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 Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:28 pm

I had a Cypriot boyftiend once....he went on holiday to somewhere a bit less civilised, went to do his business in the woods, used a leaf (could have been from the Cypress tree) to wipe....and blamed the hemorroids he later developed on that.

That's a true story, not sure if it's true about his future pile dilemma though.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:29 pm

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

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.

Also hard for the Muslim cab drivers to do when they are busy shitting in the streets round town too...!

And I've seen plenty of the 'hole in floor' toilets too... cant remember seeing any bum wash facility included... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone even washing their hands!!!

by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:31 pm

Syl wrote:I had a Cypriot boyftiend once....he went on holiday to somewhere a bit less civilised, went to do his business in the woods, used a leaf (could have been from the Cypress tree) to wipe....and blamed the hemorroids he later developed on that.

That's a true story, not sure if it's true about his future pile dilemma though.

A Cypriot with cypress leaves...shouldn't get hemorroids from that. He should be immune.

Now a leaf from an elm...that's a birch. Twisted Evil

by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

Yep...bottoms must be washed after every movement....a bit awkward in a public loo.

Also hard for the Muslim cab drivers to do when they are busy shitting in the streets round town too...!

And I've seen plenty of the 'hole in floor' toilets too... cant remember seeing any bum wash facility included... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone even washing their hands!!!

I have just asked my OH who was a Manchester Black cab driver at the airport for over 30 years.

Before it became a problem the Muslim taxi drivers would apparently take a container filed with water into the cubicle....after the seats were repeatedly broken (from being stood upon) they (both the non Muslim and the Muslims) campaigned for separate toilets which they were eventually given.

The Muslim toilets were equipped with bidets........problem solved.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

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...

It may well be... but not the place you were referring to in the context of debate here...!!!

by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I had a Cypriot boyftiend once....he went on holiday to somewhere a bit less civilised, went to do his business in the woods, used a leaf (could have been from the Cypress tree) to wipe....and blamed the hemorroids he later developed on that.

That's a true story, not sure if it's true about his future pile dilemma though.

A Cypriot with cypress leaves...shouldn't get hemorroids from that. He should be immune.

Now a leaf from an elm...that's a birch.

Holly would be worse. pale

by Original Quill Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What country? It's just an island...

It may well be... but not the place you were referring to in the context of debate here...!!!

Why tommy, whatever do you mean? The only island I've been on in the Mediterranean is Crete...or is that Crate?? scratch

by HoratioTarr Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Specially in stilettoes!

Yes, and especially if the back of the seat isn't quite secured properly.

Great for toning up the thighs though! lol!

by HoratioTarr Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:49 pm

nicko wrote:The "squatting position is the best way to empty the Bowel!

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Also hard for the Muslim cab drivers to do when they are busy shitting in the streets round town too...!

And I've seen plenty of the 'hole in floor' toilets too... cant remember seeing any bum wash facility included... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone even washing their hands!!!

I have just asked my OH who was a Manchester Black cab driver at the airport for over 30 years.

Before it became a problem the Muslim taxi drivers would apparently take a container filed with water into the cubicle....after the seats were repeatedly broken (from being stood upon) they (both the non Muslim and the Muslims) campaigned for separate toilets which they were eventually given.

The Muslim toilets were equipped with bidets........problem solved.

What are you talking about...!!!???

"Before it became a problem..."...???

please explain what you mean by "it", what you mean by "problem" and explain how all this "became a problem" but wasn't "before"...?

"...the Muslim taxi drivers..."...???

So what we're all the other Muslims doing throughout that time...?

"...would take a container filled with water into cubicle with them..."...???

...a bottle of water...? And how would the taking of a bottle of water into a cubicle be a problem...!?

Then you say only the Muslims got the bidets fitted in their "toilets"...

Because it was necessary for their "traditional" toilet habits etc...?

So what did they do before this late 17th century French invention...!!!???

And how come they know how to use them when they don't know how to use a 16th century toilet properly...!!!???

lol!

by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:31 pm

Syl wrote:Yep...bottoms must be washed after every movement....a bit awkward in a public loo.

You've obviously never been to Japan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing

by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

I have just asked my OH who was a Manchester Black cab driver at the airport for over 30 years.

Before it became a problem the Muslim taxi drivers would apparently take a container filed with water into the cubicle....after the seats were repeatedly broken (from being stood upon) they (both the non Muslim and the Muslims) campaigned for separate toilets which they were eventually given.

The Muslim toilets were equipped with bidets........problem solved.

What are you talking about...!!!???

"Before it became a problem..."...???

please explain what you mean by "it", what you mean by "problem" and explain how all this "became a problem" but wasn't "before"...?

"...the Muslim taxi drivers..."...???

So what we're all the other Muslims doing throughout that time...?

"...would take a container filled with water into cubicle with them..."...???

...a bottle of water...? And how would the taking of a bottle of water into a cubicle be a problem...!?

Then you say only the Muslims got the bidets fitted in their "toilets"...

Because it was necessary for their "traditional" toilet habits etc...?

So what did they do before this late 17th century French invention...!!!???

And how come they know how to use them when they don't know how to use a 16th century toilet properly...!!!???

Not many French habits appeal, but the bidet always seems to me to be quite a civilised invention.
We Brits are considered a bit mucky by some ( the French in particular) because we don't have them as standard in our homes.

by Syl Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:45 pm

Jobless Oddball wrote:
Syl wrote:Yep...bottoms must be washed after every movement....a bit awkward in a public loo.

You've obviously never been to Japan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No I haven't, why... do they wash their arses in public toilets?

Mind you they are quite small, so it would probably be easier than a burly hairy six footer trying to manoeuvre a bum wash in a small cubicle.

by Guest Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:58 pm

Syl wrote:
No I haven't, why... do they wash their arses in public toilets?

Mind you they are quite small, so it would probably be easier than a burly hairy six footer trying to manoeuvre a bum wash in a small cubicle.

Wash settings for men or women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then a quick blow dry option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No paper required!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the cubicles are the same size as ours....................so I've heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:32 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

What are you talking about...!!!???

"Before it became a problem..."...???

please explain what you mean by "it", what you mean by "problem" and explain how all this "became a problem" but wasn't "before"...?

"...the Muslim taxi drivers..."...???

So what we're all the other Muslims doing throughout that time...?

"...would take a container filled with water into cubicle with them..."...???

...a bottle of water...? And how would the taking of a bottle of water into a cubicle be a problem...!?

Then you say only the Muslims got the bidets fitted in their "toilets"...

Because it was necessary for their "traditional" toilet habits etc...?

So what did they do before this late 17th century French invention...!!!???

And how come they know how to use them when they don't know how to use a 16th century toilet properly...!!!???

Not many French habits appeal, but the bidet always seems to me to be quite a civilised invention.
We Brits are considered a bit mucky by some ( the French in particular) because we don't have them as standard in our homes.

Didn't answer the questions...

Although you now actually acknowledge that the bidet is a French invention and toileting tradition/habit... which has only been in existence for about 300 years or so... so NOT a Muslim thing at all!!!

But interestingly never installed to keep the French happy... so I fail to see why Muslims should get such special treatment...!?

Simple answer would be that they just used the regular toilets in the normal way in the first place...

But when they insist on squatting and spraying their shit everywhere... it's no surprise that they need somewhere to wash it off their feet and ankles rather than treading it around everywhere...!!!

How very civilised!!!

by Irn Bru Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:24 am

Case study - well sort of.

Pre-op transsexual killer moved out of Corton Vale all-women jail after claims he had romps with other prisoners

PARIS GREEN, who used to be known as Peter Laing - was only sent to prison five weeks ago after being convicted of murder.

A PRE-OP transsexual killer has been moved out of Scotland’s women-only jail after claims he had sex with other prisoners.

Paris Green was transferred out of Cornton Vale prison after inmates claimed he had fling with other cons.

Forget the criminal activities and just consider the transgender status.

I wouldn't have a problem with a transgender using the gents toiliet but I'm not a woman but maybe they would have a problem with Paris using a female toliet.

Judge for yourselves.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pre-op-transsexual-killer-moved-out-2928751#KeBCjQcC1mU0PdHt.97

Looks like he was having a ball in there.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:29 am

The Japanese do indeed have waahing facilities, incredibly sophisticated too, AND some of the toilets have warm seats, in case it is cold. The public toilets are always clean too, unlike every other country's toilets I'ce seen. They are amazing.

Thai toilets also have small spray hoses too. And it is true, British/American toilet hygene is seen as disgusting by Asians lol

Interestingly, before we learned of toilet paper fron the Chinese, we used water too.

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:09 pm

North Carolina’s General Assembly struck a huge blow to LGBT people on March 23, when they speedily passed House Bill 2, a law banning LGBT non-discrimination protections and barring transgender people from using affirming bathrooms.
Now, Gov. Pat McCrory has issued a laughable listicle titled “Myths vs. Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren’t saying about common-sense privacy law.”
He tries to address the many criticisms of HB2 that have erupted since its passing but fails miserably.

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 7 Shutterstock_1031289

There are 18 points on his list, but for the sake of time, let’s assume they’re all outrageous and hone in on the most egregious claims:

Does the new bill limit or prohibit private sector companies from adopting their own nondiscrimination policies or practices?
Answer: No. Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.

This is a moot point. Private institutions have always had the right to govern themselves as they wish, and as Joe Jervis wrote, “the companies that would do so have never been the fucking problem.” What we’re worried about is people in public places, going about their lives, constantly afraid of being kicked out for the “crime” of living as their true self.

Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?
Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city.

False. Egregiously false. This law overturned non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in eight municipalities in North Carolina. What is that if not taking away protections?

Can businesses and private facilities still offer reasonable accommodations for transgender people, like single occupancy bathrooms for instance?
Answer: Yes. This bill allows and does nothing to prevent businesses, and public or private facilities from providing single use bathrooms.

That’s true, but the bill also does nothing to prevent businesses from banningtransgender people from using the bathrooms they choose if single-use bathrooms are not available. There are several other questions on the list that ask whether or not private businesses, private facilities, etc. are allowed to protect LGBT people. That’s not the problem. The problem is that LGBT people in the public are not protected and no action will be taken against the private businesses that do discriminate.

Does this law prohibit towns, cities or counties in North Carolina from setting their own nondiscrimination policies in employment that go beyond state law?
Answer: No. Town, cities and counties in North Carolina are still allowed to set stricter non-discrimination policies for their own employees if they choose.

Key word: Employees. As it stands, an LGBT individual could still be kicked out of a restaurant for holding her partner’s hand.

Does this bill mean transgender people will always have to use the restroom of the sex of their birth, even if they have undergone a sex change?
Answer: No. This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate.

Gender confirmation surgery (a “sex change”) is not universally accessible. It’s prohibitively expensive for many, many transgender people, and many other people just don’t want to have it. This should not be the standard we use to decide whether people are treated with common decency and respect. Also, do we expect trans people to carry their birth certificates around as proof of gender?

I’m worried about how this new law affects transgender children or students in North Carolina. Does this bill allow bullying against transgender children in schools?
Answer: Absolutely not. North Carolina law specifically prohibits bullying and harassing behavior against children on the basis of sexual identity.

Of course this affects transgender students. It’s highly, highly unlikely that transgender students will have had gender confirmation surgery, meaning their birth certificate will not match their gender identity, meaning they will have no choice but to use the school restroom that does not fit their true gender. This makes them automatic targets for bullying, harassment, and even assault.

Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?
Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.

This just shows the fundamental wrongness of this law.
Charlotte’s measure would not have allowed “men in women’s restrooms” because transgender women are not men. On the contrary; this new law will actually force transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, a bizarre irony that has not been lost on trans men (and women) themselves. As for the privacy concerns: assault and sexual harassment are always illegal. They can happen regardless of a person’s genitals OR gender identity. And a person who wants to commit a crime will likely do so regardless of the law. This bill does nothing new to protect against those problems.

Why did the Legislature call a special session to overturn the bathroom ordinance?
Answer: The new Charlotte ordinance, which would have required all businesses to change their restroom policies and take away the expectation of privacy people have when using the restroom, was going to go into effect on April 1 if no action was taken.

Translation: Anti-LGBT people were terrified of what would happen when transgender people used the bathrooms that matched their gender identity (which they were likely already doing). Transphobia alone put this bill on the fast track.
McCrory’s attempt to assuage our fears about this law is woefully misguided. There’s a reason why politicians, sports organizations, major corporations, and so many others have spoken out against the law and even threatened to remove their ties to North Carolina.
This halfhearted explanation of the bill doesn’t help matters. If anything, it just confirms the worst fears of LGBT advocates and their allies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/03/28/north-carolina-gov-pat-mccrory-attempts-and-fails-to-clarify-new-anti-lgbt-law/

by Eilzel Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:56 pm

There is nothing okay or justifiable about this law. It is pure discrimination targeting all LGBT people. It will almost certainly be over turned.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:23 pm

Eilzel wrote:There is nothing okay or justifiable about this law. It is pure discrimination targeting all LGBT people. It will almost certainly be over turned.

How is it targeting gay people?

by HoratioTarr Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:31 pm

Eilzel wrote:The Japanese do indeed have waahing facilities, incredibly sophisticated too, AND some of the toilets have warm seats, in case it is cold. The public toilets are always clean too, unlike every other country's toilets I'ce seen. They are amazing.

Thai toilets also have small spray hoses too. And it is true, British/American toilet hygene is seen as disgusting by Asians lol

Interestingly, before we learned of toilet paper fron the Chinese, we used water too.

the Japanese were clean when the rest of us were still rolling around in shit and being afraid of fresh air.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:35 pm

"The problem is that LGBT people in the public are not protected and no action will be taken against the private businesses that do discriminate."

The whole reason NC state government have introduced this is to enable prejudice. Imo it is a vindictive backlash to losing the gay marriage debate- and ultimately they will lose this one too- just look at what's happening with boycotts in Georgia to see how business and star power can try and force change Smile

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Eilzel wrote:"The problem is that LGBT people in the public are not protected and no action will be taken against the private businesses that do discriminate."

The whole reason NC state government have introduced this is to enable prejudice. Imo it is a vindictive backlash to losing the gay marriage debate- and ultimately they will lose this one too- just look at what's happening with boycotts in Georgia to see how business and star power can try and force change

How will it affect gay people though? They're not necessarily transgender are they? It's only those who want to be a different sex who are complaining.

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

I have just asked my OH who was a Manchester Black cab driver at the airport for over 30 years.

Before it became a problem the Muslim taxi drivers would apparently take a container filed with water into the cubicle....after the seats were repeatedly broken (from being stood upon) they (both the non Muslim and the Muslims) campaigned for separate toilets which they were eventually given.

The Muslim toilets were equipped with bidets........problem solved.

What are you talking about...!!!???

Which bit are you having trouble with?

"Before it became a problem..."...???

please explain what you mean by "it", what you mean by "problem" and explain how all this "became a problem" but wasn't "before"...?

IT (broken toilets) was not a problem when there were few Muslim hackney drivers who worked from Manchester airport.

"...the Muslim taxi drivers..."...???

So what we're all the other Muslims doing throughout that time...?

Obviously not working as taxi drivers.

"...would take a container filled with water into cubicle with them..."...???

...a bottle of water...? And how would the taking of a bottle of water into a cubicle be a problem...!?

That was not the problem, the breaking of the toilets was though.

Then you say only the Muslims got the bidets fitted in their "toilets"...

Because it was necessary for their "traditional" toilet habits etc...?

So what did they do before this late 17th century French invention...!!!???

Presumably squat.

And how come they know how to use them when they don't know how to use a 16th century toilet properly...!!!???

They do know how, but obviously some prefer their own method.

[/b]

This was in response to you saying I hadn't answered the questions.
Happy to help.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:47 pm

Les... you might as well be trying to say that the whole concept of male and female toilets is discriminatory on the basis of gender and therefore wrong...

Then you should also be applying this to all other areas too... in the name of fairness and equality etc... sporting events, clothing, magazines...

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:52 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

What are you talking about...!!!???

Which bit are you having trouble with?

"Before it became a problem..."...???

please explain what you mean by "it", what you mean by "problem" and explain how all this "became a problem" but wasn't "before"...?

IT (broken toilets) was not a problem when there were few Muslim hackney drivers who worked from Manchester airport.

"...the Muslim taxi drivers..."...???

So what we're all the other Muslims doing throughout that time...?

Obviously not working as taxi drivers.

"...would take a container filled with water into cubicle with them..."...???

...a bottle of water...? And how would the taking of a bottle of water into a cubicle be a problem...!?

That was not the problem, the breaking of the toilets was though.

Then you say only the Muslims got the bidets fitted in their "toilets"...

Because it was necessary for their "traditional" toilet habits etc...?

So what did they do before this late 17th century French invention...!!!???

Presumably squat.

And how come they know how to use them when they don't know how to use a 16th century toilet properly...!!!???

They do know how, but obviously some prefer their own method.

[/b]

This was in response to you saying I hadn't answered the questions.
Happy to help.

I didn't realise that Muslims weren't allowed to use the toilets at the airport unless they were taxi drivers... I suppose the majority of Muslims passing through the airport must have just held it in... or maybe just used the toilets properly...?

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:06 pm

Are you being deliberately daft Tommy?

Black cab drivers have their own area where they wait for fares. They have their own facilities.
You don't think they park up and use the airport lounges and toilets when nature calls or they feel peckish do you?

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Les... you might as well be trying to say that the whole concept of male and female toilets is discriminatory on the basis of gender and therefore wrong...

Then you should also be applying this to all other areas too... in the name of fairness and equality etc... sporting events, clothing, magazines...

Wow Tommy showing why he is very thick again

The whole concept of male and female can discriminate on the bases of disabilities.
It can discriminate on the bases of age.

The whole concept is therefore wrong

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:09 pm

Eilzel wrote:"The problem is that LGBT people in the public are not protected and no action will be taken against the private businesses that do discriminate."

The whole reason NC state government have introduced this is to enable prejudice. Imo it is a vindictive backlash to losing the gay marriage debate- and ultimately they will lose this one too- just look at what's happening with boycotts in Georgia to see how business and star power can try and force change

Yep its just a bunch of christian fascists denying the equality that is afforded Christian fascists

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:25 pm

Syl wrote:Are you being deliberately daft Tommy?

Black cab drivers have their own area where they wait for fares. They have their own facilities.
You don't think they park up and use the airport lounges and toilets when nature calls or they feel peckish do you?

But no Muslims breaking toilets and shitting all over the pans in the rest of the airport then...!?

Although large numbers of them must be passing through there and using the rest of the toilets there every day...!?

And then there's the other Muslim airport staff... don't they use/break toilets either...?

You are saying it is only the Muslim taxi drivers who are doing the damage!

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:Are you being deliberately daft Tommy?

Black cab drivers have their own area where they wait for fares. They have their own facilities.
You don't think they park up and use the airport lounges and toilets when nature calls or they feel peckish do you?

But no Muslims breaking toilets and shitting all over the pans in the rest of the airport then...!?

Although large numbers of them must be passing through there and using the rest of the toilets there every day...!?

And then there's the other Muslim airport staff... don't they use/break toilets either...?

You are saying it is only the Muslim taxi drivers who are doing the damage!

What has this now got to do with Muslims?

Daft reply

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:Are you being deliberately daft Tommy?

Black cab drivers have their own area where they wait for fares. They have their own facilities.
You don't think they park up and use the airport lounges and toilets when nature calls or they feel peckish do you?

But no Muslims breaking toilets and shitting all over the pans in the rest of the airport then...!?

Although large numbers of them must be passing through there and using the rest of the toilets there every day...!?

And then there's the other Muslim airport staff... don't they use/break toilets either...?

You are saying it is only the Muslim taxi drivers who are doing the damage!

I have no idea about the other toilets. I only know separate toilets were given to the taxi drivers at Manchester airport for their own use...no other airport staff used them either, I imagine they had their own facilities in the airport buildings..

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:27 pm

So why was it that only the Muslim taxi drivers were breaking toilets...?

And why only them given special provisions?

And why weren't others allowed to use these facilities if they wanted...?

I personally would prefer the option to have a wash up of my arse after having a shit... but I'll bet that the Muslims were just using the bidet to wash the shit off their feet and ankles. ..

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So why was it that only the Muslim taxi drivers were breaking toilets...?

And why only them given special provisions?

And why weren't others allowed to use these facilities if they wanted...?

I personally would prefer the option to have a wash up of my arse after having a shit... but I'll bet that the Muslims were just using the bidet to wash the shit off their feet and ankles. ..

Who knows and who cares?

Are you now further expanding your bigotry

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So why was it that only the Muslim taxi drivers were breaking toilets...?

And why only them given special provisions?

And why weren't others allowed to use these facilities if they wanted...?

I personally would prefer the option to have a wash up of my arse after having a shit... but I'll bet that the Muslims were just using the bidet to wash the shit off their feet and ankles. ..

I don't think many non Muslims actually stood on the toilets ....which is how they were being broken.

Special provisions as in bidets? They requested them...others did not.

They didn't want to...why would they?

If you want bidets in your place of employment request them....but I doubt the average non Muslim man would be that bothered.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:54 pm

Two plaintiffs - UNC-Chapel Hill employee Joaquin Carcano of Carrboro and Payton Grey McGarry, a student at UNC-Greensboro - were born female and now consider themselves male but have not changed their birth certificates.

The lawsuit says Carcano used a designated men's restroom at work and McGarry used a campus locker room without any problems before the law was passed. Using women's restrooms could cause them anxiety and fear, the lawsuit reads. Now they'll have to search for bathrooms in other buildings or at local businesses, according to the lawsuit.

Forcing McGarry "to use the women's restroom would also cause substantial harm to his mental health and well-being," the lawsuit reads. "It would also force him to disclose to others the fact that he is transgender, which itself could lead to violence and harassment."

This person needs to pull himself/herself together. What could possibly happen to him/her in a women's restroom?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-sued-over-transgender-bathroom-law/

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:02 pm

I suppose that other women might think he/she is a man and complain, but that's about all. It's like the case of the pupil in a school who didn't know which one to use in the end, but that was just a silly case really, and I did feel sorry for the boy/girl.

I just think there was no need for any law in the first place. Transgender people could have carried on as they were without all these laws about "rights", and if there were problems, they could have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:43 pm

It's also an issue in the UK apparently. Some bloke called Joanne filmed a barmaid saying that he couldn't go in the ladies because her Manager had made a rule barring men from them.

I think it's time there was a law preventing people from filming people in that manner. It wasn't the barmaid's fault - it was not her decision, and she shouldn't have to put up with some idiot filming her in order to "make a point". I think it amounts to harassment.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose that other women might think he/she is a man and complain, but that's about all. It's like the case of the pupil in a school who didn't know which one to use in the end, but that was just a silly case really, and I did feel sorry for the boy/girl.

I just think there was no need for any law in the first place. Transgender people could have carried on as they were without all these laws about "rights", and if there were problems, they could have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I've been in situations where I've had to use the woman's room, and it is a hassle. So many customs and so many expectations, and before you know it you're a suspected pervert... Rolling Eyes

It's a lot more difficult that just opening the door and going in.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose that other women might think he/she is a man and complain, but that's about all. It's like the case of the pupil in a school who didn't know which one to use in the end, but that was just a silly case really, and I did feel sorry for the boy/girl.

I just think there was no need for any law in the first place. Transgender people could have carried on as they were without all these laws about "rights", and if there were problems, they could have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I've been in situations where I've had to use the woman's room, and it is a hassle. So many customs and so many expectations, and before you know it you're a suspected pervert...

It's a lot more difficult that just opening the door and going in.

Expectations Quill? Laughing

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:16 pm

I recently used a mens toilet facility...not on purpose, I didn't have my specs on and the man looked like a woman on the door.
The urinals made me aware of my error.
I think the obvious answer is separate cubicles that both men and women can use privately ....then everyone is happy.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:22 pm

Syl wrote:I recently used a mens toilet facility...not on purpose, I didn't have my specs on and the man looked like a woman on the door.
The urinals made me aware of my error.
I think the obvious answer is separate cubicles that both men and women can use privately ....then everyone is happy.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:28 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:So why was it that only the Muslim taxi drivers were breaking toilets...?

And why only them given special provisions?

And why weren't others allowed to use these facilities if they wanted...?

I personally would prefer the option to have a wash up of my arse after having a shit... but I'll bet that the Muslims were just using the bidet to wash the shit off their feet and ankles. ..

I don't think many non Muslims actually stood on the toilets ....which is how they were being broken.

Special provisions as in bidets? They requested them...others did not.

They didn't want to...why would they?

If you want bidets in your place of employment request them....but I doubt the average non Muslim man would be that bothered.

My question wasn't about non Muslims breaking toilets... it was why only the Muslim taxi drivers seemed to be breaking them at the airport while all the other Muslims using the airport managed to use the toilets without breaking them...!?

Something special provided for only some and not others and decided on a faith basis is clearly discriminatory!!!

And I'll remind you again... the bidet was a FRENCH invention of NON Muslims... only 300 years ago... Surely if it was a Muslim tradition then it would have been invented by them a long time before that!!!

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:36 pm

I answered....I have no idea about the other toilets in the airport....just what my OH told me about the ones for the taxi drivers usage.

Taxi drivers work on average a 12 hour shift....perhaps their needs are greater than a traveller passing through an airport.

Perhaps other toilets in the actual airport were damaged by people standing on them for a shite instead of the more commonly used method of sitting on the damn things....who knows....I don't. Rolling Eyes

And I KNOW the French invented the bidet, whats that got to do with anything?

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:45 pm

Constant flow of Muslims passing through rest of airport plus other Muslim staff... why only the taxi drivers breaking toilets...!?

You said non Muslims wouldn't want bidets although it was invented by non Muslims...

I would prefer a wash rather than a wipe myself...

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Constant flow of Muslims passing through rest of airport plus other Muslim staff... why only the taxi drivers breaking toilets...!?

You said non Muslims wouldn't want bidets although it was invented by non Muslims...

I would prefer a wash rather than a wipe myself...

TMI.

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 7 2215183653

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:49 pm

This Joanna person says she is now afraid to go out in case there's a backlash against her for posting the video of the barmaid on Facebook. Serves her right - she wanted people to have a go at the barmaid.

http://planettransgender.com/trans-woman-banned-using-pub-toilet/

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:54 pm

I see the prejudice brigade is out in force trying to deny equality again based on gender and also fundamentally ignoring this law denies the same rights non-LGTB people have

The usual bigoted suspects either religious cranks or just plain bigoted morans

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:54 pm

Morans?

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Morans?

My mistake, morons.

Sometimes I type too fast, especially when I read so much prejudice and hate

by Sponsored content