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 Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:58 pm

Syl wrote:
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.

Still not answered the questions...

But anyway... seems some support the idea of separate toilets and even different facilities for some... so why a problem with mens being for men and women's being for women...?

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

TMI.

Still not answered the questions...

But anyway... seems some support the idea of separate toilets and even different facilities for some... so why a problem with mens being for men and women's being for women...?

So your next bigoted view is how Muslims go to the toilet

What has that got to do with gender or LGTB discrimination?

Or are you adding this to the list of people you wish to discriminate against?

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:00 pm

Tommy....I have answered every question you put to me that I am able to.

Read up on the history of Muslim toilet etiquette if you want more info.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:02 pm

Do you support the rights of people to have specific toilets made available for their specific groups... or not...!?

lol!

by Guest Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you support the rights of people to have specific toilets made available for their specific groups... or not...!?

Only if its is a necessity, like disability or with age.

I fail to see why else you need special toilets, when people can share them, just make them all unisex and with special seperate baby facilities

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:06 pm

Cubicles that both for M and F can use...toilets for the disabled, toilets with baby changing facilities.

That's something for everyone.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:10 pm

Syl wrote:Tommy....I have answered every question you put to me that I am able to.

Read up on the history of Muslim toilet etiquette if you want more info.

Is that what you did...!?

I'd rather not thank you all the same... although I notice you use yet another 300 year old French invented word to describe things...

lol!

by Syl Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:Tommy....I have answered every question you put to me that I am able to.

Read up on the history of Muslim toilet etiquette if you want more info.

Is that what you did...!?

I'd rather not thank you all the same... although I notice you use yet another 300 year old French invented word to describe things...

No, my OH told me all the info I needed to know, it was an ongoing thing for quite a while when he worked the airport.
I need no thanks....and I didn't know the word 'history' originated from France.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Is that what you did...!?

I'd rather not thank you all the same... although I notice you use yet another 300 year old French invented word to describe things...

No, my OH told me all the info I needed to know, it was an ongoing thing for quite a while when he worked the airport.
I need no thanks....and I didn't know the word 'history' originated from France.

According to you... Muslim traditions are derived from French inventions from the last 300 years...

Try looking up the origin of...

Bidet
Toilet
Etiquette

Then tell us how all of these are from Muslim traditions/habits and have nothing to do with non Muslims!!!???

lol!

by Original Quill Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:26 pm

Here you go, tommy...enjoy:

Muslim Toilet Ettiquette wrote:Islamic Toilet Etiquette

Question: What are the rules and manners to be followed when answering the call of nature?
ANSWER
1. When entering the toilet, one should say the A'udhu (isti'adha) and Basmala and then recite the prayer "Allahumma innee a'oodhu bika minal khubthi wal khabaa-ith."

2. When entering the toilet, one should not have in one's hand anything on which the name of Allahu ta'ala or any verse of the Qur'an al-karim is written. There is no objection if it is in one's pocket or covered with something. Similarly, when stepping into the toilet, one should not be wearing a pendant with the name of Allah on it. If one has, one should tuck it inside the neck of one's sweater before entering it.

3. It is permissible to enter the toilet with an amulet if it is covered properly.

4. One should enter the toilet with one's left foot and exit with one's right foot.

5. One should recite the prayer "Alhamdu-lil-laa-hil-la-dhi adh-haba 'a-nil a-dhaa wa 'a-faa-ni" when exiting the toilet.

6. One should not talk or sit for a long time or read anything like a newspaper or sing a song or smoke or chew gum in the toilet.

7. After cleaning one's private parts, one should cover them immediately.

8. One should neither face the Qibla nor turn one's back toward it while urinating or defecating.

9. One should remove the feces on one's anus with one's finger and wash one's hand. If there are still traces of filth, one should wash them with water.

10. When cleaning the private parts after answering the call of nature, men should wash them from the back to the front. Women should wash them from the front to the back. Thus, the genitals will not be smeared with filth, nor will it cause one to be sexually aroused by the stimulation of fingers.

11. One should dry one's private parts with a cloth after washing them. If there is not a cloth available, it is permissible to use toilet paper because toilet paper is produced to be used after answering the call of nature. But using other kinds of paper for this purpose is not permissible.

12. One should sprinkle some water over one's underpants after cleaning one's private parts. By doing so, when one notices wetness on one's underpants, one will not feel doubt as to whether it is urine or not. One should assume it to be the sprinkled water and should not fall into baseless misgivings (waswasa).

13. After cleaning their private parts, men should do istibra. Women do not do it. Istibra means not to leave any drops of urine in the urethra. It is done by walking or coughing or lying on the left side.

14. If a man exits the toilet without doing istibra, drops of urine may come out and soil his underwear. Therefore, he should insert a cotton wick as big as a barley seed into his urinary hole, whereby he will prevent urine from oozing out.

15. Istinka means a feeling of being sure and having no doubts that there are no drops of urine left, and one's heart is at ease about it. A man can make wudu' after this certitude in his heart.

16. One should not look at one's private parts or spit into the toilet.

17. One should not urinate while standing unless there is strong necessity for doing so and should not let drops of urine splash onto one's clothes. To that end, one should keep separate pajamas or tracksuit. It is mustahab to enter the toilet with separate pajamas and with the head covered.

18. One should wash one's hands after using the toilet.

19. One must not urinate into any water, on a wall of a mosque, in a cemetery, or on a road.

20. Cleaning the private parts with stones and similar materials is an acceptable substitute for cleaning them with water.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:30 pm

9. One should remove the feces on one's anus with one's finger and wash one's hand. If there are still traces of filth, one should wash them with water.

Not toilet tissue...!?

Not soap...!?

And no mention of any bidet bum washing...!!!

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:34 pm

20. Cleaning the private parts with stones and similar materials is an acceptable substitute for cleaning them with water.

lol!

by Original Quill Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:36 pm

I think tp is considered unclean. I heard they reserved the left (unclean) hand for such tasks.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:38 pm

10. When cleaning the private parts after answering the call of nature, men should wash them from the back to the front. Women should wash them from the front to the back. Thus, the genitals will not be smeared with filth, nor will it cause one to be sexually aroused by the stimulation of fingers.

11. One should dry one's private parts with a cloth after washing them. If there is not a cloth available, it is permissible to use toilet paper because toilet paper is produced to be used after answering the call of nature. But using other kinds of paper for this purpose is not permissible.

12. One should sprinkle some water over one's underpants after cleaning one's private parts. By doing so, when one notices wetness on one's underpants, one will not feel doubt as to whether it is urine or not. One should assume it to be the sprinkled water and should not fall into baseless misgivings (waswasa).

13. After cleaning their private parts, men should do istibra. Women do not do it. Istibra means not to leave any drops of urine in the urethra. It is done by walking or coughing or lying on the left side.

14. If a man exits the toilet without doing istibra, drops of urine may come out and soil his underwear. Therefore, he should insert a cotton wick as big as a barley seed into his urinary hole, whereby he will prevent urine from oozing out.

lol!

This a joke... right...!?

by Original Quill Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:49 pm

No joke. You guys were asking about Muslim toilet etiquette. I happened to find it here: http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6096

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Well... as it all sounds so sensible... maybe I should 'take a leaf out of their book' next time I have to clean my arse after a shit...!?

lol!

by Original Quill Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:02 pm

I don't know. If tp is frowned upon, is a leaf any better?

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:16 am

The North Carolina Attorney General’s office said it would not defend a new state law being challenged in federal court by opponents who say it discriminates against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who is running for governor this year, on Tuesday called the measure shameful and unconstitutional. It requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than the one with which they identify.

“Not only is this new law a national embarrassment, it will set North Carolina’s economy back if we don’t repeal it,” Cooper said at a news conference.

Senate Leader Phil Berger, a Republican, fired back with a statement calling for Cooper to resign from office for refusing to defend the state against the lawsuit.

“His zeal for pandering for the extreme left’s money and agenda in his race for governor is making it impossible for him to fulfill his duties as attorney general,” Berger said.

Advocacy groups sued North Carolina on Monday in response to state lawmakers’ repeal last week of a Charlotte city ordinance that would have allowed bathroom choice based on gender identity.

The Republican-dominated legislature and Governor Pat McCrory also have come under fire from major corporations and the White House for the measure, which was introduced, passed and signed into law during a one-day special session.

The law prohibits local governments from enacting anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Cooper said the measure conflicted with the nondiscrimination policy adopted by his office in 2001 that extended protections based on sexual orientation and marital status.

Cooper, who was first elected attorney general in 2000 and is now running against McCrory, advised the governor and legislature to scrap the law.

“Discrimination is wrong, period,” Cooper said.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/north-carolina-attorney-general-wont-defend-embarrassing-anti-trans-law/

by HoratioTarr Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:36 am

Original Quill wrote:No joke. You guys were asking about Muslim toilet etiquette. I happened to find it here: http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6096

No mention of soap! What a Face

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:58 am

I don't know why they lump gay people together with transgender people. Sexual orientation isn't the same as gender identity.

by Eilzel Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:25 am

The people who disluke one group tend to dislike the other, and vice versa mostly. The two groups have also fought side by side for equal rights, it would be pretty callous for gay rights activists to now ignore trans rights just because gay people have almost achieved full equality in law.

In the eyes of cavemen we are both deviants of some sort...

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:34 am

Eilzel wrote:The people who disluke one group tend to dislike the other, and vice versa mostly. The two groups have also fought side by side for equal rights, it would be pretty callous for gay rights activists to now ignore trans rights just because gay people have almost achieved full equality in law.

In the eyes of cavemen we are both deviants of some sort...

I appreciate that Les, but they don't really share the same issues do they? I mean, gay women don't generally object to using the women's bathroom do they? It's not like they want to be men.

I think this particular issue relates only to transgender people, and it should be flagged as such, not as a LGBTQ issue.

by Eilzel Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:09 pm

It is as much and LGBT issue as gay marriage and lowering the age of consent to 16 were trans issues. Again the collective of groups have walked together for decades. And aside from directly targetting trans people via discriminatory toilet policies, this also includes the sneaky rule to give protections to religious groups who would discriminate against gay people.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:34 pm

So nothing about protecting the rights of normal people to not have to share the toilet with people of the opposite sex who like to dress up as them...?

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So nothing about protecting the rights of normal people to not have to share the toilet with people of the opposite sex who like to dress up as them...?

What rights?

You do understand what having "all having equal rights under the law" means do you not?

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:39 pm

Anyway you already have the right not to share the toilet with Transsexuals

You simply leave the toilets if you are a bigoted twat

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 pm

Gay and transgender rights supporters wasted little time in challenging a new North Carolina law, filing a federal lawsuit Monday that called it discriminatory and said it singles out LGBT people for “disfavored treatment.”
The law, which has also drawn strong opposition from major corporations including Apple and Google, was signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory last week. The GOP-controlled legislature passed the law in response to a broad Charlotte ordinance that allowed transgender people to use the restroom aligned with their gender identity. The new state law also prevents all cities and counties from extending protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity at restaurants, hotels and stores.
“By singling out LGBT people for disfavored treatment and explicitly writing discrimination against transgender people into state law, [the new law] violates the most basic guarantees of equal treatment and the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit said.
With the law, North Carolina became the first state to require public school and university students to use only those bathrooms that match their gender on their birth certificates, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures.
Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights say state legislators demonized them with bogus claims about bathroom risks. Supporters say the new law protects all people from having to share bathrooms with people who make them feel unsafe.
Two transgender people, a lesbian law professor and several civil liberties groups sued.
Lawsuit defendants include McCrory and the University of North Carolina system, where one plaintiff works and another attends college. The system’s 17 campuses also must comply with the law.

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/lgbt-rights-groups-file-federal-lawsuit-over-new-north-carolina-law/

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:47 pm

Didge wrote:Anyway you already have the right not to share the toilet with Transsexuals

You simply leave the toilets if you are a bigoted twat

A man putting on a dress and wig and calling himself Pauline is not working woman... so stay out of the ladies toilet!!!

A woman putting on a set of dungarees and calling himself Sam does not make her a man... so stay out of the men's toilets!!!

If you want to twist the intention of 'all equal' etc... then all men should be able to go into the ladies whenever they like regardless of a dress or not...!

Stop being a twat!!!

Expecting everyone to change their ways for your own personal preference is just arrogant and selfish!!!

Men use the men's. .. women use the woman's... simple!!!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:Anyway you already have the right not to share the toilet with Transsexuals

You simply leave the toilets if you are a bigoted twat

A man putting on a dress and wig and calling himself Pauline is not working woman... so stay out of the ladies toilet!!!
A woman putting on a set of dungarees and calling himself Sam does not make her a man... so stay out of the men's toilets!!!
If you want to twist the intention of 'all equal' etc... then all men should be able to go into the ladies whenever they like regardless of a dress or not...! Stop being a twat!!!
Expecting everyone to change their ways for your own personal preference is just arrogant and selfish!!!
Men use the men's. .. women use the woman's... simple!!!

Listen you ignorant bigoted fuckwit

Its not a man putting on a dress, which shows you are as thick as shit.
Second pint further exposing your ignorance and failing to understand what transgender is
So you fail to even understand "all having equality under the law" as well
You stated what rights you have?
The same as everyone else
If you are an ignorant prejudice ignorant twat, which you excel at, then you can leave the toilet, that is your right.

Nobody is expecting to change anything. As what is being asked of you to in fact change?
When daily you have shared these toilets with these same people already before.
is the reality that you will be embarrassed you will get a stiffy?
If you are being asked to stop being such a thick twat, surely that is in your best interest?

by Eilzel Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:04 pm

Tommy, use your brain, if someone who looks just like a man but underneath has a vagina, goes into the women's toilets- how will women feel about that?

Likewise if someone looks just like a woman, but underneath has a penis, goes into the gents- how will thay be received?

by HoratioTarr Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:08 pm

Eilzel wrote:Tommy, use your brain, if someone who looks just like a man but underneath has a vagina, goes into the women's toilets- how will women feel about that?

Likewise if someone looks just like a woman, but underneath has a penis, goes into the gents- how will thay be received?

Like I said, attitudes to have to change. Acceptance of what isn't perceived as the 'norm' is as old as mankind, or even life.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:53 pm

If someone looks that much like a man or a woman then I doubt it will be even noticed let alone questioned if they use the toilet they look like...

But a man in a dress who looks like a man in a dress should not be going into the ladies toilets!

And if they don't feel comfortable using the men's then they have a choice to go and use the unisex disabled toilets instead!!!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If someone looks that much like a man or a woman then I doubt it will be even noticed let alone questioned if they use the toilet they look like...But a man in a dress who looks like a man in a dress should not be going into the ladies toilets!And if they don't feel comfortable using the men's then they have a choice to go and use the unisex disabled toilets instead!!!

Wrong its not down to you to discriminate and again you fail to understand transgender again

If you have an issue, then that is your problem, as "all have equality under the law" without any gender discrimination.

If its you that takes and has issue, then you have the right to leave the toilet until such a time as its vacant again, as again its you with the bigoted views, thus you are the problem and not the solution.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:10 pm

It's not discrimination... it is common sense. ..

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not discrimination... it is common sense. ..

Its discrimination and prejudice

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:20 pm

The tail does not wag the dog...!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

The tail does not wag the dog...!

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 8 Wag-the-dog-color

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:35 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The tail does not wag the dog...!

Didge's idea of 'normal'...!

lol!

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Eilzel wrote:It is as much and LGBT issue as gay marriage and lowering the age of consent to 16 were trans issues. Again the collective of groups have walked together for decades. And aside from directly targetting trans people via discriminatory toilet policies, this also includes the sneaky rule to give protections to religious groups who would discriminate against gay people.

You mean gay people have made it their issue - they jumped onto the bandwagon.

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Didge's idea of 'normal'...!

Define normal?

Razz

by Eilzel Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:15 pm

No raggs, for reasons I've mentioned we have always stood together, and read news articles to see how the law itself affects LGBT people. I don't see why you are getting antagonistic.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:17 pm

Eilzel wrote:No raggs, for reasons I've mentioned we have always stood together, and read news articles to see how the law itself affects LGBT people. I don't see why you are getting antagonistic.

I'm not really - I just think it's a transgender issue, and that shouldn't be confused with a gay issue. How does it affect gay people? Do you mean that a gay woman feels more comfortable in the men's toilets, and if so, why?

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:45 pm

Eilzel wrote:No raggs, for reasons I've mentioned we have always stood together, and read news articles to see how the law itself affects LGBT people. I don't see why you are getting antagonistic.

Indeed, as you you will find it is also an issue for those transgenders who are gay

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:14 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge's idea of 'normal'...!

Define normal?

Difficult to define anything with the 'progressives' here... definitions are 'transient' apparently... but then they claim to be able to decide an absolute definition when twisting what others are saying and meaning when THEIR posts are within THEIR own beliefs in legitimate definition...

Progressive : Are you a racist. ..?

Normal person : No...

Progressive : I'm not sure about what you mean by 'no' because definitions are 'transient'... so 'no' can also mean 'maybe'... and that can mean 'yes'...!!!

Normal person : I mean 'no'... as is defined by 'no'...!

Progressive : Who are YOU to decide what 'no' means...!? A few people think it means other things too...! And to deny them this is discrimination and denying them 'equality' which makes you a 'sixhirb'...!!! Only WE can decide what words and/or phrases mean, only WE can decide what you mean, and only WE can decide what others are allowed to mean/say/think... all in the name of 'equality' mind (transient style)...!!! Don't you see how WE HAVE TO SEIZE CONTROL over all the freedom and democracy and tell everyone what to do to prevent the 'fascist dictatorship' taking over...!!!???

lol!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Define normal?

Difficult to define anything with the 'progressives' here... definitions are 'transient' apparently... but then they claim to be able to decide an absolute definition when twisting what others are saying and meaning when THEIR posts are within THEIR own beliefs in legitimate definition...

Progressive : Are you a racist. ..?

Normal person : No...

Progressive : I'm not sure about what you mean by 'no' because definitions are 'transient'... so 'no' can also mean 'maybe'... and that can mean 'yes'...!!!

Normal person : I mean 'no'... as is defined by 'no'...!

Progressive : Who are YOU to decide what 'no' means...!? A few people think it means other things too...! And to deny them this is discrimination and denying them 'equality' which makes you a 'sixhirb'...!!! Only WE can decide what words and/or phrases mean, only WE can decide what you mean, and only WE can decide what others are allowed to mean/say/think... all in the name of 'equality' mind (transient style)...!!! Don't you see how WE HAVE TO SEIZE CONTROL over all the freedom and democracy and tell everyone what to do to prevent the 'fascist dictatorship' taking over...!!!???

That is waffle

Try again

Define normal

Is having amber eyes normal to you or are they abnormal?

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:27 pm

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

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

Define 'abnormal'...?

lol!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:30 pm

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

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

Define 'abnormal'...?

Waffle again, as amber eyes are very rare

So would that be normal or abnormal?

Define this based on colours for eyes?

So also you are saying those with one eye then would be abnormal and two eyes is normal then?

Define this also?

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:52 pm

Define 'abnormal'...!?

lol!

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Define 'abnormal'...!?

I am still waiting for you to define normal which so far you have not even scratched the surface of explaining

So again

as amber eyes are very rare

So would that be normal or abnormal?

Define this based on colours for eyes?

So also you are saying those with one eye then would be abnormal and two eyes is normal then?

So if a person has two legs, and someone has no legs, are they normal?

Define this also?

by Guest Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:57 pm

What is the betting Tommy is so stupid he will keep playing his surrender flag with each post as he is doing now and has been since I asked him a simple question he cannot answer ha ha ha

by Sponsored content