Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesNorth Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
+7
Cass
Victorismyhero
HoratioTarr
Raggamuffin
Tommy Monk
nicko
Original Quill
11 posters
Page 6 of 9
Page 6 of 9 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
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
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
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:17 pm
HoratioTarr wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:
What about my rights and the possible negative effects on me having to use a toilet after a stinker...!?
Firstly the stink itself being akin to a form of chemical/biological attack against me and a form of poisoning by the administering of a harmful/noxious substance against me etc...
But secondly, it could harm my social standing by having to leave a toilet after said stinker, only to find someone important waiting to go in and who then had a dose of the repugnance but forevermore assumed it was down to me...!!!
Surely a more inclusive shared toileting space would be fully embracing the diversity of stink and thereby creating a more holistic collective responsibility etc... and thereby continuing to facilitate an environment where the biggest stinkers can carry on their toxic dumping with impunity knowing that the rest of society will also be forced to take a share of responsibility... now that's 'equality' for you...!!!
You mean your shit don't stink?
Only when it's too big to flush and I have to bust it up with a broom handle!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:23 pm
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?
'Normal'...!!!???
That means different things to different people here...
The definition is 'transient'...!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:54 am
It's a good job I didn't report Didge for his spamming and disruption in this thread. He might have been told to shut up.
Or probably not.
Or probably not.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:19 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job I didn't report Didge for his spamming and disruption in this thread. He might have been told to shut up.
Or probably not.
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:22 pm
Didge wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job I didn't report Didge for his spamming and disruption in this thread. He might have been told to shut up.
Or probably not.
Stop disrupting the thread Didge. Any more of it and I'll report you.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:26 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:
Stop disrupting the thread Didge. Any more of it and I'll report you.
When you grow up and stop being the one actually spoiling them with your inability to move on
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:28 pm
Didge wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Stop disrupting the thread Didge. Any more of it and I'll report you.
When you grow up and stop being the one actually spoiling them with your inability to move on
Last chance. Stop the disruption.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:29 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:Didge wrote:
When you grow up and stop being the one actually spoiling them with your inability to move on
Last chance. Stop the disruption.
Yes best you grow up and stop acting like a petulant brat
Last chance
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:30 pm
Didge wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Last chance. Stop the disruption.
Yes best you grow up and stop acting like a petulant brat
Last chance
Reported.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:31 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job I didn't report Didge for his spamming and disruption in this thread. He might have been told to shut up.
Or probably not.
Post reported for where I was not even commenting this morning on this thread and as Rags was goading and shit stirring for no reason what so ever
Reporting for both shit stirring and derailing
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:33 pm
Pack it in...BOTH of you
you are like a old married couple
you are like a old married couple
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:34 pm
Lord Foul wrote:Pack it in...BOTH of you
you are like a old married couple
How insulting
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:35 pm
but true...
c'mon guys....
lets calm it down...
c'mon guys....
lets calm it down...
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:35 pm
Didge wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job I didn't report Didge for his spamming and disruption in this thread. He might have been told to shut up.
Or probably not.
Post reported for where I was not even commenting this morning on this thread and as Rags was goading and shit stirring for no reason what so ever
Reporting for both shit stirring and derailing
Post reported for continued disruption, and for spamming with the same post yesterday, even though I ignored your trolling and baiting.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:37 pm
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:39 pm
Lord Foul wrote:but true...
c'mon guys....
lets calm it down...
Is all cool with me
Guest- Guest
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:33 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Syl wrote:
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...!!!
But should fatties be in restaurants in the first place?
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Syl wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:
If they don't have a winch, a block and tackle, and a couple of large wheelbarrows then they are discriminating against the fatties...!!!
But should fatties be in restaurants in the first place?
That's another debate. .. but it's only fair that everyone has to go by block and tackle and wheelbarrows or it will be singling out the fatties and discriminatory!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:20 pm
Syl wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:
If they don't have a winch, a block and tackle, and a couple of large wheelbarrows then they are discriminating against the fatties...!!!
But should fatties be in restaurants in the first place?
Brilliant pt!
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:22 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Syl wrote:
But should fatties be in restaurants in the first place?
That's another debate. .. but it's only fair that everyone has to go by block and tackle and wheelbarrows or it will be singling out the fatties and discriminatory!!!
It's not discriminatory unless there is a law in place. Do you have a law regarding public accommodations for fat people?
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:35 pm
Original Quill wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:
That's another debate. .. but it's only fair that everyone has to go by block and tackle and wheelbarrows or it will be singling out the fatties and discriminatory!!!
It's not discriminatory unless there is a law in place. Do you have a law regarding public accommodations for fat people?
That's actually a good question. We don't have such laws specifically, but if someone claims that being obese causes them to be disabled, it may well come within the disability laws.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:48 pm
Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:25 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
No doubt. But you still have to have a law establishing the special needs/requirements.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:40 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:41 pm
Syl wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
Stand on seats? That must take quite a lot of balance.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:46 pm
Syl wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
You mean the bombsights? I lived in Eastern Turkey, and I had to get used to them. Lol. Perhaps they should get used to ours.
Seriously, though, a physical disability or requirement is something that provides a hurdle. In this country we have the concept of reasonable accommodation, which under certain conditions must be made for special physical needs. The same for religious needs, but not necessarily cultural differences. Only the law establishes (in law) that it is a legal requirement.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:51 pm
Lots of Muslim men use our loos in the more traditional way they are used to.Original Quill wrote:Syl wrote:
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
You mean the bombsights? I lived in Eastern Turkey, and I had to get used to them. Lol. Perhaps they should get used to ours.
Seriously, though, a physical disability or requirement is something that provides a hurdle. In this country we have the concept of reasonable accommodation, which under certain conditions must be made for special physical needs. The same for religious needs, but not necessarily cultural differences. Only the law establishes (in law) that it is a legal requirement.
When my OH worked at the airport the toilets had to be separated because the Asian drivers were constantly breaking the toilets that were meant for all the taxi drivers. Our modern toilets are obviously not designed to be stood on.
Obviously people with disabilities should have public toilets designed to suit them wherever possible.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by HoratioTarr Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:01 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:Syl wrote:
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
Stand on seats? That must take quite a lot of balance.
Specially in stilettoes!
HoratioTarr- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 10037
Join date : 2014-01-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:04 pm
Syl wrote:Lots of Muslim men use our loos in the more traditional way they are used to.Original Quill wrote:
You mean the bombsights? I lived in Eastern Turkey, and I had to get used to them. Lol. Perhaps they should get used to ours.
Seriously, though, a physical disability or requirement is something that provides a hurdle. In this country we have the concept of reasonable accommodation, which under certain conditions must be made for special physical needs. The same for religious needs, but not necessarily cultural differences. Only the law establishes (in law) that it is a legal requirement.
When my OH worked at the airport the toilets had to be separated because the Asian drivers were constantly breaking the toilets that were meant for all the taxi drivers. Our modern toilets are obviously not designed to be stood on.
Obviously people with disabilities should have public toilets designed to suit them wherever possible.
I think there should be public signs saying "seats are for seats, floors are for feet", like on Underground trains.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:05 pm
HoratioTarr wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Stand on seats? That must take quite a lot of balance.
Specially in stilettoes!
Yes, and especially if the back of the seat isn't quite secured properly.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:13 pm
HoratioTarr wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Stand on seats? That must take quite a lot of balance.
Specially in stilettoes!
When one has danced on tables in stiletoes, negotiating glasses, bottles and drinks without breaking any, and still keeping time to the music, do you really think standing on a secure toilet seat would be so hard?
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:30 pm
Syl wrote:HoratioTarr wrote:
Specially in stilettoes!
When one has danced on tables in stiletoes, negotiating glasses, bottles and drinks without breaking any, and still keeping time to the music, do you really think standing on a secure toilet seat would be so hard?
Whoa...I wanna party with you!
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:31 pm
Original Quill wrote:Syl wrote:
When one has danced on tables in stiletoes, negotiating glasses, bottles and drinks without breaking any, and still keeping time to the music, do you really think standing on a secure toilet seat would be so hard?
Whoa...I wanna party with you!
Most men take that as the signal to go get the coats and call the taxi.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:34 pm
Syl wrote:Original Quill wrote:
Whoa...I wanna party with you!
Most men take that as the signal to go get the coats and call the taxi.
No, Hon...the evening is just beginning.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:35 pm
Original Quill wrote:Syl wrote:
Most men take that as the signal to go get the coats and call the taxi.
No, Hon...the evening is just beginning.
Pity you are not local Quill.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:42 pm
Then again, in the morning...
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:45 pm
Oh dear.....no more table dancing for him. 
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:50 pm
Syl wrote:HoratioTarr wrote:
Specially in stilettoes!
When one has danced on tables in stiletoes, negotiating glasses, bottles and drinks without breaking any, and still keeping time to the music, do you really think standing on a secure toilet seat would be so hard?
I haven't done that for years.
I was out dancing last night, but not in high heels and not whilst standing on a table or on a toilet seat.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:09 pm
Syl wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:Having a toilet made available for people with special requirements is different from making everyone have to use the same facilities.
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
Why can't they just sit down like a 'normal' person?
And please explain what other 'toilet habits' you mean?
And lastly... why not just stick to the sensible solution being that males use the gents and females use the women's and others use the disabled unisex toilets that are already provided...!?
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by HoratioTarr Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:12 pm
Original Quill wrote:Then again, in the morning...
Is that Didge?
HoratioTarr- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 10037
Join date : 2014-01-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by HoratioTarr Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:13 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Syl wrote:
What about Muslims....they often stand on seats rather than sit on them, also they have other toilet habits than cannot be met by standard cubicles.
In a bit we will need more toilet space than eating space in order to accommodate everyone.
Why can't they just sit down like a 'normal' person?
And please explain what other 'toilet habits' you mean?
And lastly... why not just stick to the sensible solution being that males use the gents and females use the women's and others use the disabled unisex toilets that are already provided...!?
I think she means the bidet. I remember so well the hotel toilets in Cairo having those little brass water spouts that were covered in a nice layer of shit. I'll take Andrex any time.
HoratioTarr- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 10037
Join date : 2014-01-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by nicko Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:15 pm
The "squatting position is the best way to empty the Bowel!
nicko- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 13368
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 83
Location : rainbow bridge
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:29 pm
nicko wrote:The "squatting position is the best way to empty the Bowel!
Can't disagree. When I was in Turkey and Cypress I never had any going issues.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:11 pm
Original Quill wrote:nicko wrote:The "squatting position is the best way to empty the Bowel!
Can't disagree. When I was in Turkey and Cypress I never had any going issues.
Cypress too eh...?
How long were you there for...?
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:14 pm
Original Quill wrote:nicko wrote:The "squatting position is the best way to empty the Bowel!
Can't disagree. When I was in Turkey and Cypress I never had any going issues.
That could have had something to do with the unaccustomed food you were eating though.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:14 pm
Cypress is a type of tree.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:15 pm
HoratioTarr wrote:Tommy Monk wrote:
Why can't they just sit down like a 'normal' person?
And please explain what other 'toilet habits' you mean?
And lastly... why not just stick to the sensible solution being that males use the gents and females use the women's and others use the disabled unisex toilets that are already provided...!?
I think she means the bidet. I remember so well the hotel toilets in Cairo having those little brass water spouts that were covered in a nice layer of shit. I'll take Andrex any time.
Yep...bottoms must be washed after every movement....a bit awkward in a public loo.
Syl- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 23619
Join date : 2015-11-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:16 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:Cypress is a type of tree.
Is funny how educated Quill claims to be but doesn't know how to spell the name of a country that he claims to have lived in...!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:21 pm
Raggamuffin wrote:Cypress is a type of tree.
Ya gotta learn...
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:25 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Cypress is a type of tree.
Is funny how educated Quill claims to be but doesn't know how to spell the name of a country that he claims to have lived in...!!!
What country? It's just an island...
Last edited by Original Quill on Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional
by Sponsored content
Sponsored content
Page 6 of 9 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Similar topics» Worldwide Social Media Outrage After Muslim Students Killed In North Carolina
» North Carolina Republican: "We must fight to keep our state straight"
» About That 'Atheist' Who Killed 3 Young Muslims In North Carolina…
» Watch this North Carolina hospital volunteer have a complete freakout over a visiting black family
» Britain issues warning for LGBT travelers visiting North Carolina and Mississippi
» North Carolina Republican: "We must fight to keep our state straight"
» About That 'Atheist' Who Killed 3 Young Muslims In North Carolina…
» Watch this North Carolina hospital volunteer have a complete freakout over a visiting black family
» Britain issues warning for LGBT travelers visiting North Carolina and Mississippi
Page 6 of 9
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...