North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[Rotobeast]

(04-22-2016, 01:53 PM)Griever Wrote: Lucie is a dude? Here I was thinking I was talking to an obese helicopter mom with nothing better to do that complain about stuff that doesnt effect her at all

#Themoreyouknow

Oh...wow !
LOL

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2016, 12:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They have a 0% chance now because _______ aren't allowed in the restroom of their desire.    

So my kids are more safe than they would be if we opened the flood gates.   And since anyone can morph into a ______ at anytime and morph back to normal.... Just as sunset showed us in his thread.

Your kids are no more safe because a transgender is no more likely to be a sexual preditor than anyone else.

what si really funny is that the same people who ised to claim that homosexuals were more likely to be sexual preditors are now saying they have no problems with homosexulas in restrooms, but are terrified of transgenders.

They vare so afarid of everything they can't keep it straight.  Their minds are addled by fear.

[fredtoast]

(04-21-2016, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And, once again.  No one is telling transgender people that they cannot use the bathroom.  The bill is designed to keep full grown, male perverts out of the girls restrooms and locker rooms. 

No it isn't.  

If it were it would be an anti-pervert law instead of an anti-transgender law.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2016, 12:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By makng it a norm to see men Walking into the women's restroom they are lessening vigilance by the citizens.    

Except if it is a transgender then you could not tell.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-24-2016, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your kids are no more safe because a transgender is no more likely to be a sexual preditor than anyone else.

I'm pretty sure the bills were designed to keep people safe from PREDATORS, not from transgenders. Now, I'll grant you that may not be the intentions of those that wrote the bill (they are politicians after all), but the general public that supports them, that is how it was sold to them and that is why they favor the bills. Not because they are scared of transgenders (though, again, I'll grant you that SOME may be), but because they believe that predators will take advantage of people being able to basically choose which restroom to use.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2016, 11:57 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm pretty sure the bills were designed to keep people safe from PREDATORS, not from transgenders. Now, I'll grant you that may not be the intentions of those that wrote the bill (they are politicians after all), but the general public that supports them, that is how it was sold to them and that is why they favor the bills. Not because they are scared of transgenders (though, again, I'll grant you that SOME may be), but because they believe that predators will take advantage of people being able to basically choose which restroom to use.

But that argument is specious. A man can already dress like a woman if he wants to go into the ladies room to sexually assault someone.  

These laws change nothing about that problem, and that is why they are promoted to the public as "religious freedom" laws instead of "anti-predator" laws.

[Belsnickel]

(04-27-2016, 01:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These laws change nothing about that problem, and that is why they are promoted to the public as "religious freedom" laws instead of "anti-predator" laws.

This is probably the biggest piece of evidence pointing to at least some of these bills not at all being about the protection of people against sexual predators. By calling it a religious freedom bill, which most of them are if I recall correctly, they are making it more about wanting to discriminate against someone because their religious views do not approve of someone's life choices.

There may be those supporting these laws that truly think that way, but by politicians and people hitching their "religious freedom" tag to it, they hurt that argument immensely.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2016, 11:57 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm pretty sure the bills were designed to keep people safe from PREDATORS, not from transgenders. 

And I am pretty sure that you were the one accusing Bruce Springsteen of discriminating against the people of North Carolina BASED ON THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS when he protested the passage of this law.

These laws are not about protecting anyone.  They are about Christians wanting to discriminate against transgender people.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-27-2016, 01:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But that argument is specious. A man can already dress like a woman if he wants to go into the ladies room to sexually assault someone.  

These laws change nothing about that problem, and that is why they are promoted to the public as "religious freedom" laws instead of "anti-predator" laws.

And a trans-man/woman can already dress like what they identify as and go into the bathroom that matches the way they are dressed.
The law is meant to keep the obvious from going into the wrong room.

If a trans-man is dressed as a woman and goes into the women's then unless you know that they are a trans, you aren't going to give it much thought. However, if you see a man dressed as a man go into the women's then it should raise some flags.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-27-2016, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I am pretty sure that you were the one accusing Bruce Springsteen of discriminating against the people of North Carolina BASED ON THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS when he protested the passage of this law.

These laws are not about protecting anyone.  They are about Christians wanting to discriminate against transgender people.

But you said Springsteen was NOT ergo these laws are not.

[BmorePat87]

I like the subtle protest of the mods banning slurs by using "___________" instead of "trans" or "transgender" or any other word that isn't a slur or insult.

Stick to your guns, I guess.

[fredtoast]

(05-01-2016, 01:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But you said Springsteen was NOT ergo these laws are not.

Exactly.  It is not about the religious beliefs.  He will perform for anyone with these religious beliefs.  Instead he is just protesting against the discrimination based on the religious beliefs.

But the basis of the laws is still discrimination based on religious beliefs.

i think you need to brush up on your logic before using that "ergo".

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2016, 05:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And a trans-man/woman can already dress like what they identify as and go into the bathroom that matches the way they are dressed.

No they can't.

If that was the law then Charlotte would never have had to pass a law to allow transgenders to use the correct bathroom.