NC bans anti-discrimination

[Brill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Yeah because states never push the boundaries?

 

[BloodStripe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Devildoc]

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]

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]

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 :-"

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