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 Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

I suggest you first research something you know very little about before promoting discrimination against people

So you think it just means people who have physically changed their gender?

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:58 pm

I used to know some gay chaps who liked dressing in women's clothes, but they didn't want to be women.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:58 pm

Are you actually going to contribute anything other than tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Didge? If not, I'll wait for someone with a bit more intelligence to post.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again no concept of what you are talking about

Yes I do. A gay man doesn't necessarily want to be a woman, so why would he want to use the women's toilets?

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

Again

How do you know which bathroom a transgender person should use?
A: A transgender person should use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity.

The medical community (and increasingly, employ-ers, schools and courts) now recognize that it is essential to the health and well-being of transgender people for them to be able to live in accordance with their internal gender identity in all aspects of life—restroom usage is a necessary part of that experience.

In Doe v. Regional School Unit, the Maine Supreme Court held that a transgender girl had a right to use the women’s bathroom at school because her psychological well-being and educational success depended on her transition. The school, in denying her access, had “treated [her] differently from other students solely because of her status as a transgender girl.” The court determined that this was a form of discrimination.

Right to restrooms that match one’s gender identity have also been recognized in the workplace and are actively being asserted in public accommodations. In Iowa, for example, discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has been prohibited by law since 2007 through the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:59 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I do. A gay man doesn't necessarily want to be a woman, so why would he want to use the women's toilets?

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

Again

How do you know which bathroom a transgender person should use?
A: A transgender person should use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity.

The medical community (and increasingly, employ-ers, schools and courts) now recognize that it is essential to the health and well-being of transgender people for them to be able to live in accordance with their internal gender identity in all aspects of life—restroom usage is a necessary part of that experience.

In Doe v. Regional School Unit, the Maine Supreme Court held that a transgender girl had a right to use the women’s bathroom at school because her psychological well-being and educational success depended on her transition. The school, in denying her access, had “treated [her] differently from other students solely because of her status as a transgender girl.” The court determined that this was a form of discrimination.

Right to restrooms that match one’s gender identity have also been recognized in the workplace and are actively being asserted in public accommodations. In Iowa, for example, discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has been prohibited by law since 2007 through the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

So we're talking about transgender people, not gay people - as I said.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Are you actually going to contribute anything other than tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Didge? If not, I'll wait for someone with a bit more intelligence to post.

Yes until you actually understand Transgender, which is evident you have not the first clue what you are talking about

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:00 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Are you actually going to contribute anything other than tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Didge? If not, I'll wait for someone with a bit more intelligence to post.

Yes until you actually understand Transgender, which is evident you have not the first clue what you are talking about

I do understand what it means. Do you though?

Please define it.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

Again

How do you know which bathroom a transgender person should use?
A: A transgender person should use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity.

The medical community (and increasingly, employ-ers, schools and courts) now recognize that it is essential to the health and well-being of transgender people for them to be able to live in accordance with their internal gender identity in all aspects of life—restroom usage is a necessary part of that experience.

In Doe v. Regional School Unit, the Maine Supreme Court held that a transgender girl had a right to use the women’s bathroom at school because her psychological well-being and educational success depended on her transition. The school, in denying her access, had “treated [her] differently from other students solely because of her status as a transgender girl.” The court determined that this was a form of discrimination.

Right to restrooms that match one’s gender identity have also been recognized in the workplace and are actively being asserted in public accommodations. In Iowa, for example, discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has been prohibited by law since 2007 through the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

So we're talking about transgender people, not gay people - as I said.

You keep changing your view like the wing on this debate

What else does the OP state

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes until you actually understand Transgender, which is evident you have not the first clue what you are talking about

I do understand what it means. Do you though?

Please define it.

You certainly do not understand by asking me if I would allow a man to enter a ladies toilet

That was a given you fail to understand Transgender

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:02 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So we're talking about transgender people, not gay people - as I said.

You keep changing your view like the wing on this debate

What else does the OP state

I haven't changed my view at all.

Now stop disrupting this thread and wasting my time.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:02 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I do understand what it means. Do you though?

Please define it.

You certainly do not understand by asking me if I would allow a man to enter a ladies toilet

That was a given you fail to understand Transgender

I haven't failed. That's the last reply you will get - knock yourself out with your arrogant ignorance.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:03 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Is this really discrimination though? After all, they're just saying the men should use the men's room, and women should use the women's room, rather than people choosing which one they want to use. It's the same for everyone.

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

Being born with a set of bollocks or not normally determines your 'gender identity' Dodge...!!!

lol!

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

You keep changing your view like the wing on this debate

What else does the OP state

I haven't changed my view at all.

Now stop disrupting this thread and wasting my time.

No you are derailing the thread by not offering anything to counter any of the evidence I gave

Even worse you failed to understand Transgender by asking saying if I would allow a many into a ladies toilet

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

Being born with a set of bollocks or not normally determines your 'gender identity' Dodge...!!!

Wrong

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

Being born with a set of bollocks or not normally determines your 'gender identity' Dodge...!!!

Some ladies would object to such things in the powder room. Laughing

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right tags. .. which is included in what I was getting at...

yeah ...sure...

why didnt you post that then tommy.???

If you gas SAID that hetero perverts are claiming to be transgendered to gain access to the ladies .....that would be a different story wouldnt it...

in other words that WASNT what you meant at all

Well why don't you post up what I did ACTUALLY say... and we can all see that firstly, what I did say was perfectly legitimate as a post and should never have been removed at all... and secondly, how it does apply to a whole range of things that the vast majority of normal everyday people should expect to be free from when using a toilet!!!

firstly tommy ...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court.
also you definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be.

AND....whats worse for YOUR argument is...that transgendered falls well within expected "norms" for a complex species and so is in fact completely normal....

so tough shit...

I've had it with your little "games" and your little agenda Tommy......

you make the asinine statement that you have nothing against gays, and then at every turn seek to deny them the rights that the rest of the population enjoy...using lies and ridicuous propaganda, deliberate misinterpretations, and idiotic pseudo science..... the only thing I havnt caught you hiding behind is religion.....so far.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:22 pm

I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:25 pm

Anyway, the reasoning behind this new law is this:

Republicans and their allies have said intervening was necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man – perhaps a sex offender – could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room by calling himself transgender.

“It’s common sense – biological men should not be in women’s showers, locker rooms and bathrooms,” said representative Dean Arp of Monroe, a Republican, before the chamber voted 82-26 for the legislation after nearly three hours of debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/north-carolina-blocks-local-laws-on-transgender-use-of-bathrooms

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the reasoning behind this new law is this:

Republicans and their allies have said intervening was necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man – perhaps a sex offender – could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room by calling himself transgender.

“It’s common sense – biological men should not be in women’s showers, locker rooms and bathrooms,” said representative Dean Arp of Monroe, a Republican, before the chamber voted 82-26 for the legislation after nearly three hours of debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/north-carolina-blocks-local-laws-on-transgender-use-of-bathrooms

In other words gibberish, they are blatantly discriminating and this shows by their poor lack of understanding of Transgender as its arguing off men as a sex offender to deny Transgender equality
They are discriminating, as why not a female sex offender in a ladies toilet?

Thanks Rags, I knew it was a load of bollocks

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:31 pm

Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 2 2190311264

North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 2 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:31 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the reasoning behind this new law is this:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/north-carolina-blocks-local-laws-on-transgender-use-of-bathrooms

In other words gibberish, they are blatantly discriminating and this shows by their poor lack of understanding of Transgender as its arguing off men as a sex offender to deny Transgender equality

Thanks Rags, I knew it was a load of bollocks

It's not an unreasonable argument.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:31 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Well why don't you post up what I did ACTUALLY say... and we can all see that firstly, what I did say was perfectly legitimate as a post and should never have been removed at all... and secondly, how it does apply to a whole range of things that the vast majority of normal everyday people should expect to be free from when using a toilet!!!

firstly tommy ...when I remove a post...I have NO intention of reposting it....simples...its not down to a jury of whoever.....and this aint, it may surprise you to learn , a court.
also you definition you posted of "normal" is I'm afraid rather dated....or, at least...very soon will be.

AND....whats worse for YOUR argument is...that transgendered falls well within expected "norms" for a complex species and so is in fact completely normal....

so tough shit...

I've had it with your little "games" and your little agenda Tommy......

you make the asinine statement that you have nothing against gays, and then at every turn seek to deny them the rights that the rest of the population enjoy...using lies and ridicuous propaganda, deliberate misinterpretations, and idiotic pseudo science..... the only thing I havnt caught you hiding behind is religion.....so far.

So you can't explain which rules were broken by my post that justified your need to remove it...!?

And you accuse me of having an agenda...!?

Please justify the removal of my post or reinstate it... simple request...

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

In other words gibberish, they are blatantly discriminating and this shows by their poor lack of understanding of Transgender as its arguing off men as a sex offender to deny Transgender equality

Thanks Rags, I knew it was a load of bollocks

It's not an unreasonable argument.

Its an unfounded argument, as you can have female sex offenders.

Its creating a law specifically that ends up discriminating transgender and it will get taken to the supreme court

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:33 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

If a man is not supposed to be in there, a woman would be wary straight away, but if men can go in on the grounds that they want to be woman, a woman might feel they can't say anything.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

because Ragga, whether YOU like it or not it is one of the mainstays of the rabid homophobes arsenal.....

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:34 pm

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional - Page 2 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:34 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

because Ragga, whether YOU like it or not it is one of the mainstays of the rabid homophobes arsenal.....

Bollox. I told you loads of times - homophobia is not confined to those with religious faith, and for you to assume it is shows the kind of bigotry that you're accusing Tommy of.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

If a man is not supposed to be in there, a woman would be wary straight away, but if men can go in on the grounds that they want to be woman, a woman might feel they can't say anything.

Showing again you do not understand what transgender is.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

because Ragga, whether YOU like it or not it is one of the mainstays of the rabid homophobes arsenal.....

Bollox. I told you loads of times - homophobia is not confined to those with religious faith, and for you to assume it is shows the kind of bigotry that you're accusing Tommy of.

It generally is confined to religious bull

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:36 pm

See what you've done Victor? Now you've started Didge up yet again.

FFS, why do you people do this?

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:See what you've done Victor? Now you've started Didge up yet again.

FFS, why do you people do this?

You started this by going onto Victor about it

lol always unable to admit your many faults

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

because Ragga, whether YOU like it or not it is one of the mainstays of the rabid homophobes arsenal.....

Bollox. I told you loads of times - homophobia is not confined to those with religious faith, and for you to assume it is shows the kind of bigotry that you're accusing Tommy of.

which shows that you are merely looking for a place to piss,,,,,

I didnt say it was a case of homophobia being confined to those with religious beliefs

what I ACTUALLY SAID was......that many homophobes use the religious argument to justify their stupidity....(even it seems some that are not actually particularly religious)

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:38 pm

I see this thread is going to turn into some kind of rant about religion now - by Didge obviously.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:39 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Bollox. I told you loads of times - homophobia is not confined to those with religious faith, and for you to assume it is shows the kind of bigotry that you're accusing Tommy of.

which shows that you are merely looking for a place to piss,,,,,

I didnt say it was a case of homophobia being confined to those with religious beliefs

what I ACTUALLY SAID was......that many homophobes use the religious argument to justify their stupidity....(even it seems some that are not actually particularly religious)

Well Tommy hasn't done that, so there was no need for you to mention it!

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:40 pm

hint to raggs...put brain into gear BEFORE pressing send...... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I see this thread is going to turn into some kind of rant about religion now - by Didge obviously.

I think its about time you learnt to move on and stopped being ever so childish

So now I have better things to do than read you sounding off

Sp enjoy being bitter, you seem to have a knack for it

Laters

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

I'm not so sure Raggs... I didn't use any words that are banned here... and my point/argument was not only completely valid but also presented in my 'normal' and elegantly eloquent style of delivery!

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:41 pm

Lord Foul wrote:hint to raggs...put brain into gear BEFORE pressing send......

Hint to you - stop shit stirring.

Are you going to be editing posts if you don't agree with someone's opinion now?

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I presume this is not about Tommy's argument, it's about the use of a particular word. I don't see why religion is being dragged into it YET AGAIN.

I'm not so sure Raggs... I didn't use any words that are banned here... and my point/argument was not only completely valid but also presented in my 'normal' and elegantly eloquent style of delivery!

I think its about as derogatory and offensive as you can get to say people are abnormal, even more when you cannot even define what normal is.

You also know its offensive and take great delight in often doing so

About time you had abuse reigned in, as why should homosexuals have you abuse them due to your bigotry and ignorance

Well done Victor

Night everyone

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:44 pm

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

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

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

lol!

Much like I said before...

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

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:45 pm

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

So you are agreeing then that its wrong to label people abnormal then?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:46 pm

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

So you are agreeing then that its wrong to label people abnormal then?

If it's against the rules, he should edit himself.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you are agreeing then that its wrong to label people abnormal then?

If it's against the rules, he should edit himself.

Again are you saying its wrong?

Yes or No?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

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

Much like I said before...

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

They're normally unisex, but you'd only have people complaining that a disabled person might want to use it and doesn't want to wait 20 seconds.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:48 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If it's against the rules, he should edit himself.

Again are you saying its wrong?

Yes or No?

It depends on what one is talking about.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again are you saying its wrong?

Yes or No?

It depends on what one is talking about.

Copout alert

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:hint to raggs...put brain into gear BEFORE pressing send......

Hint to you - stop shit stirring.

right back at you

Are you going to be editing posts if you don't agree with someone's opinion now?

that I have never done..... Rolling Eyes

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Q.... do all these rest rooms etc have security on them?

if not

whats to stop "any man" entering ANYWAY??????????

and

since someone feels te need to "kick up a fuss"

there will just have to be a federal law passed, forcing everywhere to install single cubicle "gender neutral" facilities problem solved easy peasy

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

Much like I said before...

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

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

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

.for disabled people...

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:53 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Hint to you - stop shit stirring.

right back at you

Are you going to be editing posts if you don't agree with someone's opinion now?

that I have never done.....

You hinted that you would though.

AND....whats worse for YOUR argument is...that transgendered falls well within expected "norms" for a complex species and so is in fact completely normal....

so tough shit...

I've had it with your little "games" and your little agenda Tommy......

by Sponsored content