at.  While I fully support the rights of lesbians and gays,  I cannot stand behind a bill that has too many gray areas that can be abused by anyone,  in particular sex offenders.



Bro, sex offenders can go to the bathroom wherever they want, whenever they want. Your kids could have weirdos in the bathroom with them right now. 

I don't get the sex offender bathroom talk. One, it equates falsely transgendered people as deviants. Two, these laws don't serve to keep sex offenders out anymore than the previous law.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Bro, sex offenders can go to the bathroom wherever they want, whenever they want. Your kids could have weirdos in the bathroom with them right now.
> 
> I don't get the sex offender bathroom talk. One, it equates falsely transgendered people as deviants. Two, these laws don't serve to keep sex offenders out anymore than the previous law.



Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier.  N. Carolina has created a law to which there was not problem that needed a solution.  I freeking hate it when politicians get laws passed based on some religious agenda.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Bro, sex offenders can go to the bathroom wherever they want, whenever they want. Your kids could have weirdos in the bathroom with them right now.
> 
> I don't get the sex offender bathroom talk. One, it equates falsely transgendered people as deviants. Two, these laws don't serve to keep sex offenders out anymore than the previous law.



Correct,  but at least of they were to go into the incorrect bathroom knowingly,  you have some ground to fry them. And, when one of the leading voices (at least according to that article) for this is a sex offender, it should make you cautious about the motives behind them being involved.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier.  *N. Carolina has created a law to which there was not problem that needed a solution*.  I freeking hate it when politicians get laws passed based on some religious agenda.



No. CHARLOTTE created an ordinance in which there was no problem. That ordinance created the possibility of an ideal environment for perverts, pedophiles, and biological males, to wander the confines of shared facilities with women and children. The defense being as simple as "I identify as a female - and that's why I'm in here." And to those that say* "*These laws don't serve to keep sex offenders out anymore than the previous law" um, yeah, they do. You got a "Johnson?" Then go hang it either in the men's room or a unisex single stall bathroom. The state responded because of it. Women shouldn't have to feel unsure or uncomfortable in a facility, let alone, their children. 

And it wasn't primarily a religious agenda that created the backlash. It was people with common sense, regardless of party affiliation, with wives and daughters. There are those, that no matter how much you can try to make sense to, will never understand (Or care for that matter) that the ordinance in question was not a referendum, but a directorate, by a mayor, in response to a push for it by a group known as the Charlotte Business Guild - WHO'S PRESIDENT IS A PEDOPHILE. In other words, a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER.

I for one, stand by the governor for taking action. There are still a majority in this state - that still have morals, deeply held values and beliefs, unlike those in the mainstream, who threaten to take their ball and go somewhere else to play.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 16, 2016)

@Centermass obviously you feel strongly about this. Having no morals I guess my question would be why?

This is like gun control laws to me. Gun control laws only affect those who follow the law, right? So criminals-which pedophiles most certainly are- will still be free to roam the women's restrooms, pee standing next to your little boy, and all the other nasty shit they may do. Because that is what criminals do.

The next time a woman walks into a men's room and takes a piss standing up next to a little boy, I won't feel bad for the traumatized child, or the traumatized parent, because at least some sex offender wasn't possibly able to maybe take advantage of a law to look at little Susy peeing.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 16, 2016)

The vast majority (high 90%s) of child sex offenders are known to the victim. You're more likely to win lotto than for a child sex offender to randomly offend against your child in a public bathroom.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 16, 2016)

To me, the "perv" factor, while potential, isn't _that _big a deal (as a reason to endorse this law).  To me, it's as simple as: you have a pee-pee and an urethra that dangles outside, you go to the men's room.  You have a va-jay-jay and an upward-bound urethra?  Go to the women's room.  There is no discrimination: you have a bathroom available to use.  I simply don't believe you get to choose what you _think_ you are by what you _feel_.  The fact that we even have to discuss a law around this issue shows the depravity of society.

I will also say that I believed that McCrory would walk back the other anti-discrimination laws.  The fact that the state and the feds were so different was absurd; just make it the same as the fed law and you are good to go (which, I believe, is what McCrory suggested).  I don't even know why they did away with those laws in the first place.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 16, 2016)

Ask restaurants (and other public/business locations) to put a unisex bathroom in addition to the other bathrooms, give them a dollar per dollar tax break for doing so.
Those who identify outside their biological sex can use that bathroom.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 16, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Libs Don't Want You To Know This HUGE Fact About N.C. Bathroom Law...
> 
> I have not been following this story closely,  and I question how much work this person is a actually involved in, but it puts facts on paper that allowing anyone to pick the bathroom they use puts children in danger. I don't want a guy going to the bathroom with one of my children in there.  Living very close to the NC border,  this is something that would impact me in making the decision to head to one of our favorite restaurants to eat dinner at.  While I fully support the rights of lesbians and gays,  I cannot stand behind a bill that has too many gray areas that can be abused by anyone,  in particular sex offenders.


Here's the thing: several states already have laws on the books that allow transgender people to use bathrooms that fit their gender identity.  Wanna know how many sexual assaults have occurred as a result? Zero.
This ridiculous "bathroom panic" has absolutely no basis in logic and is completely rooted in fear.  Just let people use the damn bathrooms.


----------



## AWP (Apr 16, 2016)

None of this will matter in a generation when we're all using the same bathrooms.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Here's the thing: several states already have laws on the books that allow transgender people to use bathrooms that fit their gender identity.  Wanna know how many sexual assaults have occurred as a result? Zero.
> This ridiculous "bathroom panic" has absolutely no basis in logic and is completely rooted in fear.  Just let people use the damn bathrooms.



I think the predator/assault argument is a red herring with a base of legitimacy.  My issue IS logic.  How do you get to identify as anything you want?  Can you be a man and identify as a woman?  A woman and identify as a cat and go in a litter box?  Since when does one get the right to say to hell with my biology and genetics, I am a fill-in-the-blank?  We all saw this coming when that moron Rachel Dolezal, a Caucasian with Caucasian parents, identified as a black.

To be sure I don't have an issue with a single-use unisex bathroom.  But a men's room or ladies room where one can just walk into because you _feel_ like something else?  That's just pathologically fucked up.


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 16, 2016)

So, something just occurred to me with this issue and some of the comments here. Much of the support for the bathroom law is centered on the fear that someone “could” abuse it for nefarious purposes. However, most of us here are avid proponents for our gun rights, which has to deal with the often tried argument from anti-gunners “someone ‘could’ abuse it for nefarious purposes”.

Exactly how is this argument any different? Because one is “moral” and one is not? Based on whose morality? Just like many of us do not want others sexuality or religion crammed down our throats (no pun intended), neither should we force ours down anyone else’s.

If we are to argue that your rights stop where mine begin (ie.. the right to defend yourself) why should someone’s right to think they can be whatever gender they want be any different? The majority of the gun argument, and many others, is based on the individual’s right to choose what is best for them. We all have agreed at one point or another (whether vocally or through our service), that everyone is free to make their own decisions, no matter how stupid they may seem to us.

So again, if this is the case with our “God given” rights, why is this even an issue? Think homos and company are deviants? Fine, you have that right. However, just remember that just as many of us believe that the other party’s rights end where ours begin when it comes to self-defense, free speech, etc… the same also applies to people who want to call themselves whatever they want. Also, most of us know that we do not let our children go unattended into a public bathroom anyway.

On a separate note, the state could have likely handled the situation better with the city that started the ball rolling on this episode. Anyway, I know many will not agree with what I wrote, and that is ok, I just hope it causes a few to stop and think the issue through a bit better. I also wanted to stir the pot a bit lol :-"


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 16, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> So, something just occurred to me with this issue and some of the comments here. Much of the support for the bathroom law is centered on the fear that someone “could” abuse it for nefarious purposes. However, most of us here are avid proponents for our gun rights, which has to deal with the often tried argument from anti-gunners “someone ‘could’ abuse it for nefarious purposes”.
> 
> Exactly how is this argument any different? Because one is “moral” and one is not? Based on whose morality? Just like many of us do not want others sexuality or religion crammed down our throats (no pun intended), neither should we force ours down anyone else’s.
> 
> ...



Bad analogy. A convicted felon loses their right to owning a firearm.  
Are we going to make all felons now walk around with catheters?


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 16, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Bad analogy. A convicted felon loses their right to owning a firearm.
> Are we going to make all felons now walk around with catheters?


Negative, a good analogy. A convicted sex offender must stay away from children, schools, playgrounds.etc.. and is required to register where they live and be susceptible to search and inspection at their house at all times by law enforcement. So the argument could be made that it is worse to be registered as an offender than to just lose your gun rights. The analogy still stands.


----------



## AWP (Apr 16, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> So, something just occurred to me with this issue and some of the comments here. Much of the support for the bathroom law is centered on the fear that someone “could” abuse it for nefarious purposes. However, most of us here are avid proponents for our gun rights, which has to deal with the often tried argument from anti-gunners “someone ‘could’ abuse it for nefarious purposes”.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 16, 2016)

None of this really matters until the first cases make it to trial for the beat downs that are going to occur when men are going to go into the female bathrooms and the husbands and fathers aren't going to appreciate it. 

I know that when I am waiting on my wife or daughter-in-law at the theater or mall...and dudette decides he is feeling feminine that day, he isn't getting past me. I'll deal with the consequences later.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> @Centermass obviously you feel strongly about this. Having no morals I guess my question would be why?



C'mon dude. I never accused you of having no morals. Ever dealt with a peeper, predator or molester? That's why.



TLDR20 said:


> This is like gun control laws to me. Gun control laws only affect those who follow the law, right? So criminals-which pedophiles most certainly are- will still be free to roam the women's restrooms, pee standing next to your little boy, and all the other nasty shit they may do. Because that is what criminals do.
> 
> The next time a woman walks into a men's room and takes a piss standing up next to a little boy, I won't feel bad for the traumatized child, or the traumatized parent, because at least some sex offender wasn't possibly able to maybe take advantage of a law to look at little Susy peeing.



Ok. Now we're just getting stupid.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

Centermass said:


> C'mon dude. I never accused you of having no morals. Ever dealt with a peeper, predator or molester? That's why.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Now we're just getting stupid.



No, you implied that people who are against this have the moral high ground though. You said "there are still people in NC with morals." That is an absurd thing to say.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Negative, a good analogy. A convicted sex offender must stay away from children, schools, playgrounds.etc.. and is required to register where they live and be susceptible to search and inspection at their house at all times by law enforcement. So the argument could be made that it is worse to be registered as an offender than to just lose your gun rights. The analogy still stands.



No where in your argument have you addressed a bathroom, though.  If you want to ban them from using a public toilet, okay then. We are making headway.

Things like this is why I appreciate this forum. There is not group-think on every topic here and I enjoy reading and having a good discussion with those who think differently. It's good to see where others are coming from and why.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No, you implied that people who are against this have the moral high ground though. You said "there are still people in NC with morals." That is an absurd thing to say.



You can also add principles and beliefs to my absurd comments as well.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Ask restaurants (and other public/business locations) to put a unisex bathroom in addition to the other bathrooms, give them a dollar per dollar tax break for doing so.
> Those who identify outside their biological sex can use that bathroom.



Not sure it would be worth the cost for them to capitulate to a 0.3% population group.. would be better just to call it a "family restroom" and have it more functional.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 17, 2016)

Centermass said:


> No. CHARLOTTE created an ordinance in which there was no problem. That ordinance created the possibility of an ideal environment for perverts, pedophiles, and biological males, to wander the confines of shared facilities with women and children. The defense being as simple as "I identify as a female - and that's why I'm in here." And to those that say* "*These laws don't serve to keep sex offenders out anymore than the previous law" um, yeah, they do. You got a "Johnson?" Then go hang it either in the men's room or a unisex single stall bathroom. The state responded because of it. Women shouldn't have to feel unsure or uncomfortable in a facility, let alone, their children.
> 
> And it wasn't primarily a religious agenda that created the backlash. It was people with common sense, regardless of party affiliation, with wives and daughters. There are those, that no matter how much you can try to make sense to, will never understand (Or care for that matter) that the ordinance in question was not a referendum, but a directorate, by a mayor, in response to a push for it by a group known as the Charlotte Business Guild - WHO'S PRESIDENT IS A PEDOPHILE. In other words, a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER.
> 
> I for one, stand by the governor for taking action. There are still a majority in this state - that still have morals, deeply held values and beliefs, unlike those in the mainstream, who threaten to take their ball and go somewhere else to play.



The most brilliant example of an appeal to fear and argumentum ad populum I've seen this week.

And we're in a presidential campaign year, so that's really saying something.  I'm still wiping coffee off my keyboard.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 18, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Not sure it would be worth the cost for them to capitulate to a 0.3% population group.. would be better just to call it a "family restroom" and have it more functional.




Unisex/family, same concept.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 18, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Unisex/family, same concept.



I am up for that.  One user (or family), one bathroom.  Locked door.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 18, 2016)

Problem solved.


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 18, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> No where in your argument have you addressed a bathroom, though.  If you want to ban them from using a public toilet, okay then. We are making headway.
> 
> Things like this is why I appreciate this forum. There is not group-think on every topic here and I enjoy reading and having a good discussion with those who think differently. It's good to see where others are coming from and why.


The bathroom is just one part of the overall picture. Thing is, if you are a parent worthy of the title, you already do not send your young children into a public restroom unattended. Someone does not have to be a sexual predator to be a danger to your children. The law is pointless and does nothing to fix the problem, much like the multitude of gun laws on the books and proposed by gun control advocates.

I also appreciate the forum and your responses. It is a good way to flesh out (bad pun) new ideas, and to see old ones from new angles. Thanks for the lively debate!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 18, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> The bathroom is just one part of the overall picture. Thing is, if you are a parent worthy of the title, you already do not send your young children into a public restroom unattended. Someone does not have to be a sexual predator to be a danger to your children. The law is pointless and does nothing to fix the problem, much like the multitude of gun laws on the books and proposed by gun control advocates.
> 
> I also appreciate the forum and your responses. It is a good way to flesh out (bad pun) new ideas, and to see old ones from new angles. Thanks for the lively debate!



Back when my wee ones were using public rest rooms, my concern was about health risks as much as anything else. How filthy was the place. If he had to take a crap, he sat on several layers of toilet paper even after some lysol spray.   If the urinal he had to use was too high for him to hit, it was the crapper, or Dad held him up high enough. Those reasons are in place for my grand kids today. One is in middle school now, and I still go in with him for the health, and what he touches reasons. My concern about interfacing with a pedarast or some drunk/drugged mindless idiot is there to some degree, and if it comes up, I'll be there for that too. The older they get, the more my reason seems to be that I gotta go too.

One question is, @ what age do you feel comfortable letting your kids use the public restroom on his/her own?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 18, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> The bathroom is just one part of the overall picture. Thing is, if you are a parent worthy of the title, you already do not send your young children into a public restroom unattended. Someone does not have to be a sexual predator to be a danger to your children.



Hmmm, I think I've earned/earning the title of being a good father. I've been in several situations where I could not attend my daughters in the restroom. Not taking them into the men's, and when mom or another trusted woman is not around, you're a bit out of options, try to knock on doors clear it out if you can, call an employee if possible, but when a 4 year girl with a full bladder is doing the pee-pee dance. You run short on options.


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Back when my wee ones were using public rest rooms, my concern was about health risks as much as anything else. How filthy was the place. If he had to take a crap, he sat on several layers of toilet paper even after some lysol spray.   If the urinal he had to use was too high for him to hit, it was the crapper, or Dad held him up high enough. Those reasons are in place for my grand kids today. One is in middle school now, and I still go in with him for the health, and what he touches reasons. My concern about interfacing with a pedarast or some drunk/drugged mindless idiot is there to some degree, and if it comes up, I'll be there for that too. The older they get, the more my reason seems to be that I gotta go too.
> 
> One question is, @ what age do you feel comfortable letting your kids use the public restroom on his/her own?


All excellent points. As to your question, that is a difficult call. Mine is only 6 at the moment, but he will not go by himself until he is able to defend himself from an advance, or I can see who is coming and going. As with anything, I think a degree of common sense would be called for and no solution fits all contingencies. @Diamondback 2/2, I don't have a little girl so I don't know what to do, I would probably use the same thought process you do when formulating a solution for this specific problem.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 18, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Hmmm, I think I've earned/earning the title of being a good father. I've been in several situations where I could not attend my daughters in the restroom. Not taking them into the men's, and when mom or another trusted woman is not around, you're a bit out of options, try to knock on doors clear it out if you can, call an employee if possible, but when a 4 year girl with a full bladder is doing the pee-pee dance. You run short on options.



BTDT. I took her into the men's room with me, in my arms. Straight to the crapper, and then it was business as usual. When she was done, it was from the crapper straight out of the rest room. I used as many handi wipes as it took to clean her hands. If the sink area was shielded, we would do a hand wash. I never heard a bad remark.

I little tip. Next time you are at Walmart, Kroger, drug store, pick up a couple of boxes of the small cotton alcohol swabs. They are the same ones the nurses clean your skin with before a needle stick. They are High Grade  bug killers, that you can carry in your pocket. I usually have a dozen or so. They are good enough for a quick hand clean (takes 2 or 3), quick clean small surfaces, clean your wiper blades. Get them, and carry them, you will find many uses for them, and they are the best bug killers you can carry.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 18, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Unisex/family, same concept.



lol.. sorry.. yeah.. I was agreeing with you


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 18, 2016)

I don't get to see Pearl Jam this week due to this law. They canceled their show as a protest. Fucking backwards ass NC


----------



## Frank S. (Apr 18, 2016)

Couple remarks. Because of the drought, restrooms around here have low-flow sinks and soap dispensers. The dispensers in particular, often are empty. Hence public restrooms, especially crowded, are bug incubators. 
Sex offenders. Watch out for them outside restrooms, too, not just inside. They won't all be weenie-waggers, so there's no one size for all, but the behavior will be hinky enough to warrant a second and third look at the individual. One precaution parents can take when taking the young uns in public, in the age of cell phones: take a picture of them, from head to toe. If there's more than one child, take individual pictures, not in group. Worst case, abduction, perp may try and change their appearance by putting a hat on the kid, maybe a tee-shirt or sweater of different style/color. But they usually won't take the time to bother with shoes. Hence the head to toe picture. When I look for a lost kid at work, I scan the crowd for size,then narrow down to shoes, provided we have the proper decsrip.

Which we rarely do.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't get to see Pearl Jam this week due to this law. They canceled their show as a protest. Fucking backwards ass NC



I fucking hate this for you. Goddamn bands alienate a huge segment of their fan base by doing these publicity stunts. 

Saw Bruce Springsteen was the first to do so, that actually made me laugh as I think many Bruce fans (of which I am not) would be shocked at the political leanings of their "Boss".


----------



## Centermass (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't get to see Pearl Jam this week due to this law. They canceled their show as a protest. Fucking backwards ass NC



Cry me a river........:-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 18, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I fucking hate this for you. Goddamn bands alienate a huge segment of their fan base by doing these publicity stunts.
> 
> Saw Bruce Springsteen was the first to do so, that actually made me laugh as I think many Bruce fans (of which I am not) would be shocked at the political leanings of their "Boss".



Yeah. Instead of using a packed stadium as a platform they cancel the show.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 18, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Cry me a river........:-"



I will. I'm out 49 dollars in fees to ticketmaster. Prolly a 1000 people won't work Wednesday night, not to mention the prolly million dollars that would have been injected into the local economy by 50K people buying drinks dinner, transport to and from.... Pearl Jam chose what I think is a bad path, but it is impactful.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah. Instead of using a packed stadium as a platform they cancel the show.



Yep!  Should have taken a cue from U2...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I will. I'm out 49 dollars in fees to ticketmaster. Prolly a 1000 people won't work Wednesday night, not too mention the prolly million dollars that would have been injected into the local economy by 50K people buying drinks dinner, transport to and from.... Pearl Jam chose what I think is a bad path, but it is impactful.


I would be surprised if the venue doesn't try to collect their fees, or some TV Lawyer files a Class Action Suit to get those fees back.
It may not be a lot of money to Pearl Jam, but it would be a good lesson in Contract Law.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm out 49 dollars in fees to ticketmaster.



Oh how I hate that FUCKING company.  Would the fees have been refunded if you had purchased their overpriced insurance?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 19, 2016)

Well....Target is opening the doors.  Literally.  I think I've been worn down, because I just don't care anymore.  If a woman (who feels like a man) comes in, she's going to use a stall. 

If a dude, (who feels like a woman) goes into the ladies room, he's going to have to use the stall.  

It will be an awakening for both...the man will realize how nice the ladies rooms are in many places, and the women will realize what literal shitholes most men's public restrooms are.

Good luck to both.

Target Makes a Stand on Transgender Bathroom Issue


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I will. I'm out 49 dollars in fees to ticketmaster. Prolly a 1000 people won't work Wednesday night, not to mention the prolly million dollars that would have been injected into the local economy by 50K people buying drinks dinner, transport to and from.... Pearl Jam chose what I think is a bad path, but it is impactful.



Reminds me of Carter pulling out of the Olympics over Iran, and what it meant to all our athletes. At least there is a potential of still seeing Pearl Jam in the future, unless they have pissed you off enough over their decision.


----------



## Etype (Apr 20, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Not sure it would be worth the cost for them to capitulate to a 0.3% population group.. would be better just to call it a "family restroom" and have it more functional.


I'm glad someone finally mentioned the size of the group we are playing to.

One transgender (most likely a man playing dress-up, because that's what most of them seem to be) goes into a restroom- he is comfortable at the expense of the possible discomfort of all others.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

You wanna make a political-social stand by deciding not to play a concert in NC?  OK, that's your right (without giving a nod to contract law).  You wanna make a political-social stand by not baking a cake?  You don't have the right to do that.  Oh, the irony.....


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> You wanna make a political-social stand by deciding not to play a concert in NC?  OK, that's your right (without giving a nod to contract law).  You wanna make a political-social stand by not baking a cake?  You don't have the right to do that.  Oh, the irony.....



Bingo!

The hypocrisy is deafening.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

What do these guys have in common?

   

All 3 would now be forced to enter a women's restroom in Nc. All 3 of these people were born female. So much is made about transgendered men, or men dressing up like women. People like this being forced into a women's room seems awfully stupid to me.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What do these guys have in common?
> 
> <pictures of "guys">
> 
> All 3 would now be forced to enter a women's restroom in Nc. All 3 of these people were born female. So much is made about transgendered men, or men dressing up like women. People like this being forced into a women's room seems awfully stupid to me.



You a big fan of Diane Schroer too?


----------



## Brill (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> All 3 would now be forced to enter a women's restroom in Nc. All 3 of these people were born female. So much is made about transgendered men, or men dressing up like women. People like this being forced into a women's room seems awfully stupid to me.



Forced? Really?

*imposed by cocercion or physical power

Are people of NC "forced" to drive the speed limit in NC too?


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> You a big fan of Diane Schroer too?



Ooooohhhh burn.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Forced? Really?
> 
> Are you "forced" to drive the speed limit in NC too?



Dude come on. The law is the law. This is the stupidest thing I have seen posted in this thread, other than @Florida173 's post.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Forced? Really?
> 
> Are people of NC "forced" to drive the speed limit in NC too?



If your best argument for a law is "people are just going to do what they want anyway" it is a stupid fucking law.


----------



## Brill (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> If your best argument for a law is "people are just going to do what they want anyway" it is a stupid fucking law.



I'm simply questioning the extreme rhetoric. Passion is great but be honest: nobody is being forced to go anywhere...there are simply sanctions IF a complaint is lodged.

Personally, I think the law is stupid however if the majority want it, I'm on board.  However, once someone is arrested and fined/jailed, they will have standing in appellate courts.

Has anyone been injured by this new law?  I'm confident the ACLU is chomping at the bit for this one.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'm simply questioning the extreme rhetoric. Passion is great but be honest: nobody is being forced to go anywhere...there are simply sanctions IF a complaint is lodged.
> 
> Personally, I think the law is stupid however if the majority want it, I'm on board.  However, once someone is arrested and fined/jailed, they will have standing in appellate courts.
> 
> Has anyone been injured by this new law?  I'm cnfdent the ACLU is chomping at the bit for this one.



Bro the law says you cannot use the bathroom unless it is for your biological sex. So you would be breaking the law doing otherwise. That isn't rhetoric, that is factual. 

What you are saying is I'm not forced to follow the speed limit, there are simply sanctions IF I get caught. That is literally the definition of breaking the law....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 20, 2016)

Technically a witness or conclusive evidence, or admission of guilt would be necessary for you to have broken the law. Legally speaking.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Technically a witness or conclusive evidence would be necessary for you to have broken the law. Legally speaking.



Oh is that right?

To me that seems like the definition of a conviction.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh is that right?
> 
> To me that seems like the definition of a conviction.



One in the same my brother, if you're not convicted, it didn't happen. Now morally that sounds fucking wrong, but legally it's the way it is.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> One in the same my brother, if you're not convicted, it didn't happen. Now morally that sounds fucking wrong, but legally it's the way it is.



I don't know man. I don't think people should have to live in fear of being caught for laws that are stupid.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know man. I don't think people should have to live in fear of being caught for laws that are stupid.



I do agree, hints my views on a whole slew of laws in society and my point in the other thread about if trans people are not acting a fool and are being discreet, nobody knows the wiser. Yet if they are acting border line indecent, some laws would protect them, while removing protection for the other side of this argument. But I digress, as I've already offered my opinions and reasoning's, and tend to feel it falls upon deaf ears (or blind eyes in this format). 

Edit for spelling.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I do agree, hints my views on a whole slew of laws in society and my point in the other thread about if trans people are not acting a fool and are being discreet, nobody knows the wiser. Yet if they are acting border line indecent, some laws would protect them, while removing protection for the other side of this argument. But I digress, as I've already offered my opinions and reasoning's, and tend to feel it falls upon death ears (or eyes in this format).



Dude you need to work on your idioms.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Dude you need to work on your idioms.



I hate you.


----------



## Brill (Apr 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Bro the law says you cannot use the bathroom unless it is for your biological sex. So you would be breaking the law doing otherwise.
> 
> What you are saying is I'm not forced to follow the speed limit, there are simply sanctions IF I get caught. That is literally the definition of breaking the law....



My point is: so it's against the law, big deal who cares? Are there REALLY "pecker checkers" posted outside private bathrooms in NC? Is anyone really going to know f the law is violated?

Lois Lerner broke the law, Hillary Clinton broke the law, Eric Holder broke the law, etc.

The Executive Branch, who is legally bound to enforce the laws of the US, is pretty wishy washy on issues much worse than this.

Prosecutorial Discretion and the Expansion of Executive Power:  An Analysis of the Holder Memorandum

Regardless, I'm not seeing anywhere in here where it says who can or cannot use facilites but this bill is about the CREATION of multi-sex bathrooms.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> My point is: so it's against the law, big deal who cares? Are there REALLY "pecker checkers" posted outside private bathrooms in NC? Is anyone really going to know f the law is violated?
> 
> Lois Lerner broke the law, Hillary Clinton broke the law, Eric Holder broke the law, etc.
> 
> ...



Can you go a single post without talking about Hillary? Fuck man it is getting to be a broken record.

For the second part, this law is about restricting the use of bathrooms to the biological sex at birth. If you think it says something different your opinion would be groundbreaking. It certainly isn't about the creation of multiple sex bathrooms.


----------



## AWP (Apr 21, 2016)

Hillary was on the grassy knoll.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 21, 2016)

Brian Williams was on the grassy knoll.

Hillary is committing the crime of being 1968 campaign Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.

Shit, we're still talking about Hillary here.  @lindy , you are good.


----------



## Brill (Apr 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Can you go a single post without talking about Hillary? Fuck man it is getting to be a broken record.
> 
> For the second part, this law is about restricting the use of bathrooms to the biological sex at birth. If you think it says something different your opinion would be groundbreaking. It certainly isn't about the creation of multiple sex bathrooms.



Maybe that debate style works on MSNBC or moveon.org but here I thought it was customary to actually cite material that supports a particular stance/viewpoint. Anytime someone offers an opposing viewpoint, you go on the direct attack without even supporting your position but add even more emotion.  Your arguments are completely devoid of basic deductive logic or even supplemental facts either for or against.

I provided the bill and the text is pretty clear that there is no punishment therein. Where's the force or even punishment that you claim? The bill prohibits multiple sex bathrooms in government buildings because it authorizes single-sex only (inverse statement).

Here is a article that adds "transgender people have no legal right to the bathroom of their choosing" under the NC law but allows private businesses to operate as they see fit. (Absence of a right does not equal prohibition.) So Chick Fil-a can operate as is but XXX Fil-a can do whatever they want to include one bathroom for all customers. The venue of the Perl Jam concert was well within their ability to operate bathrooms as they wanted. Private companies may do the same even when the rent State facilities.

Understanding HB2: North Carolina’s newest law solidifies state’s role in defining discrimination

Nobody is being compelled or forced to do anything. Like other progressive agendas, this is "Facebook outrage" without any real damage occurring, unlike what the others that I mentioned have done...all are currently being sued. How many lawsuits are associated with the NC law? I'm confident they're coming but I didn't find any yet.

Then we come to this article that wraps it all up.

North Carolina Under Attack From the Left For Passage of House Bill 2 | RedState

Much ado about nothing.

The sky isn't falling, Rome isn't Bern'ing, and Trump isn't in the White House just yet.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> Maybe that debate style works on MSNBC or moveon.org but here I thought it was customary to actually cite material that supports a particular stance/viewpoint. Anytime someone offers an opposing viewpoint, you go on the direct attack without even supporting your position but add even more emotion.  Your arguments are completely devoid of basic deductive logic or even supplemental facts either for or against.



Nice try dude, my only direct attack was to say that you bring Hillary into every single fucking thread. It is tiresome. Even in a forum filled with people that hate Hillary, myself included, you go above and beyond. Bravo.

The law you posted was plenty of evidence for what I have said. I don't need to supply a source when you have done so. The law says what I have said it says from the beginning.




lindy said:


> I provided the bill and the text is pretty clear that there is no punishment therein. Where's the force or even punishment that you claim? The bill prohibits multiple sex bathrooms in government buildings because it authorizes single-sex only (inverse statement).



This bill has taken away a city's ability to add protections, and made void the protections offered previously that add to what the state says is ok.  Like the article you posted said,"The new law also nullified local ordinances around the state that would have expanded protections for the LGBT community." IF you do not think that that is harmful well then great, we disagree. I don't even think you live in my state, so why do you give a fuck?




lindy said:


> Here is a article that adds "transgender people have no legal right to the bathroom of their choosing" under the NC law but allows private businesses to operate as they see fit. (Absence of a right does not equal prohibition.) So Chick Fil-a can operate as is but XXX Fil-a can do whatever they want to include one bathroom for all customers. The venue of the Perl Jam concert was well within their ability to operate bathrooms as they wanted. Private companies may do the same even when the rent State facilities.



Here is the thing, from the link you provided:

Private businesses can establish their own practices concerning LGBT employees and customers; the new law does not allow so-called “public policy common law” complaints in state courts to challenge those practices.- This means that if someone does do something fucked up. People have no legal recourse.
The law limits how people pursue claims of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex or handicap in state courts. The law also means a city or county cannot set a minimum wage standard for private employers.



lindy said:


> Nobody is being compelled or forced to do anything. Like other progressive agendas, this is "Facebook outrage" without any real damage occurring, unlike what the others that I mentioned have done...all are currently being sued. How many lawsuits are associated with the NC law? I'm confident they're coming but I didn't find any yet.



So no one is affected by this? I am sure this person is. I am sure I can find a thousand stories like her's. But he is only .03 percent, so fuck them right? There is also the matter of what happened in VA today



lindy said:


> Then we come to this article that wraps it all up.
> 
> North Carolina Under Attack From the Left For Passage of House Bill 2 | RedState
> 
> ...



Yeah that last one is such a garbage source I don't know where to start. The only reference provided is from Govenor McCrory's Q/A about the bill. Which has been fact checked here, here, here another point here. Using an editorial like that, as if it is some sort of mike drop is disingenuous.


----------



## Brill (Apr 21, 2016)

Exactly!


----------

