North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional

First topic message reminder :

On Wednesday night, in the course of just a few hours, North Carolina became the most anti-LGBTQ state in the country.

In a special session called for exactly this purpose—and which cost taxpayers $42,000 a day—the legislature passed a stunningly vicious, completely unprecedented bill stripping LGBTQ North Carolinians of their rights. The measure revokes local gay and trans nondiscrimination ordinances throughout the state, effectively legalizing anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and forbids trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. That includes trans public school students, many of whom will now, in effect, be barred from using the bathroom at school. Shortly after the legislature passed the bill—over the objections of every Senate Democrat, all of whom walked out of the chamber in protest—Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law. Explaining that he was eager to nullify Charlotte’s new LGBT nondiscrimination measure, McCrory wrote, “The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte.”

McCrory should know something about government overreach. The gallingly cruel bill he just signed doesn’t just transgress basic norms of decency and morality. It also violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

As interpreted by the Department of Education, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids discrimination against trans students in any school that receives federal funding. These schools are prohibited from excluding trans students from the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The new North Carolina law, dubbed H2, rebukes this federal mandate by forbidding public schools from allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom. That jeopardizes the more than $4.5 billion in federal education funding that North Carolina expected to receive in 2016. Without that money, many schools in the state—from kindergarten through college—will be unable to function. McCrory should prepare to explain to North Carolina parents why their children’s access to education is less important than degrading and demeaning trans students on account of their identity.

HB 2 is also unconstitutional—not maybe unconstitutional, or unconstitutional-before-the-right-judge, but in total contravention of established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the court dealt with a very similar law in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, when it invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances. As the court explained in Romer, the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singl[ing] out a certain class of citizens” and “impos[ing] a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Just like the law invalidated in Romer, HB 2 “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities.

HB 2 classifies and targets trans people on its face, rendering its anti-trans provisions immediately susceptible to Romer scrutiny. (Legislators justified this assault by claiming that trans nondiscrimination laws permit sexual predators to attack women in bathrooms, but this is pure and proven fiction, which cannot pass even lenient judicial review.) The law’s attack on gays and bisexuals, however, is slightly subtler. Instead of naming sexual minorities, the law bars municipalities from passing nondiscrimination laws that extend beyond the statewide standards—which, of course, do not forbid sexual orientation (or gender identity) discrimination. So, in practice, no city can legally protect its LGBT residents.

This artful workaround cannot save the rest of the bill. Under Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan, courts must attempt to glean whether a law with a disparate impact on minorities was motivated by discriminatory intent. To do so, courts examine several factors—all of which align chillingly with HB 2. For example, does the challenged law disproportionately affect one minority? (Yes.) Does the “historical background” reveal “a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes”? (Yes—the stated purpose of the law was to overturn Charlotte’s LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.) Do the events leading up to the law depart from normal decision-making procedures? (Yes; the legislature rammed the law through in record time with minimal discussion.) Does the legislative history reveal governmental animus? (Absolutely: From the start, Republican legislators have vocally supported HB 2 as an effort to disadvantage LGBT people.)

And even if a court were somehow not convinced that HB 2 runs afoul of Arlington Heights, another, even more venerable precedent controls: 1967’s Reitman v. Mulkey, whose continued vitality the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed. In Mulkey, the court confronted a purportedly neutral California law that prohibited any legislative interference with property owners’ right to refuse to sell or rent their property for any reason. The court rightly noted that even though the law did not explicitly mention discrimination, its “immediate design and intent” was to establish a “right to privately discriminate” in a manner that directly harmed minorities. Thus, the law’s efforts to leave discrimination as its subtext could not save it from crashing into the shoals of the Equal Protection Clause.

HB 2 is Mulkey redux. Actually, it is Mulkey combined with Arlington Heights, cast through the lens of Romer, refracted through the prism of Obergefell v. Hodges. In short, it is blatantly and brazenly unconstitutional, an appalling attempt to humiliate LGBT people, exclude them from the political process, and impose special burdens on their everyday lives. It cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, and it barely even pretends to be motivated by anything more than a desire to harm politically unpopular minorities. Such legislation is an affront to the Equal Protection Clause and to America’s constitutional tradition. One hundred and twenty years ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that our Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” On Wednesday, North Carolina created a new class, a lesser class, among its citizens. It is now up to the courts to remind the state of Harlan’s other admonition: “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/03/24/north_carolina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html

Here it is again dodge...


Normal for a human with regards to eyes... would definitely mean HAVING eyes... two of them... one underneath each eyebrow and either side of the nose... and both being in the functioning order that is expected as of intended biological design and purpose etc...!!!


Now you can define a word for me...!?


Define 'abnormal'...?





Or maybe you could educate us all as to what you think the correct definition of 'normal' is...!?

See what did I tell you.

One of my other many talents. lol


So he avoided stating what is normal over the colour of the eyes and define how or why he views that through normalization

States those with the loss of one eye are abnormal based on stating two is normal, failing to explain again how or why this is normal to him.

Fails to say between someone with two legs and someone with no legs


So clearly then evolution would be very much abnormal based off the standard measure and methodology on what is normal  to Tommy based on his description of the eyes that does not allow for adaption or change.


Maybe he would also like to explain how then he thinks evolution is abnormal?

I see he hoisted his flag of surrender again ha ha

I use the established and accepted definitions of words as found to be in and conclusively shared in meaning throughout all good English language dictionary's...



Please tell us where you get your definitions from. ..!?


And tell us what you think makes your 'definitions' superior to the others...!?

tommy

normal is defined by a dictionary term

WHAT complies with that term is decided by society

if society changes so does its ideas of WHAT is normal

1500 years ago it was "normal" for a rich man to be able to take the life of a serf with little interference

today I think things are a bit different

1500 years ago marriage by rape was normal and acceptable

I think today normal demands a diferent standard

50 -60 years ago homosexual relations were punished by jail time
today "normal" demands other standards....


so you are being (once again) deliberately thick in your definition of normal....

the argument isnt about what "normal means" its about what is considered "normal"

hence the request for you to define normal...I.e what behaviour/attributes YOU consider constitutes "normal"

I cant beleive I just had to make that explanation to someone who considers himself "intelligent"

Tommy Monk wrote:

I use the established and accepted definitions of words as found to be in and conclusively shared in meaning throughout all good English language dictionary's...



Please tell us where you get your definitions from. ..!?


And tell us what you think makes your 'definitions' superior to the others...!?

So being that we have established anything that you deem against what you define as normal, whether that be adaption of changes is then abnormal to you.

Means that as you are classified socially as white, based on your pale skin, you are by your own view abnormal

As you believe evolution is abnormal

I see the surrender flag is up again

Lord Foul wrote:I cant beleive I just had to make that explanation to someone who considers himself "intelligent"

I am using the current established definition of words in my postings...


Who are you to say the definitions of words i use are something else...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I cant beleive I just had to make that explanation to someone who considers himself "intelligent"

I am using the current established definition of words in my postings...


Who are you to say the definitions of words i use are something else...!?

As I thought tommy, the argument is beyond you


YOU are defining the word normal

what is required is that you define what acts, ideas etc you consider normal

as these are the things that are "transient" and are purely socially defined

I suggest you read my post above again where I gave some examples of how "what" is considered normal has changed over the years....

I am using the current established definition of words in my postings... 


You are claiming the different definitions... but fail to show any established authority on the matter other than your own personal opinion and a bit of hubris...!

so you consider burning witches normal then?

please show an accepted definition that says homosexuality is not normal

you consider child labour "normal"?

the romans considered paedophillia "normal"


please show an accepted definition that says that being transgender does NOT fall into the possible range of "normal" for humans as a species (given that "humans" are a very variable and biologically unstable species in point of fact)

etc


defining the WORD "normal" is one thing

you fail to describe or define how it can be applied....

since "what" acts, ideals, etc are "normal" in one society may well not be so in another

take your definition of whats normal for eyes....

given the potential for genetic engineering ...that may well prove false in the future

the only thing that is "normal" is that what is normal depends on society.....

Lord Foul wrote:so you consider burning witches normal then?

please show an accepted definition that says homosexuality is not normal

you consider child labour "normal"?

the romans considered paedophillia "normal"


please show an accepted definition that says that being transgender does NOT fall into the possible range of "normal" for humans as a species (given that "humans" are a very variable and biologically unstable species in point of fact)

etc


defining the WORD "normal" is one thing

you fail to describe or define how it can be applied....

since "what" acts, ideals, etc are "normal" in one society may well not be so in another

take your definition of whats normal for eyes....

given the potential for genetic engineering ...that may well prove false in the future

the only thing that is "normal" is that what is normal depends on society.....

He ran away from my points, after posting up his surrender flag countless times

So he will just attempt instead to annoy you with being a clown.

Which he fails to register is him conceding lol

idiot tommy


cant see the difference between a word....normal
and things defined by that word (acts ideas etc....)

and fails to show any evidence that his interpretation of those acts etc actually conform to the definition of normal or otherwise....

so...once again tommy...please supply evidence that homosexual acts are not normal, in the context of modern society....

Trying to move the goalposts by restricting context now...?

nothing to do with that tommy...thats the whole point

the context of whats normal changes...

so you have to show (if you claim something is abnormal ) that it is so in the light of what society at the present time considers......

50-60 yeasr ago homiosexuality was considered abnormal

it isnt now...


society has changed the context...

and THAT applies to (almost) everything

do you still burn witches tommy?

if not why not

do you consider child labour acceptable??

if not why not....

Tommy's not obliged to think it's normal though, is he?

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy's not obliged to think it's normal though, is he?

But what is normal?

Is kissing normal?

Is oral sex normal?

Is anal sex normal?

Is love normal?

If sexual acts are normal and love is normal, how then can homosexuality be abnormal?

He's not going to think it's normal though. Perhaps "illogical" would be a better word?

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy's not obliged to think it's normal though, is he?

obviously not, however by the same argument defining "what" is normal, society can then consider HIM "abnormal"
vis

if society considers now that homosexuality is nomal and aceptable then clearly, by definition tommy is neither..... since he no longer conforms to the "norms" of that society

Raggamuffin wrote:He's not going to think it's normal though. Perhaps "illogical" would be a better word?

Blimey then you would send him into meltdown mode based on logic, when he cannot even reason normality.
What hope does he having or reasoning any logic?
So you want a logical reason.
Well is love logical?

If its not logical or any emotion logical then no relationship is logical based on love, yet love is something we all share and have in common.

Does that help?

No, I mean that perhaps Tommy thinks that homosexuality is illogical.

Raggamuffin wrote:No, I mean that perhaps Tommy thinks that homosexuality is illogical.

But again then love would have to be illogical as also would be attraction based on thinking homosexuality is illogical, so you have to reason why you would think it is illogical.

Thinking something is illogical has to be reasoned why

I suppose some might say it's illogical because the primary purpose of sex is to produce children.

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose some might say it's illogical because the primary purpose of sex is to produce children.

But then many people who have sex and do so not to have babies would be illogical based on that reasoning, which is the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose some might say it's illogical because the primary purpose of sex is to produce children.

ask an amoeba......

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose some might say it's illogical because the primary purpose of sex is to produce children.

But then many people who have sex and do so not to have babies would be illogical based on that reasoning, which is the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time.

Yes, but some might say that the design of the human is such that men with men is a bit illogical, and the same with females.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose some might say it's illogical because the primary purpose of sex is to produce children.

ask an amoeba......

I would but they don't speak my language.

you talk to tommy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



But then many people who have sex and do so not to have babies would be illogical based on that reasoning, which is the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time.

Yes, but some might say that the design of the human is such that men with men is a bit illogical, and the same with females.

Sorry, who is this designer?

Evolution?

So okay Rags, can you be physically attracted to any male, where you can turn on and off that attraction just by only seeing them?

When I say "designed", I'm not talking about design as such, so let's not go there, OK?

Perhaps "developed" would be a better word.

Raggamuffin wrote:When I say "designed", I'm not talking about design as such, so let's not go there, OK?

But Rags, I am not being personal but asking you to reason your points as to logic, which so far has not been logical, as it is conflicting.

So if you say developed, which is what evolution is adaption and change, why would homosexuality be then illogical?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:When I say "designed", I'm not talking about design as such, so let's not go there, OK?

But Rags, I am not being personal but asking you to reason your points as to logic, which so far has not been logical, as it is conflicting.

So if you say developed, which is what evolution is adaption and change, why would homosexuality be then illogical?

I really don't want to go into details tbh, but the anatomy of the human body has developed in a certain way which would make certain things illogical.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But Rags, I am not being personal but asking you to reason your points as to logic, which so far has not been logical, as it is conflicting.

So if you say developed, which is what evolution is adaption and change, why would homosexuality be then illogical?

I really don't want to go into details tbh, but the anatomy of the human body has developed in a certain way which would make certain things illogical.

But many of the things claimed to be developed are used sexually by homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals,
Which means they have logically adapted using those body parts, as they provide pleasure.

A man putting on a dress and calling himself a woman is not normal...


It is a deviance of a sexual nature!

Tommy Monk wrote:A man putting on a dress and calling himself a woman is not normal...


It is a deviance of a sexual nature!

A person who fails to scientifically and socially understand Transgender needs to be sentenced to 4 years resitting infants school.

So to you then heterosexuals are sexual deviants as well to Tommy

So to Tommy any Pantomine performers also are sexual perverts.

Including the SAS who recently dressed in Burkas to take out ISIS insurgents

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/635517/Islamic-State-ISIS-SAS-burkas-raid-headquarters-Syria-Raqqa-jihadi-leader


I would love to see Tommy tell these SAS they are sexual deviants

A burka isn't really a dress though is it?

Raggamuffin wrote:A burka isn't really a dress though is it?

Its a woman's dress or clothing...

Also these SAS pulled off being woman under cover

Tommy Monk wrote:A man putting on a dress and calling himself a woman is not normal...


It is a deviance of a sexual nature!

Do you think the fluff under your bed is sexually deviant too?

Tommy Monk wrote:A man putting on a dress and calling himself a woman is not normal...


It is a deviance of a sexual nature!

Some men put on dresses and are still very manly....many transvestites are normal red blooded males.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:A man putting on a dress and calling himself a woman is not normal...


It is a deviance of a sexual nature!

Some men put on dresses and are still very manly....many transvestites are normal red blooded males.

Eddie Izzard is highly intelligent, extremely successful, a transvestite and totally heterosexual

I fancy him in high heels and make up.

But then, I am a total deviant.

Eddie Izzard is fabulous. He has just completed 27 marathons in 27 days...proceeds going to Sports relief.

I wonder if everyone who knocks 'men in dresses' would be man enough to do this?

Does it include skirts? I'm thinking of all those men in kilts in Scotland.

Big difference between working undercover or doing a panto for a laugh and putting on a dress cos you think that makes you a woman...


Mental illness is what it is... and definitely not normal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EkGMlHxRQQ&feature=youtu.be


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/03/31/seth-meyers-takes-a-closer-look-at-recent-anti-lgbtq-bills-in-north-carolina-and-georgia/

A pesky minority eh...!?


I'd say it is more a case ggat some of the real minorities are being 'pesky'...!

https://www.facebook.com/sam.kalidi/videos/10153839893606622/