Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 14, 2016 10:29:39 GMT -5
I love that this implies that people find it comforting that the implied male sexual predators have access to boys in the men's room - as no one seems to be upset about that. and as far as I can tell the "men's room" signage confers the same "Magical Aura of Protection for all within" that a women's room signage confers... I am on the side of the Transgendered... I DON"T want shopkeepers or employers asking for 'proof of Virginity' before I can spend money or be employed. I'm a single, unmarried, non-virgin woman. Nor do I wish to be asked my religious leanings at businesses or to be employed. If store keepers and employers can 'look the other way' and assume that I'm a 'good person' because I 'look like one' and if they can 'look the other way' and assume I'm a theist. they can surely learn how to 'look the other way' for the person who uses the restroom assigned to the gender they typically presenting as... FWIW: I'm not sure why a man who would do something nefarious would need to disguise himself as a woman to get into a women's room. In theory, he can just walk right thru the door!! Must be that "Spell of Protection" the signage confers... Where's DJ when you need him...that's a straw man argument. People have always been worried about, there is concern this can increase the potential risk.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 10:32:06 GMT -5
What stopped you from going in before? Personal decency. It used to keep things under control for the most part. Today, however, with the infestation of idiot liberals, it has somehow become a problem. We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on May 14, 2016 10:40:13 GMT -5
Personal decency. It used to keep things under control for the most part. Today, however, with the infestation of idiot liberals, it has somehow become a problem. We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
Good luck with that on either side of the isle!
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on May 14, 2016 10:41:57 GMT -5
Personal decency. It used to keep things under control for the most part. Today, however, with the infestation of idiot liberals, it has somehow become a problem. There's not going to be a rash of boys storming the girls bathrooms. I'm guessing that it's pretty well known in the schools which kids are transgender and which are not. The high school football team all suddenly "feeling more comfortable" in the girls room isn't going to fly. I assume there's been a problem with men going into women's restrooms and/or vice versa to bring this issue to light.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 1:20:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:50:40 GMT -5
There's not going to be a rash of boys storming the girls bathrooms. I'm guessing that it's pretty well known in the schools which kids are transgender and which are not. The high school football team all suddenly "feeling more comfortable" in the girls room isn't going to fly. I assume there's been a problem with men going into women's restrooms and/or vice versa to bring this issue to light. Yeah, I'm sure somebody freaked out because they found out a transgender was using the same bathroom as their daughter.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 10:50:43 GMT -5
We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
Good luck with that on either side of the isle! True, but then ignorance and stupidity is not nearly as rampant on the left as it has become on the right during the last 20 years or so, and particularly the last several. The push for, "I can be more to the right of you no matter how far you go, and since going further right must ALWAYS be better no matter where we end up..." has led to an awful lot of bad legislation by people who have no experience with even the idea of governing. And worse, who think that everything must be "our way or nothing" no matter who gets hurt (as long as it's not them of course) or what gets sacrificed. Utterly, utterly stupid.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on May 14, 2016 10:55:38 GMT -5
LOL! I figured the "group shower room" was currently only something in Prisons (since using one is so awful it's punishment) or in pre 1980's Movies and TV shows (used as a device for humiliation or murder. ) OK, TBH the HS I went to in the 70's had "group showers" - but it has long since been remodeled (or rather a new building with "modern" stall showers was built. The Local Community college (also built pre-80's) women's locker room had a 'group shower room' and 4 'stall' shows with curtains. There was also a urinal and a handful of toilet stalls. Each locker room had a special 'locked' area of lockers for the "home teams". The men's shower room was similar but a little bit bigger. During official 'games' if it was a men's sport the visiting men used the 'women's locker room' if women where the visiting team - they used the men's locker room. I know... totally barbaric. All of the fancy smacy Health Clubs (or new YMCAs - for races or big pool complexes) I have used or joined ALWAYS had shower stalls with curtains in the women's locker room. I never visited the men's rooms. Actually, thinking back the local Rec Center (built in the 50's) had shower stalls with curtains... I use to go swimming every summer as a kid and used the lockers/showers. I do remember being horrified by the 'group shower room' when I got to HS - it was the first time I had seen/had to use one. We didn't have Phys Ed in gradeschool... private school. So, for those of you who have used 'group showers' was it common to check out every one else in the shower? Do you vogue and show off your stuff? Did you snicker at the other kids? Did you talk with your friends about other kids bodies? What WAS the etiquette for using the room? (FWIW: I was blind as a bat and wore glasses - so the shower room meant I was "blind" I could barely figure out how to used the on/off hot/cold control since I couldn't see it - and it wasn't like anything I had used before.   After Freshman year - I (and a lot of other kids) managed to avoid the showers... took gym late in the day...
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 14, 2016 11:06:34 GMT -5
Honestly, I think it's more to do with the fact that when Caitlyn Jenner came out it brought some sort of panic to the world. Suddenly, transgenders were brought into the light of everything and what they were doing previously that didn't bring up much uproar suddenly brought up an uproar.
The public saw Caitlyn and Bruce and couldn't get 'Bruce' out of their mind. That being said... the entire Kardashian family is nothing but a joke and it's pretty sad that, Caitlyn Jenner is our "spokesperson" essentially. >.>
Before, Caitlyn Jenner these laws weren't even a thing, people weren't really too worried about it, but then Jenner showed up in the media and certain people had an outcry.
-- Law makers really oughta find their time spent making better laws. This shouldn't even be an issue because a sick man that wants to get into the woman's restroom will do so with or without the law. The law just makes it easier because he won't even have to dress up to walk in.
My girlfriend's worried about these laws more than me because as she says all it's doing is punishing the transgender person and not keeping the pedo's out. She thinks that if I go into the male's restroom I face legal issues but if I go into the woman's restroom a boyfriend, or a father is going to see me and she's afraid i'll get beat up.
With or without that law, a man that wants in the restroom will walk into the restroom. All this law is doing is punishing the transgender people. I'm referring to the bathroom.
I'm not referring to the locker rooms, or even the showers just the restroom in regards to all of what I'm saying in this post.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,571
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 14, 2016 11:07:40 GMT -5
Yes, so your solution is to not let men go into the men's locker room? Are you implying everyone would have been safer if Sandusky had used the women's instead since he only preyed on boys? Tell ya what....Let's just dig one big hole out in the parking lot of every building, and everyone can do there business there in front of everyone else. Would that be non-discriminatory enough for you? The ancients seemed to manage.
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 12:06:38 GMT -5
Personal decency. It used to keep things under control for the most part. Today, however, with the infestation of idiot liberals, it has somehow become a problem. We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
Tallguy, How about showing a little respect and telling the whole story!! North Carolina legislators are not idiots just because they see things differently than you do. Also, it was not the right wing that started this issue in North Carolina. It was the left wing, namely the democratic mayor of Charlotte. This issue is at the forefront because of the left wing. The right wing did not start this. Tell the truth.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 14, 2016 12:09:21 GMT -5
Actually they can be quite idiotic considering one actually said they want to keep NC straight.
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 12:21:09 GMT -5
Actually they can be quite idiotic considering one actually said they want to keep NC straight. I haven't heard this, but people make idiotic statements all the time. It is much more polite to call the statements idiotic, not the people. Tallguy is being disrespectful to people he does not agree with.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 12:36:03 GMT -5
We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
Tallguy, How about showing a little respect and telling the whole story!! North Carolina legislators are not idiots just because they see things differently than you do. Also, it was not the right wing that started this issue in North Carolina. It was the left wing, namely the democratic mayor of Charlotte. This issue is at the forefront because of the left wing. The right wing did not start this. Tell the truth.
The Charlotte city council passed an ordinance meant to protect the safety and civil rights of its citizens. The North Carolina legislature passed a law that in effect protects nothing, violates the civil rights of its citizens, and bars cities from attempting to protect those rights. Seems pretty truthful to me....
Also, North Carolina was not the first state to come up with this. They may have been the first to pass it, but the right wing was trying to make this an issue before Charlotte.
ETA: You will also recall (or you can go back and look) that I used the same terminology (idiot) that was used against the other side in the post I quoted in bringing it up. You appear to think that was okay. Not surprising.
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 12:50:24 GMT -5
Tallguy, How about showing a little respect and telling the whole story!! North Carolina legislators are not idiots just because they see things differently than you do. Also, it was not the right wing that started this issue in North Carolina. It was the left wing, namely the democratic mayor of Charlotte. This issue is at the forefront because of the left wing. The right wing did not start this. Tell the truth.
The Charlotte city council passed an ordinance meant to protect the safety and civil rights of its citizens. The North Carolina legislature passed a law that in effect protects nothing, violates the civil rights of its citizens, and bars cities from attempting to protect those rights. Seems pretty truthful to me....
Also, North Carolina was not the first state to come up with this. They may have been the first to pass it, but the right wing was trying to make this an issue before Charlotte.
ETA: You will also recall (or you can go back and look) that I used the same terminology (idiot) that was used against the other side in the post I quoted in bringing it up. You appear to think that was okay. Not surprising.
No. I don't think it is ok for anyone to call someone else an idiot. I apologize if I missed that. Why would you say "not surprising" to me? Do you know me? Apparently not, or else you would not say that. Now you are disrespecting me and might I remind you that that is against the COC. The mayor in NC was not trying to protect anyone. They were never at any danger. She caused the issue and takes no responsibility for it. She went looking for a problem that did not exist. She created the whole situation. I will repeat. There was not a problem in NC until Charlotte passed their unnecessary ordinance.
ETA: I am neither right wing nor left wing just so you don't make assumptions either way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 1:20:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 12:54:17 GMT -5
There's not going to be a rash of boys storming the girls bathrooms. I'm guessing that it's pretty well known in the schools which kids are transgender and which are not. The high school football team all suddenly "feeling more comfortable" in the girls room isn't going to fly. I assume there's been a problem with men going into women's restrooms and/or vice versa to bring this issue to light. Wrong. Look it up.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 14:08:52 GMT -5
Maybe North Carolina can look to Oxford, Alabama for some common sense. Oxford originally passed an ordinance making it a $500 fine or six months in jail to use a bathroom that did not conform to one's biological sex at birth. They then voted to rescind it due to potential legal challenges and violations of civil rights laws. They decided to propose a new ordinance that actually focused on the dangers they were claiming without mentioning gender at all, and then decided not to bother with it because it was deemed unnecessary.
link1
link2
(Emphasis mine in both quotes.)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,571
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 14, 2016 14:55:51 GMT -5
We've already answered this. It wasn't a real problem until idiot right-wing legislators in certain states decided to pass some silly laws that, even if there were some positive effect to them, create more problems than they "solve." But what do you expect from people who always need to find a new bogeyman when they lose their last one?
You really want to see problems decline? Stop electing silly people who pass silly laws out of fear and bias (or to gain the political and financial support of the fearful and biased) and get people who will work on real problems.
Tallguy, How about showing a little respect and telling the whole story!! North Carolina legislators are not idiots just because they see things differently than you do. Also, it was not the right wing that started this issue in North Carolina. It was the left wing, namely the democratic mayor of Charlotte. This issue is at the forefront because of the left wing. The right wing did not start this. Tell the truth.
There were a number of issues the Charlotte city council (or what ever you call them) approved in their ordinance, including adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy pertaining to employment and housing. The bathroom usage was only one of several issues they approved. The N.C. legislature and governor took that right away from Charlotte and other cities in the state which might have been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination ordinance too as it pertains to employment and housing along with anyone from filing discrimination charges regardless of the class affected (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, etc.) in state courts. North Carolina could have dealt with the bathroom/shower issue separately from the rest of Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance but felt the need to eliminate any rights in the state for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority. No state should act to take away from one of their city's policies which adds protection to a class of citizens who are subject to discrimination. A state should only act when a city decides to take away those protections from a class of its people.
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 15:40:33 GMT -5
Tallguy, How about showing a little respect and telling the whole story!! North Carolina legislators are not idiots just because they see things differently than you do. Also, it was not the right wing that started this issue in North Carolina. It was the left wing, namely the democratic mayor of Charlotte. This issue is at the forefront because of the left wing. The right wing did not start this. Tell the truth.
There were a number of issues the Charlotte city council (or what ever you call them) approved in their ordinance, including adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy pertaining to employment and housing. The bathroom usage was only one of several issues they approved. The N.C. legislature and governor took that right away from Charlotte and other cities in the state which might have been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination ordinance too as it pertains to employment and housing along with anyone from filing discrimination charges regardless of the class affected (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, etc.) in state courts. North Carolina could have dealt with the bathroom/shower issue separately from the rest of Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance but felt the need to eliminate any rights in the state for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority. No state should act to take away from one of their city's policies which adds protection to a class of citizens who are subject to discrimination. A state should only act when a city decides to take away those protections from a class of its people. Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,242
|
Post by billisonboard on May 14, 2016 16:10:40 GMT -5
What stopped you from going in before? Personal decency. It used to keep things under control for the most part. ... What, or would it be who, is out of control now which, or who, used to be under control?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 16:10:42 GMT -5
There were a number of issues the Charlotte city council (or what ever you call them) approved in their ordinance, including adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy pertaining to employment and housing. The bathroom usage was only one of several issues they approved. The N.C. legislature and governor took that right away from Charlotte and other cities in the state which might have been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination ordinance too as it pertains to employment and housing along with anyone from filing discrimination charges regardless of the class affected (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, etc.) in state courts. North Carolina could have dealt with the bathroom/shower issue separately from the rest of Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance but felt the need to eliminate any rights in the state for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority. No state should act to take away from one of their city's policies which adds protection to a class of citizens who are subject to discrimination. A state should only act when a city decides to take away those protections from a class of its people. Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. Of course not. Bigotry comes in where there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on who or what they are.
With regard to the rest of your post, the federal government is not always or even often a leading indicator of what is right or proper. It will happen soon enough that those classes will be added, but federal law is reactive more than proactive. In the same way, state governments will not rush to add protections for those that the majority do not like or respect. It would be nice if people in power could put their own biases aside when considering things like rights, but many nowadays will not risk it even if they want to.
It is perfectly within the duties of the council to do what they believe is best for the citizens of their city. If those actions are unconstitutional, they will be challenged and overturned. But we should ask WHY Charlotte felt the need to pass their ordinance. Because LGBTQ members were being denied service, assaulted, or otherwise victimized? I can't think of many other reasons. And it doesn't matter whether those incidents were widely publicized or not. It is very possible that it has been a non-issue for you in your experience. That does not mean that everyone else' experience is the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 1:20:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 16:19:51 GMT -5
Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. Of course not. Bigotry comes in where there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on who or what they are.
Bigotry comes into play when there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on what they believe also. It is why so many are rightfully classified as religious bigots. Religious thought and religious practice are actual rights though unlike much of what you argue for. I predict that you will bring the tired argument that people are allowed to their religious practices and thoughts so long as they do it where and how society wants
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,571
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 14, 2016 16:26:41 GMT -5
There were a number of issues the Charlotte city council (or what ever you call them) approved in their ordinance, including adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy pertaining to employment and housing. The bathroom usage was only one of several issues they approved. The N.C. legislature and governor took that right away from Charlotte and other cities in the state which might have been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination ordinance too as it pertains to employment and housing along with anyone from filing discrimination charges regardless of the class affected (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, etc.) in state courts. North Carolina could have dealt with the bathroom/shower issue separately from the rest of Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance but felt the need to eliminate any rights in the state for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority. No state should act to take away from one of their city's policies which adds protection to a class of citizens who are subject to discrimination. A state should only act when a city decides to take away those protections from a class of its people. Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. Just because the federal government doesn't list sexual orientation or gender identity as a protected class does not mean a city or state cannot add those two classes to their laws. In fact many states and cities (while their state does not) list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in their non-discrimination laws. The state should only get involved when one of its cities and towns decide to take away protection from a certain class of its citizens. The only reason the federal government does not list sexual orientation or gender identity in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is because current Republican/conservative members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate outnumber Democrats and independents. So it is Reepublicans/conservatives that is causing the 'problem'. With a democratic majority if the House and Senate, along with a Democrat as president, the CRA 1965 will be amended to add sexual orientation and gender identity to it. The federal government does list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected class for employees who work for the federal government as do some states list sexual orientation and gender identity for their state employees with Louisiana being the most recent state to do so.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,571
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 14, 2016 16:30:11 GMT -5
There were a number of issues the Charlotte city council (or what ever you call them) approved in their ordinance, including adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy pertaining to employment and housing. The bathroom usage was only one of several issues they approved. The N.C. legislature and governor took that right away from Charlotte and other cities in the state which might have been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination ordinance too as it pertains to employment and housing along with anyone from filing discrimination charges regardless of the class affected (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, etc.) in state courts. North Carolina could have dealt with the bathroom/shower issue separately from the rest of Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance but felt the need to eliminate any rights in the state for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority. No state should act to take away from one of their city's policies which adds protection to a class of citizens who are subject to discrimination. A state should only act when a city decides to take away those protections from a class of its people. Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. Which is why I said showers and bathrooms should have been dealt with separately (see the highlight section of my quote above).
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 16:31:21 GMT -5
Of course not. Bigotry comes in where there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on who or what they are.
So someone who identifies as a woman (or girl) who still has a penis has a right to change their clothes and take a shower in front of other women and/or girls?? Seriously? A right? I agree that if they have had sex reassignment surgery then they have that right. My understanding is that after this surgery is performed that one can change his or her birth certificate to show their new sex.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,572
|
Post by tallguy on May 14, 2016 16:32:33 GMT -5
Of course not. Bigotry comes in where there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on who or what they are.
Bigotry comes into play when there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on what they believe also. It is why so many are rightfully classified as religious bigots. Religious thought and religious practice are actual rights though unlike much of what you argue for. I predict that you will bring the tired argument that people are allowed to their religious practices and thoughts so long as they do it where and how society wants To borrow another's comment on another thread: "if you understood what this meant, it would cut down your post count by about 50%."
And no, it is not and has never been "so long as they do it where and how society wants." The standard is and should be "as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others while doing so."
It's really not a difficult concept.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 1:20:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 16:35:25 GMT -5
Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. The federal government does list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected class for employees who work for the federal government as do some states list sexual orientation and gender identity for their state employees with Louisiana being the most recent state to do so. Do you see a difference between how the government treats people and how you treat people? The government takes money from everyone they represent everyone. It would be a great evil if they took that money from some and used it against them. If they took your money and said , "f*&^ people from Tennessee, we dont want them working here" it would be in part your money that was being used to discriminate against you. That is just flat out evil. It is incredibly different doing that and telling some religious person he must associate with people he doesn't want to in order to own a business. I imagine you disagree and I am not asking that really. But do you see the difference. I can not overstate how much I think the difference matters to my thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 1:20:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 16:37:48 GMT -5
Bigotry comes into play when there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on what they believe also. It is why so many are rightfully classified as religious bigots. Religious thought and religious practice are actual rights though unlike much of what you argue for. I predict that you will bring the tired argument that people are allowed to their religious practices and thoughts so long as they do it where and how society wants To borrow another's comment on another thread: "if you understood what this meant, it would cut down your post count by about 50%."
And no, it is not and has never been "so long as they do it where and how society wants." The standard is and should be "as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others while doing so."
It's really not a difficult concept.
I completely agree we are not discussing a difficult concept. We are talking about bigotry against people who have different values then you do. And I understand what you think this means. If one person is allowed freedom to discriminate we have to accept that everyone can. How about you stand firm on your belief and that completely stops the everyone can charade. Everyone won't.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,571
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 14, 2016 16:38:45 GMT -5
The federal government does list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected class for employees who work for the federal government as do some states list sexual orientation and gender identity for their state employees with Louisiana being the most recent state to do so. Do you see a difference between how the government treats people and how you treat people? The government takes money from everyone they represent everyone. It would be a great evil if they took that money from some and used it against them. If they took your money and said , "f*&^ people from Tennessee, we dont want them working here" it would be in part your money that was being used to discriminate against you. That is just flat out evil. It is incredibly different doing that and telling some religious person he must associate with people he doesn't want to in order to own a business. I imagine you disagree and I am not asking that really. But do you see the difference. I can not overstate how much I think the difference matters to my thinking. I have no friggin idea what you are talking about. How "I" treat people?
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on May 14, 2016 16:41:26 GMT -5
Federal law does not list gender identity or sexual orientation as protected classes. Why did Charlotte feel the need to add more classes than the federal government? I live in NC, although not in Charlotte. We are an inclusive state whether others want to believe that or not. If we need to add more protected classes that needs to be done at the state or federal level, not by a city council. I'm not against adding those protections, but I do not see this as within the governing authority of a city council either. Charlotte caused this issue, that was a nonissue until they brought it up. Like I said earlier, showers and locker rooms are the major issue, not bathrooms. People aren't bigots because they prefer to change in front of people who have the same sexual parts as themselves. Which is why I said showers and bathrooms should have been dealt with separately (see the highlight section of my quote above). This is a mute point now because the federal government has told our schools that they have to let transgender students use the locker rooms and the showers of the sex they identify with, even if it makes the young men or women using these rooms uncomfortable. In order to keep a few from feeling uncomfortable, they are setting the stage to make more students uncomfortable. I know some students don't care, but I think more do. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Even if they had dealt with the showers and locker rooms separately the federal government has said, "No. You can't."
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 14, 2016 16:53:30 GMT -5
Of course not. Bigotry comes in where there is a willingness to mistreat or deny rights to others based solely on who or what they are.
So someone who identifies as a woman (or girl) who still has a penis has a right to change their clothes and take a shower in front of other women and/or girls?? Seriously? A right? I agree that if they have had sex reassignment surgery then they have that right. My understanding is that after this surgery is performed that one can change his or her birth certificate to show their new sex. Even as a transgender person I can agree with you here. I fully understand being uncomfortable is someone has different parts and is changing in a locker room or in a shower, naked. However many transgender people aren't even willing to be naked in front of other's for the fact that they're uncomfortable that they have these parts. There hasn't actually been in legit cases where a trans person felt the need to shower naked or change naked in front of others. But I do believe if they've had the surgery this should be NO issue at all. But I totally understand why someone would not want them in the locker room or showers if they hadn't had any surgeries. I however don't get the bathroom thing at all.
|
|