North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please list the rash of attacks on transgenders in the city of Charlotte, so we can discuss the protection issue. 

Before I do the work, are you seriously suggesting that transgender people have not been targeted for harassment and/or acts of violence because of thier sexual identity?

Just want to get your position before I post the stats.  Don't want you to try and weasel out with the old "I never said that." excuse you always use when I show how wrong you are.

And why does it just have to be in Charlotte?  Do you have any reason to explain why Charlotte would be immune from a problem that exists in many other places in the country?

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2016, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Before I do the work, are you seriously suggesting that transgender people have not been targeted for harassment and/or acts of violence because of thier sexual identity?

Just want to get your position before I post the stats.  Don't want you to try and weasel out with the old "I never said that." excuse you always use when I show how wrong you are.

And why does it just have to be in Charlotte?  Do you have any reason to explain why Charlotte would be immune from a problem that exists in many other places in the country?

Coupe things Dino:

It has to be in Charlotte because that is where the ordinance to protect folks was passed.

We can play the internet link game all day.

Posting a stat that shows a transgender was reportedly assaulted in a bathroom in no way, suggests allowing them to use whichever facility they want would reduce it. If folks want to break the law they are going to break the law. 

[GMDino]

(04-18-2016, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is no and. It was simply explaining who passed a law first in this case. 

Please list the rash of attacks on transgenders in the city of Charlotte, so we can discuss the protection issue. 

I could ask the same of you to list transgender  people attacking people in bathrooms.

Then we could discuss the lack of a need for the state government to ban the entire state from passing a particular law about a particular group of people within the state.

If, as you imply, there are no attacks being taken out on transgender people then the law Charlotte passed is not more than a reinforcement of the idea that if someone looks like a woman they can use the woman's room (something that was probably happening anyway) without fear of having the police called on them.  Easier on everyone...except people staring down everyone else int he bathroom to make sure they look "feminine enough" or "masculine enough".

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Posting a stat that shows a transgender was reportedly assaulted in a bathroom in no way, suggests allowing them to use whichever facility they want would reduce it. If folks want to break the law they are going to break the law. 

Derp.

If transgenders are allowed to use the proper public restroom then no one will know they are transgender.

Using the improper restroom is what lets everyone know they are transgender.


But at least you do agree that transgender people have been targeted with harassment and acts of physical violence just because of their gender identity, right?  No need to play that game anymore is there?

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has to be in Charlotte because that is where the ordinance to protect folks was passed. 

This makes no sense at all.

If a problem exists across the country then Charlotte has every right to be proactive in addressing the problem.

[GMDino]

So, let's start with:  does what the state did in fact protect innocent people from attack?  have there been any attack? And how man other US cities have similar laws to the one in Charlotte?

Let's go to a newspaper, in the city, for the report:
 

Quote:In the fight to defend Charlotte’s anti-discrimination ordinance, supporters questioned claims that it would have been a threat to public safety.

Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC, said many large cities have rules similar to what Charlotte proposed before the legislature nullified it. Equality NC has since sued North Carolina to try to overturn the law.

“There have not been any public safety issues in those other communities,” Sgro said at a rally outside the legislature just days before Charlotte’s bill was overturned.

Conservatives weren’t swayed, though. Before Charlotte’s bill was passed, and then after when it was being debated by the General Assembly and even now that is has been overturned, concerns about safety have been frequently mentioned.

Mostly, opponents said opening up women’s restrooms to transgender women – people who are biologically male but identify as female – will make it easier for male sexual predators to commit crimes in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Online, supporters galvanized around the motto #KeepNCSafe and sent out ads that included the phrase “don’t let our girls become victims” and “keep children safe.”

N.C. GOP Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse cited “privacy and safety concerns” in attacking Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is running for governor as a Democrat, for not stepping in to stop Charlotte’s bill on his own.

A popular Christian author from Charlotte, Frank Turek, wrote an article about the backlash to the law that included the line, “The danger is real from sexual predators in women’s restrooms.” The N.C. GOP distributed his column via email and put that sentence about sexual predators in boldface.

So who is right? The evidence is overwhelmingly on Sgro’s side.

That’s not to say that people don’t have honest concerns over privacy or mental anguish. Indeed, several opponents of Charlotte’s ordinance have spoken of their own experiences with sexual assault, and their fears that seeing someone with male genitalia in a women’s room might trigger painful memories.

But still, Sgro said, Charlotte’s bill would not have legalized sexual assault, harassment or voyeurism – it just would have let transgender men and women use the bathrooms they’re more comfortable in.

“Transgender people are not predators,” he said.

Examples to prove Sgro wrong?

The entire state of Maryland and some of the largest cities in the country, including New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Seattle and Austin, Texas, have rules banning discrimination against transgender people in public accommodation, including bathrooms. More than 200 cities and counties also ban workplace discrimination against transgender people.

A dozen state public school systems and dozens of college campuses also have ordinances banning discrimination against transgender people, including in bathrooms.

We asked the N.C. GOP if they could point to anything that backs up the safety fears. They provided a link to a news story in Seattle from earlier this year, about a man who had twice gone into a women’s locker room and began undressing. Seattle does allow transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as.

The man didn’t identify as transgender and didn’t appear to present as a woman, the story said. No one called the police, and the man wasn’t charged with any crime. Follow-up stories described the incident as a stunt, perhaps politically motivated.

The liberal group Media Matters For America has studied the bathroom issue for several years, largely under the guidance of Carlos Maza.
Maza, a Wake Forest University graduate, tweeted after North Carolina’s new law passed that “A man has never used an LGBT non-discrimination law to sneak into a bathroom.”

Maza has also polled public school systems that allow transgender students to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. In a June 2015 article, he wrote that in 17 districts with a total of 600,000 students, officials hadn’t reported a single incident of “harassment or inappropriate behavior” related to transgender students and bathrooms.

But we still weren’t satisfied, so we kept digging, looking for examples of proven criminal behavior. We were likewise unable to find any examples in the United States, though we did find a case in Canada.

In that case, Christopher Hambrook posed as a woman to gain entry to women’s shelters, where he attacked several people before being caught. Hambrook was sentenced to an “indefinite” jail term in 2014 that could lead to his spending the rest of his life in prison.

Hambrook committed the crimes in Toronto, which has an ordinance protecting transgender people. That appears to be the first, and so far only, incident of its kind in North America.

After spending hours combing through conservative blogs and family values websites dedicated to news about transgender bathroom ordinances, we were able to confirm three cases in the United States in the last 17 years in which a biological male was convicted of a crime that involved him in a women’s bathroom or locker room and dressed as a woman.

It’s unclear if any of the three identified as transgender women, but none of those cases happened in cities where it would have been legal for a transgender woman to use the women’s room anyway. And none involved sexual assault or rape.

In 1999, Patrick Hagan was convicted in Tampa, Fla., for punching a woman in a bar bathroom during an argument. In 2010, Norwood Burns was convicted in Gordon County, Georgia, for exposing himself in a Walmart bathroom. In 2011, Thomas Lee Benson was convicted of trespassing in a Clackamas, Ore., women’s locker room and trying to talk to children.

Again, though, none of those crimes occurred in places where biological men would have had any legal claim to be in a women’s room by virtue of being a transgender woman.

The blogs did identify a few examples of alleged criminal activity having taken place under the guise of transgender-friendly bathrooms laws, but we couldn’t find proof of any convictions in those cases.

Our ruling

Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality NC, said, “There have not been any public safety issues in those other communities” with ordinances allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.

We haven’t found any instances of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States. Neither have any left-wing groups or right-wing groups.

There was one incident in Canada, involving a rapist. In the U.S., there have been a few yet-unproven allegations.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article70255967.html#storylink=cpy

[SunsetBengal]

(04-17-2016, 04:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

While I completely respect your Juris Doctorate degree, I laugh at the idea that you are capable of diagnosing people's mental issues.  Bad form, counselor..

Anyone who is afraid of a public restroom because there might be a transgender person in there has issues.  What possible damage could happen from using the same restroom as a transgender person?  I don't know about you, but I am able to use a restroom without showing my junk to anyone. 

How do you know they have issues?  Why can't the transgendered person be the one with issues?  After all, they only represent .o3% of the population.  And, they are the one claiming to be something other than what they were actually born...

Don't you agree that people who are uncomfortable for no reason at all have issues?

So you are saying that the majority are the ones with issues, and the tiny, minute amount of the population that likes to think they are elephants, when in fact they were born donkeys, are the ones that are alright?  Perhaps it is you, that is the one who has issues?

Good ole' fredtoast, now getting rich in the private sector..

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2016, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Good ole' fredtoast, now getting rich in the private sector..

What part of this logic are you having trouble with:

If you are a female that feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a male, then you have "issues".

If you are a male that feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a male, then you need a law allowing you to use the ladies room. 

How much more simple can  it be? 

[Vas Deferens]

(04-18-2016, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What part of this logic are you having trouble with:

If you are a female that feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a male, then you have "issues".

If you are a male that feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a male, then you need a law allowing you to use the ladies room. 

How much more simple can  it be? 

Should have added a provision preventing the open cleansing of ones genitals in the common area of any bathroom facility just like they slipped the minimum wage piece in there on you religious 'peace of mind' nut jobs.  

Charlotte had a lot of promise with some big investments from the tech sector being reconsidered as we speak.  Hope that aides these simpletons peace of mind. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2016, 10:56 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Should have added a provision preventing the open cleansing of ones genitals in the common area of any bathroom facility just like they slipped the minimum wage piece in there on you religious 'peace of mind' nut jobs.  

Charlotte had a lot of promise with some big investments from the tech sector being reconsidered as we speak.  Hope that aides these simpletons peace of mind. 

I assume that made sense in your head. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2016, 10:56 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Should have added a provision preventing the open cleansing of ones genitals in the common area of any bathroom facility just like they slipped the minimum wage piece in there on you religious 'peace of mind' nut jobs.  

Charlotte had a lot of promise with some big investments from the tech sector being reconsidered as we speak.  Hope that aides these simpletons peace of mind. 

Ironically enough, those same companies also seem to have no problem doing business with nations where homosexuality is a crime, even punishable by death in some of them..

[Vas Deferens]

(04-18-2016, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I assume that made sense in your head. 

I assume you'd rather not think hard enough to understand it.  Let's put it this way.  You could poll 999 transgender individuals and and you, asking them the question "have you cleaned your privates in a public area of a restroom?"  The answer would invariably come back...  1

(04-18-2016, 11:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ironically enough, those same companies also seem to have no problem doing business with nations where homosexuality is a crime, even punishable by death in some of them..

I'm not talking PayPal.  I'm talking a $B+ private company that is rethinking a current expansion in Charlotte that would have increased their footprint there ten fold  (1k + jobs).   Hope the morally straight laced televangelists can fill that gap. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2016, 11:39 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I assume you'd rather not think hard enough to understand it.  Let's put it this way.  You could poll 999 transgender individuals and and you, asking them the question "have you cleaned your privates in a public area of a restroom?"  The answer would invariably come back...  1



I'm not talking PayPal.  I'm talking a $B+ private company that is rethinking a current expansion in Charlotte that would have increased their footprint there ten fold  (1k + jobs).   Hope the morally straight laced televangelists can fill that gap. 

Meh, it's just Charlotte.  After all, they are home of Bank of America.  BoA, was the 1st US bank to issue unsecured credit cards to illegal aliens, back in 2005?  I personally witnessed a millionaire take his entire holdings out of BoA, and place them in a tiny local bank, the day after that news was released. 

During my years at the beach, I witnessed more than one Charlotte businessman explain that they were glad to cash out, and say good riddance to Charlotte politics..

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How do you know they have issues?  

Because there is no possible risk of damage from being in the same bathroom with a transgender.  They won't get hurt.  They won't get ridiculed.  They won't get ostracized.  Absolutely nothing will happen.

That is how is know they have issues.  It is irrational.  It is like being afraid of the color green.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2016, 12:08 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Meh, it's just Charlotte.  After all, they are home of Bank of America.  BoA, was the 1st US bank to issue unsecured credit cards to illegal aliens, back in 2005?  I personally witnessed a millionaire take his entire holdings out of BoA, and place them in a tiny local bank, the day after that news was released. 

During my years at the beach, I witnessed more than one Charlotte businessman explain that they were glad to cash out, and say good riddance to Charlotte politics..

Sorry bud. Not talking BAC either.  Note PRIVATE.  

But **** BAC too. Different reasons, but **** em all the same. 

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So you are saying that the majority are the ones with issues, and the tiny, minute amount of the population that likes to think they are elephants, when in fact they were born donkeys, are the ones that are alright?  Perhaps it is you, that is the one who has issues?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

People with gender identification disorder do have issues, but they don't try to punish or discriminate other people because of it.

I can sympathize with people with gender identification disorder because they are not hurting anyone else.

I can not sympathize with people who want to punish transgenders for no reason.  In my opinion those type of people have issues much worse than Gender Identification Disorder.

Only a very small percentage of the population have issues that make them unable to use stairs, yet all public buildings have wheel chair access.  What kind of asshole would say "I don't like looking at cripples.  They make me feel uncomfortable.  Why do we need special laws for such a small minority of the population?"

You know what kind of asshole would say something like that?  The same type of person who would go out of his way to use insulting animal terms to describe transgenders.  The same type of person who would smugly joke that Gender Identification Disorder was something made up or imaginary that could be turned on and off just to use the public restroom of the opposite sex. 

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2016, 12:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is no possible risk of damage from being in the same bathroom with a transgender.  They won't get hurt.  They won't get ridiculed.  They won't get ostracized.  Absolutely nothing will happen.

That is how is know they have issues.  It is irrational.  It is like being afraid of the color green.

Or believing in a virgin birth. 

[Griever]

isnt it ironic that republicans cry about federal government overreach, by getting into the states business, and then the state government does the same with with the local cities business

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Griever Wrote: isnt it ironic that republicans cry about federal government overreach, by getting into the states business, and then the state government does the same with with the local cities business

....and the liberals cry about it; it is ironic.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and the liberals cry about it; it is ironic.

Where is the irony in this.

Liberals have always opposed government action that support discrimination.