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

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:50 am

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

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:55 pm

paranoia dear, paranoia...

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:paranoia dear, paranoia...

I don't think so. You had your mod hat on at the time ...

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:08 pm

worry about it when it demonstrably happens.....

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm sure that Victor has said or implied that vegetarians are abnormal before, even though they fall within the expected norms.

But then you have to define 'normal' Raggs...!!!

lol!

But not much point in doing that here because Elmer seems to think that definition is 'transient'...

Quote lord fool...

"...the definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be..."

lol!

And as with any agenda driven dictator... only THEIR opinion is right and allowed... any other opinion will be suppressed and REMOVED...

Quote lord fool...

"...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court..."

lol!

Although Elmer... this is a court of public opinion... with people being able to express their views and opinions freely as long as they are abiding by the rules... if you judge my post to be breaking the rules enough to be removed then you have a responsibility to justify your actions within these same rules!

Still waiting for you to explain how my post broke any rules...!?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:22 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

So not allowed into either male/female toilets any more... as they should have a separate one for themselves!

Much like I said before...

are you erm...a bit dim Tommy??

do you actually know what "gender neutral" facilities are ?? I suggest you google....

And that there is 'normally' already a disabled toilet to be used..

.for disabled people...

Disabled toilets are already gender neutral so already possible to be used by those in question...

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

Disabled toilets are already gender neutral so already possible to be used by those in question...

Irrelevant as you are still discriminating Transgender from using their choice of toilet, of which will easily be proved in the Supreme court

Also you are not the brightest to think you can tangle with Victor

On your head be it

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:41 pm

Oh FFS.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'm sure that Victor has said or implied that vegetarians are abnormal before, even though they fall within the expected norms.

But then you have to define 'normal' Raggs...!!!

But not much point in doing that here because Elmer seems to think that definition is 'transient'...

Quote lord fool...

"...the definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be..."

ok Tommy, becasue you amuse me I'll bite.....

firstly of course, you have to understand that "normal" is purely a man made construct, and depends ENTIRELY upon the society in which you live (it would be a falsity to call the fixed laws of the universe "normal" in the sense we are talking about....unlike biological things they are not subject to quick change, or indeed any change at all.)
In the sense we are talking about we clearly mean socially and biologically, and these tings are NOT fixed.

even in extreme cases whats considered normal NOW may well not be the case in 50 or 100 years time

would you consider a human with "hawk eyes (literally, with the magnifying power and clarity of the hawk) "normal"?
or a human with teh ability to see ultraviolet or infrared vision?

and yet within 50 to 100 years it quite plain that it will be possible to encode that into the human genome...

it may even in time be possible to genetically change "on the fly" so to speak, with a simple injection of gene transfer ...

what happens to "normal" then?

society has change massively over time, what we consider normal NOW would be considered witchcraft not so very long ago, and what was "normal" then is today considered coarse and gross

It used to be accpetable to piss and crap in the street....
it used to be considered normal to chuck the night soil out of your bedroom window into the street....

NORMAL is not, of necessity a fixed quantity....

And as with any agenda driven dictator... only THEIR opinion is right and allowed... any other opinion will be suppressed and REMOVED...

Quote lord fool...

"...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court..."

Although Elmer... this is a court of public opinion... with people being able to express their views and opinions freely as long as they are abiding by the rules... if you judge my post to be breaking the rules enough to be removed then you have a responsibility to justify your actions within these same rules!

wrong...this is Bens "parlour" and you will conduct yourself accordingly

Still waiting for you to explain how my post broke any rules...!?

it (or the part I removed) was transophobic in nature......If you have a problem with that go whinge to Ben...he has the last say on these matters as far as I'm concerned

(note to ben.....I wont have a hissy fit if you think I was wrong.....no one is perfect....)

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:49 pm

How about people who look like men go in the men's loo, and people who look like women go in the ladies?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Disabled toilets are already gender neutral so already possible to be used by those in question...

Irrelevant as you are still discriminating Transgender from using their choice of toilet, of which will easily be proved in the Supreme court

Also you are not the brightest to think you can tangle with Victor

On your head be it

But you are suggesting the forcing of everyone else having to change their choice of toilet instead... that is completely discriminating against all their rights and beliefs!!!

What is wrong with you leftie progressive types who seem to want to meddle into every aspect of every single part of everyone's lives so much as to even now be adding so much bureaucracy and confusion to such a long established 'normal' and basic thing as people going to have a Piss...!!!???

Its quite simple... the boys go in the boys, the girls go in the girls... those who need to go somewhere different go in the other toilet that is already there that is already gender neutral and caters for all the other people with different/special requirements... currently known as the disabled toilets!!!

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:52 pm

how about no mens and no womens...

"gender neutral " cubicles

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:how about no mens and no womens...

"gender neutral " cubicles

No - men make such a mess.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:55 pm

and the ladies smells of fish Razz

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Disabled toilets are already gender neutral so already possible to be used by those in question...

Irrelevant as you are still discriminating Transgender from using their choice of toilet, of which will easily be proved in the Supreme court

Also you are not the brightest to think you can tangle with Victor

On your head be it

But you are suggesting the forcing of everyone else having to change their choice of toilet instead... that is completely discriminating against all their rights and beliefs!!!

What is wrong with you leftie progressive types who seem to want to meddle into every aspect of every single part of everyone's lives so much as to even now be adding so much bureaucracy and confusion to such a long established 'normal' and basic thing as people going to have a Piss...!!!???

Its quite simple... the boys go in the boys, the girls go in the girls... those who need to go somewhere different go in the other toilet that is already there that is already gender neutral and caters for all the other people with different/special requirements... currently known as the disabled toilets!!!

So your intent, in line with your discriminatory agenda is to label transgendered people "disabled"

and we already know with what disdain you hold the disabled dont we tommy..... Twisted Evil

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:59 pm

It wasn't that long ago that it was considered to be a mental disorder.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:06 pm

and then society got a grip on it....

dont forget ragga....it wasnt that long agao that gobby women ended up being soused in the village pond on a ducking stool

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and then society got a grip on it....

dont forget ragga....it wasnt that long agao that gobby women ended up being soused in the village pond on a ducking stool

It wasn't society who labelled it that way, it was psychiatrists. It's called gender dysphoria now if it causes a lot of psychological distress.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:11 pm

psychiatry is not an exact science though....

and

Dysphoria (from Greek: δύσφορος (dysphoros), δυσ-, difficult, and φέρειν, to bear) is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction.

refers more to the effect of the situation, rather than the cause

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:13 pm

Lord Foul wrote:psychiatry is not an exact science though....

and

Dysphoria (from Greek: δύσφορος (dysphoros), δυσ-, difficult, and φέρειν, to bear) is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction.

refers more to the effect of the situation, rather than the cause

That's what I just said.

If transgenders get to choose which bathroom they use, won't everyone say they want to choose, and that it's discrimination if they can't?

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:18 pm

only if they are spoilt brats.....

what other reason could anyone else have?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:only if they are spoilt brats.....

what other reason could anyone else have?

Principles. Isn't this to do with principles anyway? I doubt many men who want to be women care one way or the other, and vice versa. It's all a bit of a fuss IMO.

I can't believe they even bother with a law about it one way or another. Do we have a law here to say who can use which toilet?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:23 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

But then you have to define 'normal' Raggs...!!!

But not much point in doing that here because Elmer seems to think that definition is 'transient'...

Quote lord fool...

"...the definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be..."

ok Tommy, becasue you amuse me I'll bite.....

firstly of course, you have to understand that "normal" is purely a man made construct, and depends ENTIRELY upon the society in which you live (it would be a falsity to call the fixed laws of the universe "normal" in the sense we are talking about....unlike biological things they are not subject to quick change, or indeed any change at all.)
In the sense we are talking about we clearly mean socially and biologically, and these tings are NOT fixed.

even in extreme cases whats considered normal NOW may well not be the case in 50 or 100 years time

would you consider a human with "hawk eyes (literally, with the magnifying power and clarity of the hawk) "normal"?
or a human with teh ability to see ultraviolet or infrared vision?

and yet within 50 to 100 years it quite plain that it will be possible to encode that into the human genome...

it may even in time be possible to genetically change "on the fly" so to speak, with a simple injection of gene transfer ...

what happens to "normal" then?

society has change massively over time, what we consider normal NOW would be considered witchcraft not so very long ago, and what was "normal" then is today considered coarse and gross

It used to be accpetable to piss and crap in the street....
it used to be considered normal to chuck the night soil out of your bedroom window into the street....

NORMAL is not, of necessity a fixed quantity....

And as with any agenda driven dictator... only THEIR opinion is right and allowed... any other opinion will be suppressed and REMOVED...

Quote lord fool...

"...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court..."

Although Elmer... this is a court of public opinion... with people being able to express their views and opinions freely as long as they are abiding by the rules... if you judge my post to be breaking the rules enough to be removed then you have a responsibility to justify your actions within these same rules!

wrong...this is Bens "parlour" and you will conduct yourself accordingly

Still waiting for you to explain how my post broke any rules...!?

it (or the part I removed) was transophobic in nature......If you have a problem with that go whinge to Ben...he has the last say on these matters as far as I'm concerned

(note to ben.....I wont have a hissy fit if you think I was wrong.....no one is perfect....)

I think 'normal' is a lot more than what you suggest... but you are confirming what I said before... you clearly think that 'normal' is transient... but subsequently you must then also acknowledge the existence of many other different but equally legitimate opinions on what is/isn't 'normal' too...!?

So how can you justify the removal of my post on the basis of you thinking your definition of 'normal' (being different from mine) is right and ok and mine is wrong and not ok...?

You are not the 'thought police' or the 'boss of opinion/definition'...!!!

You have no right to remove my post because you didn't personally like it or agree with it...!!!

You only had the authority to remove my post if it broke the rules... the same rules that we both have to abide by!!!

Explain the rules broken that justify your action or apologise and reinstate my post...!!!

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:24 pm

good question...I'm not sure....

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

It's probably more of an issue with changing rooms in swimming baths and schools. When I was at school we had communal changing room and showers for girls only, but if a boy had decided he was really a girl and wanted to strip off in there, I'm not sure how we would have reacted.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:28 pm

If I was in a public toilet and a bloke came in, I would think it was a bit odd, but I wouldn't go running off to the police to report him. Do they do that in the US? Laughing

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

But then you have to define 'normal' Raggs...!!!

But not much point in doing that here because Elmer seems to think that definition is 'transient'...

Quote lord fool...

"...the definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be..."

ok Tommy, becasue you amuse me I'll bite.....

firstly of course, you have to understand that "normal" is purely a man made construct, and depends ENTIRELY upon the society in which you live (it would be a falsity to call the fixed laws of the universe "normal" in the sense we are talking about....unlike biological things they are not subject to quick change, or indeed any change at all.)
In the sense we are talking about we clearly mean socially and biologically, and these tings are NOT fixed.

even in extreme cases whats considered normal NOW may well not be the case in 50 or 100 years time

would you consider a human with "hawk eyes (literally, with the magnifying power and clarity of the hawk) "normal"?
or a human with teh ability to see ultraviolet or infrared vision?

and yet within 50 to 100 years it quite plain that it will be possible to encode that into the human genome...

it may even in time be possible to genetically change "on the fly" so to speak, with a simple injection of gene transfer ...

what happens to "normal" then?

society has change massively over time, what we consider normal NOW would be considered witchcraft not so very long ago, and what was "normal" then is today considered coarse and gross

It used to be accpetable to piss and crap in the street....
it used to be considered normal to chuck the night soil out of your bedroom window into the street....

NORMAL is not, of necessity a fixed quantity....

And as with any agenda driven dictator... only THEIR opinion is right and allowed... any other opinion will be suppressed and REMOVED...

Quote lord fool...

"...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court..."

Although Elmer... this is a court of public opinion... with people being able to express their views and opinions freely as long as they are abiding by the rules... if you judge my post to be breaking the rules enough to be removed then you have a responsibility to justify your actions within these same rules!

wrong...this is Bens "parlour" and you will conduct yourself accordingly

Still waiting for you to explain how my post broke any rules...!?

it (or the part I removed) was transophobic in nature......If you have a problem with that go whinge to Ben...he has the last say on these matters as far as I'm concerned

(note to ben.....I wont have a hissy fit if you think I was wrong.....no one is perfect....)

I think 'normal' is a lot more than what you suggest... but you are confirming what I said before... you clearly think that 'normal' is transient...

this (below....) does not follow from the above

but subsequently you must then also acknowledge the existence of many other different but equally legitimate opinions on what is/isn't 'normal' too...!?

it is a logical fallacy

So how can you justify the removal of my post on the basis of you thinking your definition of 'normal' (being different from mine) is right and ok and mine is wrong and not ok...?

You are not the 'thought police' or the 'boss of opinion/definition'...!!!

I didnt remove it on the basis of "you thinking your definition of 'normal' (being different from mine) is right and ok and mine is wrong and not ok..."

I removed it becasue you chose to lable a whole sector of society "abnormal", when in fact even by todays standards they are well within the range of what can be considered "normal" and indeed you are taking people who have their "difference" irredeemable encoded in their DNA.

no doubt you would stand on the street and jeer at a parent with a downs syndrome kid that their kid was "abnormal"

You have no right to remove my post because you didn't personally like it or agree with it...!!!

I have every right to remove a post for whatever reason I deem fit...if you dont like it or think I was unreasonable...talk to the forum owner...who is ...effectively "my boss"

You only had the authority to remove my post if it broke the rules... the same rules that we both have to abide by!!!

Explain the rules broken that justify your action or apologise and reinstate my post...!!!

why...whatch gonna do...throw your dummy at me?

if you have a problem ...whinge to Ben as I have said....

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was in a public toilet and a bloke came in, I would think it was a bit odd, but I wouldn't go running off to the police to report him. Do they do that in the US?

probably ragga.....they could then claim $$$$$$$ in "damages" due to "psychological distress etc etc etc ..... North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 1780941361

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 1780941361

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:38 pm

I removed it becasue you chose to lable a whole sector of society "abnormal"

Is that against the rules?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:39 pm

Here's an article which puts the other side to the debate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/02/18/thanks-to-transgender-equality-laws-boys-are-now-sharing-girls-locker-rooms-n2121169/page/full

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
I removed it becasue you chose to lable a whole sector of society "abnormal"

Is that against the rules?

labeling of this nature is deemed "an offensive slur" on that sector of society

hence it breaches

"Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning."

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:46 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that against the rules?

labeling of this nature is deemed "an offensive slur" on that sector of society

hence it breaches

"Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning."

So it comes under "other offensive slurs" then. I'll remember that. Cool

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's an article which puts the other side to the debate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/02/18/thanks-to-transgender-equality-laws-boys-are-now-sharing-girls-locker-rooms-n2121169/page/full

gender neutral cubicles.... North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

then no one can complain....

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Here's an article which puts the other side to the debate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/02/18/thanks-to-transgender-equality-laws-boys-are-now-sharing-girls-locker-rooms-n2121169/page/full

gender neutral cubicles....
then no one can complain....

That would take up more room though, and it would cost money to convert the communal ones.

A lot of shops went through a phase of having communal changing rooms to save space - not for men and women together of course - but a lot of people didn't like them much.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that against the rules?

labeling of this nature is deemed "an offensive slur" on that sector of society

hence it breaches

"Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning."

So it comes under "other offensive slurs" then. I'll remember that.

i would be careful if I were you....

trying to play the odds....and your little games....I'm already one step ahead of you there... Suspect

just because transophobic slurs are not specifically mentioned doesnt change anything, nor does it make it a general thing....

see theres one thing you have missed ragga....upon which most of it turns...

can you think what that might be??? Laughing

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Here's an article which puts the other side to the debate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/02/18/thanks-to-transgender-equality-laws-boys-are-now-sharing-girls-locker-rooms-n2121169/page/full

gender neutral cubicles....
then no one can complain....

That would take up more room though, and it would cost money to convert the communal ones.

A lot of shops went through a phase of having communal changing rooms to save space - not for men and women together of course - but a lot of people didn't like them much.

so be it...it would solve the problem.....

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

But you are suggesting the forcing of everyone else having to change their choice of toilet instead... that is completely discriminating against all their rights and beliefs!!!

What is wrong with you leftie progressive types who seem to want to meddle into every aspect of every single part of everyone's lives so much as to even now be adding so much bureaucracy and confusion to such a long established 'normal' and basic thing as people going to have a Piss...!!!???

Its quite simple... the boys go in the boys, the girls go in the girls... those who need to go somewhere different go in the other toilet that is already there that is already gender neutral and caters for all the other people with different/special requirements... currently known as the disabled toilets!!!

So your intent, in line with your discriminatory agenda is to label transgendered people "disabled"

and we already know with what disdain you hold the disabled dont we tommy.....

No... it is from the thinking of "The council of fairness and equalities dept" and from their latest 'sun dried piss ink written knitted papyrus of guff bubbles' report that the labeling of toilets as 'disabled' may give an impression of a designed lack of 'inclusivity' and subsequent failure in bringing in the 'diversity' in the range of abilities required to use the facilities and/or reflect/project the intended desire to comply with the agenda of 'equality' that we aimed to provide when we spent a fortune bringing the disabled toilets in in the first place!!!

The fact that we already have this specialised toilet facility that is already gender neutral and has the potential to be so much more inclusive as to bring an end to discriminating against Transgender people by including them into one of the equally allowed use groups... etc...!!!

lol!

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:55 pm

tommy babble

as usual....

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So it comes under "other offensive slurs" then. I'll remember that.

i would be careful if I were you....

trying to play the odds....and your little games....I'm already one step ahead of you there...
just because transophobic slurs are not specifically mentioned doesnt change anything, nor does it make it a general thing....

see theres one thing you have missed ragga....upon which most of it turns...

can you think what that might be???

Well it doesn't come under homophobia because being transgender isn't necessarily anything to do with being gay.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:58 pm

There's no law here about disabled toilets is there? Who is to say who's disabled and who isn't?

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So it comes under "other offensive slurs" then. I'll remember that.

i would be careful if I were you....

trying to play the odds....and your little games....I'm already one step ahead of you there...
just because transophobic slurs are not specifically mentioned doesnt change anything, nor does it make it a general thing....

see theres one thing you have missed ragga....upon which most of it turns...

can you think what that might be???

Well it doesn't come under homophobia because being transgender isn't necessarily anything to do with being gay.

quite

but

what you are missing is that tommy labeled ALL transgenders

now I KNOW what went through your mind....

forget it...

UNLESS someone says ALL (insert whatever belief) is (whatever)
in which case I may well jump on it....

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:05 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it doesn't come under homophobia because being transgender isn't necessarily anything to do with being gay.

quite

but

what you are missing is that tommy labeled ALL transgenders

now I KNOW what went through your mind....

forget it...

UNLESS someone says ALL (insert whatever belief) is (whatever)
in which case I may well jump on it....

Oh I'm sure they will - some already have done so.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that against the rules?

labeling of this nature is deemed "an offensive slur" on that sector of society

hence it breaches

"Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning."

I don't believe I actually said the word 'abnormal' did I. ..!?

My post was in affirmation of the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of people to be able to go to the toilet in a safe and secure and relaxed gender specific environment without the allowance of the imposition of various worrying types of questionable sexual orientations and unspecific genders upon them...!!!

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it doesn't come under homophobia because being transgender isn't necessarily anything to do with being gay.

quite

but

what you are missing is that tommy labeled ALL transgenders

now I KNOW what went through your mind....

forget it...

UNLESS someone says ALL (insert whatever belief) is (whatever)
in which case I may well jump on it....

Oh I'm sure they will - some already have done so.

I'm sure they will make that mistake sooner or later

I cant, obviously do anything about "past sins" North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

and you HAVE to accept that religion (i.e. the belief itself NOT the beleiver) is NOT protected from much that would in some other cases be considered "phobia" and for a very good reason

your gender identity is NOT a choice
your beliefs ARE

your gender identity is not subject to "reason"
your beleifs are

you cannot hold a gender identity in defiance of logic, science and good common sense
you CAN however hold a belief in that way...

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 2190311264

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that against the rules?

labeling of this nature is deemed "an offensive slur" on that sector of society

hence it breaches

"Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning."

I don't believe I actually said the word 'abnormal' did I. ..!?

My post was in affirmation of the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of people to be able to go to the toilet in a safe and secure and relaxed gender specific environment without the allowance of the imposition of various worrying types of questionable sexual orientations and unspecific genders upon them...!!!

you really are the most ridiculous type of addle pated old fossil....

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:16 pm

Here's a confusing story.

A girl at a high school who felt like a boy was using the girls' room, but the girls complained that there was a boy in there. So she started using the boys' room with the agreement of the school, but then she was told to use the girls' room again. Her mother told her to use the boys' room, and now she has been suspended for using the boys' room. North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 3 1780941361

http://www.wyff4.com/news/transgender-student-suspended-for-using-bathroom-at-socastee-high-school/37832768

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:18 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I'm sure they will - some already have done so.

I'm sure they will make that mistake sooner or later

I cant, obviously do anything about "past sins"

and you HAVE to accept that religion (i.e. the belief itself NOT the beleiver) is NOT protected from much that would in some other cases be considered "phobia" and for a very good reason

your gender identity is NOT a choice
your beliefs ARE

your gender identity is not subject to "reason"
your beleifs are

you cannot hold a gender identity in defiance of logic, science and good common sense
you CAN however hold a belief in that way...

I don't agree with that. I don't think that faith is a choice as such - it's just there, and it's part of a person. Gender identity could be a choice.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's a confusing story.

A girl at a high school who felt like a boy was using the girls' room, but the girls complained that there was a boy in there. So she started using the boys' room with the agreement of the school, but then she was told to use the girls' room again. Her mother told her to use the boys' room, and now she has been suspended for using the boys' room.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/transgender-student-suspended-for-using-bathroom-at-socastee-high-school/37832768

perhaps we are seeing what results from "lack of communication" I'm sure something could be sorted out quite easily...... Rolling Eyes

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I'm sure they will - some already have done so.

I'm sure they will make that mistake sooner or later

I cant, obviously do anything about "past sins"

and you HAVE to accept that religion (i.e. the belief itself NOT the beleiver) is NOT protected from much that would in some other cases be considered "phobia" and for a very good reason

your gender identity is NOT a choice
your beliefs ARE

your gender identity is not subject to "reason"
your beleifs are

you cannot hold a gender identity in defiance of logic, science and good common sense
you CAN however hold a belief in that way...

I don't agree with that. I don't think that faith is a choice as such - it's just there, and it's part of a person. Gender identity could be a choice.

so you are saying that were you to be born in a Muslim country to a Muslim family you would still be a christian no?

if you were born 10,000 years ago you would be worshiping fire ?

so its not THE faith as such

but a "need for faith"

interesting........

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:27 pm

what evidence do you have that gender identity "could" be a choice....

though I suppose that there may be a very few out there that "adopt a gender" out of sheer bloody mindedness

there are few limits to human eccentricity Suspect

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:31 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree with that. I don't think that faith is a choice as such - it's just there, and it's part of a person. Gender identity could be a choice.

so you are saying that were you to be born in a Muslim country to a Muslim family you would still be a christian no?

if you were born 10,000 years ago you would be worshiping fire ?

so its not THE faith as such

but a "need for faith"

interesting........

Try telling a Muslim that they should stop being one because it's only a "choice" and see how far you get.

People used to get executed for refusing to renounce their faith - because it was a betrayal of themselves.

by Sponsored content