NC are threatening to yank UNC and NC State out of ACC

[Cane Dynasty]

Republicans are obsessed with homosexuals.

I am a republican and I couldn't care less about homosexuals.

If a homosexual jumped on your back, would you beat him off?

lulz

 

[FIUMCane]

Republicans are obsessed with homosexuals.

I am a republican and I couldn't care less about homosexuals.

If a homosexual jumped on your back, would you beat him off?

Lmfao

 

[passitback]

Republicans are obsessed with homosexuals.

I am a republican and I couldn't care less about homosexuals.

If a homosexual jumped on your back, would you beat him off?

Lmfao

Lol

 

[RVACane]

This is great news if you think strategically. Sure, it has a snowball's chance in **** of passing and being signed by the Demo Governor; it's being used to mollify a voter base that is mad at their legislators for "caving."

However, old Comish Swofford isn't getting any younger and when he steps down for health reasons or just croaks at his desk, this becomes VERY important. There will be a period of confusion and a power vacuum will emerge. The six schools that you know HATE the All Carolina Conference setup, i.e. UM, SYR, PITT, LVL, F$U, BC, plus Notre Lame, have to use this time to bring this bill back to the forefront. If they can get the GT nerds bought off (Who says you can't have two conference championships in the same city/stadium?) and UVA is convinced that Tobacco Road isn't doing them any favors, this little piece of failed legislation, and a willing press, may be what is needed to overcome UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake and their Vag Tech/Clemson sycophants. Changes that eliminate the conferences baked in biases can finally come about. Think about ACC HQ out of NC, think about a real non-good ole boy comish who the refs don't fear. Think about an ACC that works to promote their most competitive teams in all sports, not just the ones in a particular region.

The State of North Carolina believes they own the ACC; wouldn't it be fitting if they were the creators of the tool that led to the All Carolina Conference's demise?

Chess, not checkers, Blake...Start the secret meetings.

How do you see VT as being part of the Tobacco Road consortium. When I talk to VT people here in Richmond they also express disdain for Carolina favoritism which they just say is an "old school" pre-expansion thing. These Tobacco Road diehards only consider the pre-expansion ACC teams to be legitimate. That's not VT and I've heard the comment straight from a Carolina fan's mouth.

 

[RVACane]

Republicans are obsessed with homosexuals.

I am a republican and I couldn't care less about homosexuals.

If a homosexual jumped on your back, would you beat him off?

Lmfao

Lol

LMAO. Señor Wingz with one of the 2 best posts in the thread (along with [MENTION=5094]Notsince1985[/MENTION] telling that dumbshît to shut up).

 

[Salt]

Not really.

I'm not saying trans people are predisposed to deviancy. That is not really the problem for me. There just needs to be some semblance of law and order that takes into account everyone's sensibilities and not just those on either extreme side of the issue.

I suspect most people entering public bathrooms were not thinking who was actually using the bathrooms until this became an issue for **** and transgendered people wanting to validate their culture and lifestyle to the rest of society by forcing the issue of bathroom use as a civils rights cause. Before that if you were discreet enough and dressed the part you could probably get away with it with little fanfare. Some people could care less about this issue, some people obviously care more. Since we are a society of mixed belief systems we have to be fair minded and sensible how we approach this on a public level.

I am not familiar with the entire law to comment on the other issues you mention. There aught to be basic rights and protections for everyone. But in terms of the bathroom issue it seems drawing the line between those committed transgendered people that have gone through the transformation and those that want to decide on a whim what gender orientation they want to express on a given day seems reasonable to most people.

In terms of marriage the issue was actually forcing a change in the actual definition of the term. Even though some states have domestic partnership rights/protections that are similar to hetero married couples this did not seem enough for some homosexuals and their liberal cohorts. So now they want to change the way we define a longstanding cultural/historical term to suit their own needs. Again, it is this incessant need for validation of their culture and lifestyle that force their personal issues down everyone's throat while overriding what seems are very pragmatic solutions that most of us with divergent beliefs can still live with in civil society.

The problem is that you can't enforce a "law of the land" on something like this. You can't go around checking people's junk to make sure that they're going **** in the right place.

What you can do is assume that anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a woman should go to the women's room, and anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a man should go into the men's room.

In the absence of any real crime, that's really all you can do, and that should suffice for "law and order"--it has sufficed for a couple centuries, since we started divvying up men's and women's rooms.

Again, if it wasn't an issue "for centuries" before, or even really considered, who or what forced this issue into the limelight? Was it even necessary? The attempt to legislate a law like this however flawed it might be did not just originate out of a vacuum. And I doubt it was the NC govt. that wanted this attention.

What tipped the situation off in NC was that the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance in Feb of 2016 that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people (the state of NC does not have any such policies on the books; it's still legal to fire someone for being ghey or trans).

The text of the ordinance stated that LGBT people could not be discriminated against in "places of public accommodation" (meaning bars, restaurants, stores). It also gave trans people the right to use whatever restroom they choose. The organizers of the bill had done their research and seen that 225 cities and 17 states have similar laws on the books, so there was precedent...this wasn't something they just pulled out of thin air to cause a ruckus.

Then the Repub legislators went ape****, as I've discussed in previous posts. And that's what got us to where we are now.

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Not my understanding of the issue. The law apparently accommodates those transgenders that actually have gone through the transition of mutilating their body parts to conform to their preferred sexual identity.

It was really meant to cut the confusion of those who are biologically/anatomically intact and want to **** in whatever bathroom to express whatever gender identity they felt like on any given day.

And yes, those do exist. I recall a masters level sexuality class I took that was taught by a biologically male individual who would dress accordingly to what identity happened to be speaking to him that day.

It is the other side of this issue that is making more of it than it needs to be. I thought the law was an appropriate compromise and minimized some of the liberal nonsense out there making this issue a cause celebre.

The original law was not appropriate at all, on several levels.

Top line, the bathroom issue was only one part of the original law. The rest of it took away the ability of cities within NC to make city-level ordinances that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT folks. And it took away the rights of LGBT people to sue for discrimination within the state; it stipulated that any such case would need to be seen at the fed level, which is much more costly to victims, and thus it would discourage them from bringing such cases. And further, it took away the ability of cities to make city-level ordinances regarding minimum wage.

Basically, it stripped the power from cities to govern themselves on a couple different fronts, and it stripped rights from LGBT folks. At its heart, it was a move by the Repub legislators from rural, bible-thumping areas of NC to put the clamps on the urban, liberal areas like Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, and Asheville.

Keep in mind, there's currently a bill floating around the Rs in the NC legislature that would outlaw ghey marriage, even though it's the law of the land at the federal level now. So obviously, R legislators in NC really don't like the ****. And that may be another reason why they might logically fear push-back from the ACC/NCAA at this point in time, even beyond the HB2 debacle.

Aside from all of that, if you want to focus only on the bathroom issue, the law was unenforceable and just kinda dumb. We already have laws on the books that punish people for peeping-tom activities and for molesting/assaulting people. Trans people aren't molesting folks or spying on women and children. So it really comes down to bigotry, plain and simple.

Not wanting a grown man using the women's restroom is not bigotry. The bathroom issue IS what got North Carolina in this position. If you think
There will not be men following women and young girls into restrooms for other than normal usage, you are extremely ignorant. This identifying with being someone else doesn't make it so. If you have a *****, stay out of the women's restroom. Common sense is out the door these days.
Follow a daughter of mine in there and you will have a major problem. Why is it if someone disagrees with the PC crowd, they label say you a with a phobia or you're a bigot. I don't believe they have a clue what these words means. Name calling arises from defending weak arguments.

Here's the thing.

There are something like 200 cities and a dozen states that already have laws on the books that allow trans people to use whatever restroom they want. Some of those laws date back 20 years or more.

In NONE of those cities or states has there been a big rise in straight men dressing up as women to get access to ladies rooms, or straight men following women/girls into bathrooms to assault them.

As i said, we already have laws on the books that discourage and/or punish people for spying on women in bathrooms or molesting them. That's not to say that such things never happen; there will always be some pervs who do it, and when they get caught, they are punished. But it is to say that trans bathroom laws have nothing to do with it.

It's ignorant because you're ignoring the evidence and relying on a gut-level fear (phobia) that men are gonna take advantage of this law to do bad things to your daughter. It's your argument that is weak, not mine.

It seems that you really need to define what "transgender" really means. The ordinance is pretty vague on that front if it allows any individual to use the bathroom of the *** they identify with.

I think this is the main problem. If it limits it to those that have actually transitioned then that seems pretty reasonable. Otherwise, the vagueness opens it up to all sorts of potential issues.

From what I have read the other aspects of the ordinance dealing with other types of discrimination of lbgt individuals was not that controversial. It was the bathroom issue that was the crux of the controversy.

It seems that there is some unfortunate conflation going on of the bathroom issue with these other protections mentioned in the ordinance that if you are against the former implies that you are against all of it. I don't think that is being accurately represented in the public debate of the issue.

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thoroughly misunderstanding what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of their bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

I'm not saying trans people are predisposed to deviancy. That is not really the problem for me. There just needs to be some semblance of law and order that takes into account everyone's sensibilities and not just those on either extreme side of the issue.

I suspect most people entering public bathrooms were not thinking who was actually using the bathrooms until this became an issue for **** and transgendered people wanting to validate their culture and lifestyle to the rest of society by forcing the issue of bathroom use as a civils rights cause. Before that if you were discreet enough and dressed the part you could probably get away with it with little fanfare. Some people could care less about this issue, some people obviously care more. Since we are a society of mixed belief systems we have to be fair minded and sensible how we approach this on a public level.

I am not familiar with the entire law to comment on the other issues you mention. There aught to be basic rights and protections for everyone. But in terms of the bathroom issue it seems drawing the line between those committed transgendered people that have gone through the transformation and those that want to decide on a whim what gender orientation they want to express on a given day seems reasonable to most people.

In terms of marriage the issue was actually forcing a change in the actual definition of the term. Even though some states have domestic partnership rights/protections that are similar to hetero married couples this did not seem enough for some homosexuals and their liberal cohorts. So now they want to change the way we define a longstanding cultural/historical term to suit their own needs. Again, it is this incessant need for validation of their culture and lifestyle that force their personal issues down everyone's throat while overriding what seems are very pragmatic solutions that most of us with divergent beliefs can still live with in civil society.

The problem is that you can't enforce a "law of the land" on something like this. You can't go around checking people's junk to make sure that they're going **** in the right place.

What you can do is assume that anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a woman should go to the women's room, and anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a man should go into the men's room.

In the absence of any real crime, that's really all you can do, and that should suffice for "law and order"--it has sufficed for a couple centuries, since we started divvying up men's and women's rooms.

Again, if it wasn't an issue "for centuries" before, or even really considered, who or what forced this issue into the limelight? Was it even necessary? The attempt to legislate a law like this however flawed it might be did not just originate out of a vacuum. And I doubt it was the NC govt. that wanted this attention.

What tipped the situation off in NC was that the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance in Feb of 2016 that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people (the state of NC does not have any such policies on the books; it's still legal to fire someone for being ghey or trans).

The text of the ordinance stated that LGBT people could not be discriminated against in "places of public accommodation" (meaning bars, restaurants, stores). It also gave trans people the right to use whatever restroom they choose. The organizers of the bill had done their research and seen that 225 cities and 17 states have similar laws on the books, so there was precedent...this wasn't something they just pulled out of thin air to cause a ruckus.

Then the Repub legislators went ape****, as I've discussed in previous posts. And that's what got us to where we are now.

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

Man, you're reaching here. The whole point is that there ARE exceptions to the "at will" thing...you can't be fired based on your race, creed, or gender. The Charlotte ordinance sought to extend those same protections (among others) to LGBT people, within city limits at least. Which isn't a big deal--I've noted that there's precedent for in a ton of cities and states. It's not as though they were trying to "carve out" rights for the first time, trying to make a big national splash and get on the headlines of the newspapers as crusaders for LGBT rights.

 

[Salt]

The original law was not appropriate at all, on several levels.

Top line, the bathroom issue was only one part of the original law. The rest of it took away the ability of cities within NC to make city-level ordinances that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT folks. And it took away the rights of LGBT people to sue for discrimination within the state; it stipulated that any such case would need to be seen at the fed level, which is much more costly to victims, and thus it would discourage them from bringing such cases. And further, it took away the ability of cities to make city-level ordinances regarding minimum wage.

Basically, it stripped the power from cities to govern themselves on a couple different fronts, and it stripped rights from LGBT folks. At its heart, it was a move by the Repub legislators from rural, bible-thumping areas of NC to put the clamps on the urban, liberal areas like Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, and Asheville.

Keep in mind, there's currently a bill floating around the Rs in the NC legislature that would outlaw ghey marriage, even though it's the law of the land at the federal level now. So obviously, R legislators in NC really don't like the ****. And that may be another reason why they might logically fear push-back from the ACC/NCAA at this point in time, even beyond the HB2 debacle.

Aside from all of that, if you want to focus only on the bathroom issue, the law was unenforceable and just kinda dumb. We already have laws on the books that punish people for peeping-tom activities and for molesting/assaulting people. Trans people aren't molesting folks or spying on women and children. So it really comes down to bigotry, plain and simple.

Not wanting a grown man using the women's restroom is not bigotry. The bathroom issue IS what got North Carolina in this position. If you think
There will not be men following women and young girls into restrooms for other than normal usage, you are extremely ignorant. This identifying with being someone else doesn't make it so. If you have a *****, stay out of the women's restroom. Common sense is out the door these days.
Follow a daughter of mine in there and you will have a major problem. Why is it if someone disagrees with the PC crowd, they label say you a with a phobia or you're a bigot. I don't believe they have a clue what these words means. Name calling arises from defending weak arguments.

Here's the thing.

There are something like 200 cities and a dozen states that already have laws on the books that allow trans people to use whatever restroom they want. Some of those laws date back 20 years or more.

In NONE of those cities or states has there been a big rise in straight men dressing up as women to get access to ladies rooms, or straight men following women/girls into bathrooms to assault them.

As i said, we already have laws on the books that discourage and/or punish people for spying on women in bathrooms or molesting them. That's not to say that such things never happen; there will always be some pervs who do it, and when they get caught, they are punished. But it is to say that trans bathroom laws have nothing to do with it.

It's ignorant because you're ignoring the evidence and relying on a gut-level fear (phobia) that men are gonna take advantage of this law to do bad things to your daughter. It's your argument that is weak, not mine.

It seems that you really need to define what "transgender" really means. The ordinance is pretty vague on that front if it allows any individual to use the bathroom of the *** they identify with.

I think this is the main problem. If it limits it to those that have actually transitioned then that seems pretty reasonable. Otherwise, the vagueness opens it up to all sorts of potential issues.

From what I have read the other aspects of the ordinance dealing with other types of discrimination of lbgt individuals was not that controversial. It was the bathroom issue that was the crux of the controversy.

It seems that there is some unfortunate conflation going on of the bathroom issue with these other protections mentioned in the ordinance that if you are against the former implies that you are against all of it. I don't think that is being accurately represented in the public debate of the issue.

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thorough misunderstanding of what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of the bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

I think that is a legitimate question that needs to be further clarified since it is a public ordinance that impacts more than one group of people. What meaning of "trans" is it since you may have trans- gender, trans- sexual , and transvestites? Does it mean all of these groups? Seems to me the ordinance without further clarity opens the door way too far for the potential abuses and nonsense that may ensue.

 

[Salt]

The problem is that you can't enforce a "law of the land" on something like this. You can't go around checking people's junk to make sure that they're going **** in the right place.

What you can do is assume that anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a woman should go to the women's room, and anyone who acts, looks, and dresses like a man should go into the men's room.

In the absence of any real crime, that's really all you can do, and that should suffice for "law and order"--it has sufficed for a couple centuries, since we started divvying up men's and women's rooms.

Again, if it wasn't an issue "for centuries" before, or even really considered, who or what forced this issue into the limelight? Was it even necessary? The attempt to legislate a law like this however flawed it might be did not just originate out of a vacuum. And I doubt it was the NC govt. that wanted this attention.

What tipped the situation off in NC was that the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance in Feb of 2016 that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people (the state of NC does not have any such policies on the books; it's still legal to fire someone for being ghey or trans).

The text of the ordinance stated that LGBT people could not be discriminated against in "places of public accommodation" (meaning bars, restaurants, stores). It also gave trans people the right to use whatever restroom they choose. The organizers of the bill had done their research and seen that 225 cities and 17 states have similar laws on the books, so there was precedent...this wasn't something they just pulled out of thin air to cause a ruckus.

Then the Repub legislators went ape****, as I've discussed in previous posts. And that's what got us to where we are now.

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

Man, you're reaching here. The whole point is that there ARE exceptions to the "at will" thing...you can't be fired based on your race, creed, or gender. The Charlotte ordinance sought to extend those same protections (among others) to LGBT people, within city limits at least. Which isn't a big deal--I've noted that there's precedent for in a ton of cities and states. It's not as though they were trying to "carve out" rights for the first time, trying to make a big national splash and get on the headlines of the newspapers as crusaders for LGBT rights.

I disagree. I think this goes hand in hand with the larger social/political movement of the LBGT community trying to make their gender dysphoria ( a legit psychiatric disorder underlying LBGT individuals) into a Civil Rights issue. Maybe I would suggest they try the ADA slant instead rather than co-opt the Civil Rights cause. Not kidding.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Not wanting a grown man using the women's restroom is not bigotry. The bathroom issue IS what got North Carolina in this position. If you think
There will not be men following women and young girls into restrooms for other than normal usage, you are extremely ignorant. This identifying with being someone else doesn't make it so. If you have a *****, stay out of the women's restroom. Common sense is out the door these days.
Follow a daughter of mine in there and you will have a major problem. Why is it if someone disagrees with the PC crowd, they label say you a with a phobia or you're a bigot. I don't believe they have a clue what these words means. Name calling arises from defending weak arguments.

Here's the thing.

There are something like 200 cities and a dozen states that already have laws on the books that allow trans people to use whatever restroom they want. Some of those laws date back 20 years or more.

In NONE of those cities or states has there been a big rise in straight men dressing up as women to get access to ladies rooms, or straight men following women/girls into bathrooms to assault them.

As i said, we already have laws on the books that discourage and/or punish people for spying on women in bathrooms or molesting them. That's not to say that such things never happen; there will always be some pervs who do it, and when they get caught, they are punished. But it is to say that trans bathroom laws have nothing to do with it.

It's ignorant because you're ignoring the evidence and relying on a gut-level fear (phobia) that men are gonna take advantage of this law to do bad things to your daughter. It's your argument that is weak, not mine.

It seems that you really need to define what "transgender" really means. The ordinance is pretty vague on that front if it allows any individual to use the bathroom of the *** they identify with.

I think this is the main problem. If it limits it to those that have actually transitioned then that seems pretty reasonable. Otherwise, the vagueness opens it up to all sorts of potential issues.

From what I have read the other aspects of the ordinance dealing with other types of discrimination of lbgt individuals was not that controversial. It was the bathroom issue that was the crux of the controversy.

It seems that there is some unfortunate conflation going on of the bathroom issue with these other protections mentioned in the ordinance that if you are against the former implies that you are against all of it. I don't think that is being accurately represented in the public debate of the issue.

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thorough misunderstanding of what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of the bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

I think that is a legitimate question that needs to be further clarified since it is a public ordinance that impacts more than one group of people. What meaning of "trans" is it since you may have trans- gender, trans- sexual , and transvestites? Does it mean all of these groups? Seems to me the ordinance without further clarity opens the door way too far for the potential abuses and nonsense that may ensue.

That's fine. The R legislature could surely have asked for clarification and I'm sure they'd have received it. The Charlotte ordinance had been thoroughly debated at the city level, over the course of several open forums. However, that's not the way it went down at the state level. The legislators called an emergency session to immediately overturn the Charlotte ordinance, and also to punish Charlotte and other cities.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Again, if it wasn't an issue "for centuries" before, or even really considered, who or what forced this issue into the limelight? Was it even necessary? The attempt to legislate a law like this however flawed it might be did not just originate out of a vacuum. And I doubt it was the NC govt. that wanted this attention.

What tipped the situation off in NC was that the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance in Feb of 2016 that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people (the state of NC does not have any such policies on the books; it's still legal to fire someone for being ghey or trans).

The text of the ordinance stated that LGBT people could not be discriminated against in "places of public accommodation" (meaning bars, restaurants, stores). It also gave trans people the right to use whatever restroom they choose. The organizers of the bill had done their research and seen that 225 cities and 17 states have similar laws on the books, so there was precedent...this wasn't something they just pulled out of thin air to cause a ruckus.

Then the Repub legislators went ape****, as I've discussed in previous posts. And that's what got us to where we are now.

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

Man, you're reaching here. The whole point is that there ARE exceptions to the "at will" thing...you can't be fired based on your race, creed, or gender. The Charlotte ordinance sought to extend those same protections (among others) to LGBT people, within city limits at least. Which isn't a big deal--I've noted that there's precedent for in a ton of cities and states. It's not as though they were trying to "carve out" rights for the first time, trying to make a big national splash and get on the headlines of the newspapers as crusaders for LGBT rights.

I disagree. I think this goes hand in hand with the larger social/political movement of the LBGT community trying to make their gender dysphoria ( a legit psychiatric disorder underlying LBGT individuals) into a Civil Rights issue. Maybe I would suggest they try the ADA slant instead rather than co-opt the Civil Rights cause. Not kidding.

You disagree about what? Given that there are 225 cities and 17 states that have similar laws on the books, you can't seriously be saying that you think the Charlotte ordinance was overstepping their bounds and trying to be on the forefront of "pushing the ghey agenda." FWIW, Charlotte was the largest city in the USA to NOT have such protections in place before they passed their ordinance.

 

[77cane]

I'm sure it won't be long before the PC gang will be calling others bigots, because some don't agree with someone's "right" to have *** with the family dog. They'll be demanding a new FIDO ordinance.

 

[FIUMCane]

So republicans create a bill that discriminates the LGBT community, causing their state to lose billions of dollars, all for the sake of protecting children from men in drag following them into the bathroom and raping them (although It has never happened).

At the same time they refuse to pass any gun legislation, even though there has been a ton of school shootings leaving hundreds of kids dead. Where is the concern for the kids then? In one instant they're willing to trample the rights of one group to protect children, and in another, they're willing to to let kids die so that a minority of people in this country (minority in numbers like LGBT people) can feel protected from an almost non existing threat. (I don't remember needing an AR to kill a duck or a boar)

Like Liberty city stated earlier. I'm also not a left wing Prius driving liberal. The LGBT community is also very annoying to me at times, as well as the ultra conservatives. But the one thing I can't stand the most is hypocrisy. Nothing republicans do is to protect anyone but their own cavemen fairy tale ways of thinking. Just keep it real and say, we don't like such and such and that's that. spare us the farce. All its is doing is costing good people jobs and making your state look bad.

 

[Salt]

What tipped the situation off in NC was that the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance in Feb of 2016 that extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people (the state of NC does not have any such policies on the books; it's still legal to fire someone for being ghey or trans).

The text of the ordinance stated that LGBT people could not be discriminated against in "places of public accommodation" (meaning bars, restaurants, stores). It also gave trans people the right to use whatever restroom they choose. The organizers of the bill had done their research and seen that 225 cities and 17 states have similar laws on the books, so there was precedent...this wasn't something they just pulled out of thin air to cause a ruckus.

Then the Repub legislators went ape****, as I've discussed in previous posts. And that's what got us to where we are now.

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

Man, you're reaching here. The whole point is that there ARE exceptions to the "at will" thing...you can't be fired based on your race, creed, or gender. The Charlotte ordinance sought to extend those same protections (among others) to LGBT people, within city limits at least. Which isn't a big deal--I've noted that there's precedent for in a ton of cities and states. It's not as though they were trying to "carve out" rights for the first time, trying to make a big national splash and get on the headlines of the newspapers as crusaders for LGBT rights.

I disagree. I think this goes hand in hand with the larger social/political movement of the LBGT community trying to make their gender dysphoria ( a legit psychiatric disorder underlying LBGT individuals) into a Civil Rights issue. Maybe I would suggest they try the ADA slant instead rather than co-opt the Civil Rights cause. Not kidding.

You disagree about what? Given that there are 225 cities and 17 states that have similar laws on the books, you can't seriously be saying that you think the Charlotte ordinance was overstepping their bounds and trying to be on the forefront of "pushing the ghey agenda." FWIW, Charlotte was the largest city in the USA to NOT have such protections in place before they passed their ordinance.

I disagree with your last part. This is part of a larger national political agenda and your term of "crusade" is appropriate. A relatively small group of individuals (with the aid of a larger group with political motives) want to force their personal agenda and personal need for validation unto society at large.

If it wasn't, seeking civil union and domestic partnership protections would be enough, without also having to change the way we define age-old terms such as marriage, and the bathroom issue in this case, which is just a small sliver of the overall protections the LBGT are seeking, wouldn't be made into such a cause celebre.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

In response to the bolded part above in your response, NC as I have further found out is an "at will" employment state. That means an employer can fire anyone, with some statutory exceptions (for example Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, ADA of 1990), for any reason w/o having to establish just cause.

It seems LBGT individuals want to carve out special exception for themselves in this case.

Not really wanting to debate the merits/problems of "at will" employment, but it seems to me it just gives LBGT individuals the unfair capacity to play the victim card even if the employer wants to fire an individual for any other reason. So if you start granting exceptions for one class of individuals (outside of Title VII, or ADA), I can see where people start to push back and wonder what other group of people will come out of the wood work to claim some special status for exempted. Where do you draw the line?

Man, you're reaching here. The whole point is that there ARE exceptions to the "at will" thing...you can't be fired based on your race, creed, or gender. The Charlotte ordinance sought to extend those same protections (among others) to LGBT people, within city limits at least. Which isn't a big deal--I've noted that there's precedent for in a ton of cities and states. It's not as though they were trying to "carve out" rights for the first time, trying to make a big national splash and get on the headlines of the newspapers as crusaders for LGBT rights.

I disagree. I think this goes hand in hand with the larger social/political movement of the LBGT community trying to make their gender dysphoria ( a legit psychiatric disorder underlying LBGT individuals) into a Civil Rights issue. Maybe I would suggest they try the ADA slant instead rather than co-opt the Civil Rights cause. Not kidding.

You disagree about what? Given that there are 225 cities and 17 states that have similar laws on the books, you can't seriously be saying that you think the Charlotte ordinance was overstepping their bounds and trying to be on the forefront of "pushing the ghey agenda." FWIW, Charlotte was the largest city in the USA to NOT have such protections in place before they passed their ordinance.

I disagree with your last part. This is part of a larger national political agenda and your term of "crusade" is appropriate. A relatively small group of individuals (with the aid of a larger group with political motives) want to force their personal agenda and personal need for validation unto society at large.

If it wasn't, seeking civil union and domestic partnership protections would be enough, without also having to change the way we define age-old terms such as marriage, and the bathroom issue in this case, which is just a small sliver of the overall protections the LBGT are seeking, wouldn't be made into such a cause celebre.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that it was the R legislature in NC who made the bathroom issue a big deal in the first place. The Charlotte ordinance was in accord with every other major city in the US. It was only when the Rs at the state level pushed back due to their own misunderstanding of trans and their own unfounded fears of men going crazy and raping women in public restrooms that this became national news.

 

[Salt]

Here's the thing.

There are something like 200 cities and a dozen states that already have laws on the books that allow trans people to use whatever restroom they want. Some of those laws date back 20 years or more.

In NONE of those cities or states has there been a big rise in straight men dressing up as women to get access to ladies rooms, or straight men following women/girls into bathrooms to assault them.

As i said, we already have laws on the books that discourage and/or punish people for spying on women in bathrooms or molesting them. That's not to say that such things never happen; there will always be some pervs who do it, and when they get caught, they are punished. But it is to say that trans bathroom laws have nothing to do with it.

It's ignorant because you're ignoring the evidence and relying on a gut-level fear (phobia) that men are gonna take advantage of this law to do bad things to your daughter. It's your argument that is weak, not mine.

It seems that you really need to define what "transgender" really means. The ordinance is pretty vague on that front if it allows any individual to use the bathroom of the *** they identify with.

I think this is the main problem. If it limits it to those that have actually transitioned then that seems pretty reasonable. Otherwise, the vagueness opens it up to all sorts of potential issues.

From what I have read the other aspects of the ordinance dealing with other types of discrimination of lbgt individuals was not that controversial. It was the bathroom issue that was the crux of the controversy.

It seems that there is some unfortunate conflation going on of the bathroom issue with these other protections mentioned in the ordinance that if you are against the former implies that you are against all of it. I don't think that is being accurately represented in the public debate of the issue.

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thorough misunderstanding of what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of the bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

I think that is a legitimate question that needs to be further clarified since it is a public ordinance that impacts more than one group of people. What meaning of "trans" is it since you may have trans- gender, trans- sexual , and transvestites? Does it mean all of these groups? Seems to me the ordinance without further clarity opens the door way too far for the potential abuses and nonsense that may ensue.

That's fine. The R legislature could surely have asked for clarification and I'm sure they'd have received it. The Charlotte ordinance had been thoroughly debated at the city level, over the course of several open forums. However, that's not the way it went down at the state level. The legislators called an emergency session to immediately overturn the Charlotte ordinance, and also to punish Charlotte and other cities.

I don't think the legislature was satisfied with the open ended definition of "trans" which would have led to all sorts of unintended consequences and bizarre situations.


The HB2 law necessitated a narrower definition of trans to only include those individuals that have gone the route of legally changing their *** id on their birth certificate and gone through reassignment surgery. That makes it pretty clear to me what trans means for the purpose of making and enforcing public law.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

It seems that you really need to define what "transgender" really means. The ordinance is pretty vague on that front if it allows any individual to use the bathroom of the *** they identify with.

I think this is the main problem. If it limits it to those that have actually transitioned then that seems pretty reasonable. Otherwise, the vagueness opens it up to all sorts of potential issues.

From what I have read the other aspects of the ordinance dealing with other types of discrimination of lbgt individuals was not that controversial. It was the bathroom issue that was the crux of the controversy.

It seems that there is some unfortunate conflation going on of the bathroom issue with these other protections mentioned in the ordinance that if you are against the former implies that you are against all of it. I don't think that is being accurately represented in the public debate of the issue.

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thorough misunderstanding of what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of the bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

I think that is a legitimate question that needs to be further clarified since it is a public ordinance that impacts more than one group of people. What meaning of "trans" is it since you may have trans- gender, trans- sexual , and transvestites? Does it mean all of these groups? Seems to me the ordinance without further clarity opens the door way too far for the potential abuses and nonsense that may ensue.

That's fine. The R legislature could surely have asked for clarification and I'm sure they'd have received it. The Charlotte ordinance had been thoroughly debated at the city level, over the course of several open forums. However, that's not the way it went down at the state level. The legislators called an emergency session to immediately overturn the Charlotte ordinance, and also to punish Charlotte and other cities.

I don't think the legislature was satisfied with the open ended definition of "trans" which would have led to all sorts of unintended consequences and bizarre situations.


The HB2 law necessitated a narrower definition of trans to only include those individuals that have gone the route of legally changing their *** id on their birth certificate and gone through reassignment surgery. That makes it pretty clear to me what trans means for the purpose of making and enforcing public law.

We're going round and round now, so I'll make this my last post. Bottom line is that any bathroom legislation that restricts the rights of trans people is unenforceable and unnecessary. It preys on ignorance and fear.

Allowing trans people--whether they have fully transitioned or are in the process thereof--to use the bathroom of their choice does not lead to "all sorts of unintended consequences and bizarre situations". This is evidenced by the fact that so many cities and states have laws on the books that extend this right to trans people and have never had a problem.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Why were bathrooms separated by gender in the fist place?

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Why were bathrooms separated by gender in the fist place?

Good question. I just looked it up...first happened in the 1700s in England, Here's an article about it:

The Weird History of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms