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

Ina café in Paris the mens urinal was in the lobby next to the public phone outside the communal toilet...very disconcerting it was.

Syl wrote:Ina café in  Paris the mens urinal was in the lobby next to the public phone outside the communal toilet...very disconcerting it was.

Outside the toilet - in public?

Urinals are awful - they look like drains. Still, as men can't be trusted to aim properly they're probably necessary.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Gd. point about the female rest room. But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

Yeah it was a good point by me, where you made the idiotic claim in the first place with Suzy having to avert her eyes, to where she never would have too

ha ha

Seriously move on chump

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Ina café in  Paris the mens urinal was in the lobby next to the public phone outside the communal toilet...very disconcerting it was.

Outside the toilet - in public?

Urinals are awful - they look like drains. Still, as men can't be trusted to aim properly they're probably necessary.

I just asked my OH if he remembered this...he says he thought it was a water fountain.
So now I'm not too sure if it was an urinal or a drinking fountain.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

As I understand it, the law saying that transgender people have the right to use whichever toilet they choose was passed in February, yes? This new law overturns that. There hasn't been much time to see the impact of the first bill.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

Yeah it was a good point by me, where you made the idiotic claim in the first place with Suzy having to avert her eyes, to where she never would have too

ha ha

Seriously move on chump

Stop being abusive, Didge. You are a bundle of emotions and compensatory strategies. I wonder: why such a waste of mindspace? You get yourself into such a state you can't control it.

Take a break. Take ten deep breaths. Whatever interrupts your intense 'lock-in' of anger and antagonism.

Come back in a few...

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree, it's probably not irresolvable.  But you are abandoning the task if you leave it with "attitudes must change."  How?  

What do you propose?  First, it most certainly is about laws...we are talking about a law.  Second, admittedly, laws are the product of attitudes.  Again, how do you 1) get a North Carolinian to be more sensitive to transgenders, and what do you do about averting Suzy's eyes?

Why would Suzy ever need to avert her eyes when there is no urinals in the ladies toilets?

Showing how now Quill is upset because I showed up his stupidity lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lil Suzy, of course, should be accompanied by her mother into the toilet, yes? 

If you put yourself into the transgender/transsexual shoes.   You are now a woman.   You feel like a woman.  You dress like a woman.  You may even be in possession of a vagina.   Where would you go for a piss?   

As for antinomy, I don't think the issue is unresolvable.   It's not about the laws.  It's about people's attitudes needing to change.

Why should lil Suzy be accompanied by her mother? In case she falls into the toilet, or because she might be accosted?

Apparently, is someone has had a sex change operation and changed their birth certificate they can go into the toilet re the sex it says on their birth certificate.

I should think most mothers would not allow their very young daughters to go into a public toilet alone.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

I think, for the purposes of discussion, we need to know just how old Lil Suzy is!

What if lil Suzy is at the swimming baths getting changed, and a man comes in and gets his kit off in front of her?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

Clearly, some backward thinking going on there then.  Like I say, attitudes have to change.

Raggamuffin wrote:What if lil Suzy is at the swimming baths getting changed, and a man comes in and gets his kit off in front of her?

What has that to do with a transgender male?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What if lil Suzy is at the swimming baths getting changed, and a man comes in and gets his kit off in front of her?

What has that to do with a transgender male?

A transgender male could get his kit off to get changed in the women's changing room, or a nontransgender man could do the same whilst claiming to be transgender.

Apparently, there was an incident in Seattle and another one elsewhere.

The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

When asked what he was doing, he said, "The law has changed and I have a right to be here."

A similar incident occurred in Olympia in 2012, when a 45-year-old biological male who calls himself Colleen Francis lounged naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six. According to the police report an eyewitness stated, “There were girls 6 to 18 years of age and they were not used to seeing individuals in situations like this.” But the facility gave him the right to continue using its facilities as he wished.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

It's probably not very common, but I think that's the sort of thing the legislators were talking about.

Raggamuffin wrote:Apparently, there was an incident in Seattle and another one elsewhere.

The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

When asked what he was doing, he said, "The law has changed and I have a right to be here."

A similar incident occurred in Olympia in 2012, when a 45-year-old biological male who calls himself Colleen Francis lounged naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six. According to the police report an eyewitness stated, “There were girls 6 to 18 years of age and they were not used to seeing individuals in situations like this.” But the facility gave him the right to continue using its facilities as he wished.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

It's probably not very common, but I think that's the sort of thing the legislators were talking about.

Transgender is about how the person feels inside.   It doesn't necessarily relate to sexuality.    So, yes, it's confusing for people to understand  and the lines can be blurred unless the person is a transsexual who's had the full op to change sex.   

I think perverts like those you've listed will do anything to be able to get their kicks, no matter the situation, and even some apparently 'normal' folks are exhibitionists.   Take naturists...what the fuck is all THAT about?  But I digress....

If someone exposed themselves in the toilet I was using, be it male or female, then the police need to be called and an arrest made for exposing of genitals in a public place.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gd. point about the female rest room.  But can you see an old North Carolinian woman thinking that's not enough?

The expectation would be that the one with the male genitals wants to flash lil Suzy--this is the south, where expectations are...all blacks are thieves and all males are rapists--and the law would have to go farther and anticipate wrongdoing.

That's what they have going on in N. Carolina.

Clearly, some backward thinking going on there then.  Like I say, attitudes have to change.

We fought a Civil War to change the attitudes of southerners. All we were really able to do is outlaw slavery. It's now 155-years hence, and the same attitudes prevail. The median of opinion in the south is way to the right of the rest of America. They are still trying to outlaw abortion, which was overruled in 1972, by a judge that is now long dead.

People don't think in reasonable ways. They see scripts. In the south, when it comes to rest rooms, the script will be about male sexism and raucous behavior, female innocence, gays as predators, no difference between gay and transgender, and laws drawing the lines between those simplistic notions.

Backward thinking? Believe me, if I could cut the line hauling that dinghy behind us, I would in a heartthrob.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Apparently, there was an incident in Seattle and another one elsewhere.





https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

It's probably not very common, but I think that's the sort of thing the legislators were talking about.

Transgender is about how the person feels inside.   It doesn't necessarily relate to sexuality.    So, yes, it's confusing for people to understand  and the lines can be blurred unless the person is a transsexual who's had the full op to change sex.   

I think perverts like those you've listed will do anything to be able to get their kicks, no matter the situation, and even some apparently 'normal' folks are exhibitionists.   Take naturists...what the fuck is all THAT about?  But I digress....

If someone exposed themselves in the toilet I was using, be it male or female, then the police need to be called and an arrest made for exposing of genitals in a public place.

I don't think that's the point. The first point is that nobody knew if these men were transgender or not because they didn't say. The second point is that if there wasn't a law saying that anyone can claim to be transgender and use which changing room they wanted, the incidents wouldn't have happened. The third point is that nobody would kick those kind of men out because they say they have a right to be there - because they can't prove they're not transgender.

Genitals do get exposed in public bath changing rooms....where would a pre op transsexual person go?

Here's more on Colleen Francis. You see the problem?

https://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/02/transgender-person-alleges-discrimination-after-being-asked-to-leave-womens-locker-room-where-he-exposed-himself-to-young-girls/

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Transgender is about how the person feels inside.   It doesn't necessarily relate to sexuality.    So, yes, it's confusing for people to understand  and the lines can be blurred unless the person is a transsexual who's had the full op to change sex.   

I think perverts like those you've listed will do anything to be able to get their kicks, no matter the situation, and even some apparently 'normal' folks are exhibitionists.   Take naturists...what the fuck is all THAT about?  But I digress....

If someone exposed themselves in the toilet I was using, be it male or female, then the police need to be called and an arrest made for exposing of genitals in a public place.

I don't think that's the point. The first point is that nobody knew if these men were transgender or not because they didn't say. The second point is that if there wasn't a law saying that anyone can claim to be transgender and use which changing room they wanted, the incidents wouldn't have happened. The third point is that nobody would kick those kind of men out because they say they have a right to be there - because they can't prove they're not transgender.  

Well, if a man goes into a female changing room, sits there, slaps out his dick and smugly refuses to cover up, he's clearly not right in the head whether he's transgender or otherwise.   It's about common sense.     If a Protestant went into a Catholic church and got his dick out to the congregation, he'd be arrested regardless of whether he was claiming to be a staunch Catholic.

Syl wrote:Genitals do get exposed in public bath changing rooms....where would a pre op transsexual person go?

Yes, but to lounge around exposing themselves is a bit different isn't it? This is where common sense comes in. If a transgender man is in a changing room where little girls are getting changed, shouldn't he behave with some decorum rather than screech about his "rights"?

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's more on Colleen Francis. You see the problem?

https://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/02/transgender-person-alleges-discrimination-after-being-asked-to-leave-womens-locker-room-where-he-exposed-himself-to-young-girls/

Why didn't he just wear a towel or a swimming costume like a normal person?

Syl wrote:Genitals do get exposed in public bath changing rooms....where would a pre op transsexual person go?

When was the last time you saw a woman lounging on a bench in a changing room, legs akimbo, with her panty hamster on full display?  

That's right...never.

Walking around naked or half undressed is not the same thing as deliberately exposing yourself.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that's the point. The first point is that nobody knew if these men were transgender or not because they didn't say. The second point is that if there wasn't a law saying that anyone can claim to be transgender and use which changing room they wanted, the incidents wouldn't have happened. The third point is that nobody would kick those kind of men out because they say they have a right to be there - because they can't prove they're not transgender.  

Well, if a man goes into a female changing room, sits there, slaps out his dick and smugly refuses to cover up, he's clearly not right in the head whether he's transgender or otherwise.   It's about common sense.     If a Protestant went into a Catholic church and got his dick out to the congregation, he'd be arrested regardless of whether he was claiming to be a staunch Catholic.

Yes, but what happened is that the girls were told to get changed behind a curtain instead of him being told to stop exposing himself in that manner.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-man-may-continue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's more on Colleen Francis. You see the problem?

https://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/02/transgender-person-alleges-discrimination-after-being-asked-to-leave-womens-locker-room-where-he-exposed-himself-to-young-girls/

Why didn't he just wear a towel or a swimming costume like a normal person?

Exactly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Genitals do get exposed in public bath changing rooms....where would a pre op transsexual person go?

Yes, but to lounge around exposing themselves is a bit different isn't it? This is where common sense comes in. If a transgender man is in a changing room where little girls are getting changed, shouldn't he behave with some decorum rather than screech about his "rights"?

To be honest I wouldn't like to see a man strutting around in a public changing room showing his genitalia either....I imagine it would be very distressing for a child.
People like him are so eager to promote their own agenda they spoil it for everyone else.

Indeed. So I can see where the problems might occur. Nobody wants to say anything in case they're accused of "discrimination". Is this why North Carolina have bypassed the problem by changing the law?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Genitals do get exposed in public bath changing rooms....where would a pre op transsexual person go?

When was the last time you saw a woman lounging on a bench in a changing room, legs akimbo, with her panty hamster on full display?  

That's right...never.

Walking around naked or half undressed is not the same thing as deliberately exposing yourself.

I agree....though a man has a harder job concealing his body than a woman does.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, if a man goes into a female changing room, sits there, slaps out his dick and smugly refuses to cover up, he's clearly not right in the head whether he's transgender or otherwise.   It's about common sense.     If a Protestant went into a Catholic church and got his dick out to the congregation, he'd be arrested regardless of whether he was claiming to be a staunch Catholic.

Yes, but what happened is that the girls were told to get changed behind a curtain instead of him being told to stop exposing himself in that manner.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-man-may-continue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

Right, well, clearly this is causing concern for the parents and kids, and in that case, some kind of middle way has to be found.   To be honest, I should think most transgender males would want to cover up in this situation anyway.  Even women.   I don't think any sex, male or female, should deliberately flash their bits at kids.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

When was the last time you saw a woman lounging on a bench in a changing room, legs akimbo, with her panty hamster on full display?  

That's right...never.

Walking around naked or half undressed is not the same thing as deliberately exposing yourself.

I agree....though a man has a harder job concealing his body than a woman does.

I disagree.   He can use a towel, be discreet.   There is no need to openly stalk about with your old man on display.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but what happened is that the girls were told to get changed behind a curtain instead of him being told to stop exposing himself in that manner.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-man-may-continue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

Right, well, clearly this is causing concern for the parents and kids, and in that case, some kind of middle way has to be found.   To be honest, I should think most transgender males would want to cover up in this situation anyway.  Even women.   I don't think any sex, male or female, should deliberately flash their bits at kids.

Yes, common sense is required, but as I pointed out, nobody would say much to him because of the law. The law is too skewed, which is perhaps why N Carolina don't want such a law.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but what happened is that the girls were told to get changed behind a curtain instead of him being told to stop exposing himself in that manner.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-man-may-continue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

Right, well, clearly this is causing concern for the parents and kids, and in that case, some kind of middle way has to be found.   To be honest, I should think most transgender males would want to cover up in this situation anyway.  Even women.   I don't think any sex, male or female, should deliberately flash their bits at kids.

I could not agree more. When I have been at the baths if kids are present I am a lot more discreet than if just female adults are in the changing room. It's just a matter of decency and respect imo.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Right, well, clearly this is causing concern for the parents and kids, and in that case, some kind of middle way has to be found.   To be honest, I should think most transgender males would want to cover up in this situation anyway.  Even women.   I don't think any sex, male or female, should deliberately flash their bits at kids.

Yes, common sense is required, but as I pointed out, nobody would say much to him because of the law. The law is too skewed, which is perhaps why N Carolina don't want such a law.

I do agree that the law is ridiculous at times.   I'm presuming this guy was openly walking about stark nekkid?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree....though a man has a harder job concealing his body than a woman does.

I disagree.   He can use a towel, be discreet.   There is no need to openly stalk about with your old man on display.

Unfortunately not everyone is that discreet. Women can be stark naked and show nothing...men cant.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Right, well, clearly this is causing concern for the parents and kids, and in that case, some kind of middle way has to be found.   To be honest, I should think most transgender males would want to cover up in this situation anyway.  Even women.   I don't think any sex, male or female, should deliberately flash their bits at kids.

I could not agree more. When I have been at the baths if kids are present I am a lot more discreet than if just female adults are in the changing room. It's just a matter of decency and respect imo.

I couldn't agree more.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, common sense is required, but as I pointed out, nobody would say much to him because of the law. The law is too skewed, which is perhaps why N Carolina don't want such a law.

I do agree that the law is ridiculous at times.   I'm presuming this guy was openly walking about stark nekkid?

Yes. There are several reports about it. I know it's only one incident, but there could be others, and the point is that the woman who called the police ended up apologising whilst he claimed discrimination for being asked to leave, and the girls then had to get changed behind a curtain instead.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I disagree.   He can use a towel, be discreet.   There is no need to openly stalk about with your old man on display.

Unfortunately not everyone is that discreet. Women can be stark naked and show nothing...men cant.

I wouldn't call boobs and lady bottoms, nothing!

If people were just sensible, there would be no need for any of these laws. If the man had said that he felt uncomfortable in the men's changing room, and was more discreet in the women's changing room, maybe it would be different, but there will always be those who don't care about anything except their own "rights".

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I do agree that the law is ridiculous at times.   I'm presuming this guy was openly walking about stark nekkid?

Yes. There are several reports about it. I know it's only one incident, but there could be others, and the point is that the woman who called the police ended up apologising whilst he claimed discrimination for being asked to leave, and the girls then had to get changed behind a curtain instead.

I think we get a bit off point when we try to bolster our views with specific incidents. The point of law-making is expectations: lawmakers try to meet the scripts in peoples heads, and only occasionally respond to actual events.

That's why I bring out that this is a southern state. These are reeeeal backward types. The scripts they have in mind are either based upon their own low-class imaginings, or some dirty uncle back in the day. Or maybe they watch too much TV. I don't know where they get their expectations, but they always seem to anticipate behavior of the lowest kind, and maybe that's what happens in their world.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Clearly, some backward thinking going on there then.  Like I say, attitudes have to change.

We fought a Civil War to change the attitudes of southerners.  All we were really able to do is outlaw slavery.  

OMG Another load of pseudo history from Quill


http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Unfortunately not everyone is that discreet. Women can be stark naked and show nothing...men cant.

I wouldn't call boobs and lady bottoms, nothing!

We were talking genitals....we all have bums...and some of the men in my local baths have breasts as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:If people were just sensible, there would be no need for any of these laws. If the man had said that he felt uncomfortable in the men's changing room, and was more discreet in the women's changing room, maybe it would be different, but there will always be those who don't care about anything except their own "rights".

Exactly...like the man in the link you posted....selfish prick...oops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU63gAvA3DI

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I wouldn't call boobs and lady bottoms, nothing!

We were talking genitals....we all have bums...and some of the men in my local baths have breasts as well.

A lady bottom isn't yer bum, you daft bugger.

Raggamuffin wrote:If people were just sensible, there would be no need for any of these laws. If the man had said that he felt uncomfortable in the men's changing room, and was more discreet in the women's changing room, maybe it would be different, but there will always be those who don't care about anything except their own "rights".

I have to agree.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

We were talking genitals....we all have bums...and some of the men in my local baths have breasts as well.

A lady bottom isn't yer bum, you daft bugger.

Oh right....I thought you meant a ladies bottom...

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Clearly, some backward thinking going on there then.  Like I say, attitudes have to change.

We fought a Civil War to change the attitudes of southerners.  All we were really able to do is outlaw slavery.  It's now 155-years hence, and the same attitudes prevail.  The median of opinion in the south is way to the right of the rest of America.  They are still trying to outlaw abortion, which was overruled in 1972, by a judge that is now long dead.

People don't think in reasonable ways.  They see scripts.  In the south, when it comes to rest rooms, the script will be about male sexism and raucous behavior, female innocence, gays as predators, no difference between gay and transgender, and laws drawing the lines between those simplistic notions.

Backward thinking?  Believe me, if I could cut the line hauling that dinghy behind us, I would in a heartthrob.

The North was every bit as  racist as the South even after the Civil War, thousands upon thousands of freed slaves starved to death on their march North.   Many Northerners had little or no sympathy any more than their Southern counterparts did regarding the health and welfare of those they'd fought to free.  Changes in attitude indeed!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We fought a Civil War to change the attitudes of southerners.  All we were really able to do is outlaw slavery.  It's now 155-years hence, and the same attitudes prevail.  The median of opinion in the south is way to the right of the rest of America.  They are still trying to outlaw abortion, which was overruled in 1972, by a judge that is now long dead.

People don't think in reasonable ways.  They see scripts.  In the south, when it comes to rest rooms, the script will be about male sexism and raucous behavior, female innocence, gays as predators, no difference between gay and transgender, and laws drawing the lines between those simplistic notions.

Backward thinking?  Believe me, if I could cut the line hauling that dinghy behind us, I would in a heartthrob.

The North was every bit as  racist as the South even after the Civil War, thousands upon thousands of freed slaves starved to death on their march North.   Many Northerners had little or no sympathy any more than their Southern counterparts did regarding the health and welfare of those they'd fought to free.  Changes in attitude indeed!

That's not quite true...but almost.  To say that the North was equal to the South in degrees of racism before the Civil War, is to grossly underestimate how bad the South was.  Take a look at Doris Kearns Goodwin's  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005), a book about Abraham Lincoln's presidential cabinet and the issues of the Civil War, and leading up to it. Part of the book was adapted by Tony Kushner into the screenplay for Steven Spielberg's 2012 film Lincoln.

Look, it's a racist country.  As late as Teddy Roosevelt, who was elected Vise President in 1900, they were talking about shipping the "negroes" over to Liberia, as the answer.  It took until Truman's administration before the US military was integrated.  After the Civil War, the South responded with de facto slavery, and then peonage.  Then came decades of KKK terrorism, followed by 'separate but equal' rights under Plessy v. Ferguson, followed by 60-years of segregation, up to the present-day attempts to maneuver a denial of voting rights and sundry civil rights.

But as I merge my points with yours, I found the topic makes my singular point solidly: the American south is as ignorant and hill-billyish as any third-world country on the globe.  They are the backers of Donald Trump...need I say more? They are an uneducated, incurious, unself-aware lot that has very few redeeming features.  Frankly, I wish we could set them adrift...but that would probably mean trouble for someone else.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

If all toilets offered total privacy, it wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly. Our local restaurant has 4 or 5 separate toilets,  at least 2 of them are M/F....I think the others are disabled and baby changing....something for everyone.

If they don't have a winch, a block and tackle, and a couple of large wheelbarrows then they are discriminating against the fatties...!!!