It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HB2, North Carolina mandate to hate homosexuals.

page: 22
42
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In a boomtown economy during a bust ... people can still go to the toilet for free unless people legislate against it.




Now you see where im coming from.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So, your concern is of a logical/practical/financial nature that government can force you to comply, at your expense, to build a third restroom to accommodate the "mentally ill" via requirements of the ADA?



That's really it. Although you don't need to include the word "mentally ill". I think "protected classes" is enough to predicate a bathroom rebuild, if this debacle continues in that direction.



Not sure "protected class" is enough under the ADA, but mentally ill is.

As I said, sometime back, it's up to the doctor. In discussing handicap parking, I said a person with agoraphobia might qualify.

Forcing a 3rd restroom isn't realistic IMO. There simply isn't any logic there.

I don't find offending sensibilities reason enough to be ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In a boomtown economy during a bust ... people can still go to the toilet for free unless people legislate against it.




Now you see where im coming from.

Unless its that you want to change the law to stop people pooping ... not particularly.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Who's gonna fight for this 3rd restroom?

It's not the same as the handicapped who physically needed access and fought for what they really, actually needed.

Transgenders want to be inclusive. They don't want or need "special" facilities.

It's the anti crowd that's forcing this issue.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

as i mentioned, according to what was reported by the OP, the law was put in place becuase the city of Charlotte was doing just that.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In a boomtown economy during a bust ... people can still go to the toilet for free unless people legislate against it.




Now you see where im coming from.


I'm confused, maybe I missed the part where people were suggesting that there be special toilets created for them?

That's not what this is about.
No one was demanding special treatment, people were just using the facilities and the tea bagger government took the opportunity to manufacture a scaremongering story about men in dresses sexually abusing kids in order to pass laws attacking ALL LGBTQ people.

No one was demanding anything. At no point were you being requested to provide any more facilities to anyone. A mens room and a ladies room (and potentially facilities for the less able bodied) is all that's required of you.

Transgender people want to use the facilities of the gender they are - the gender they appear to be, the gender they live as, the gender you would probably think they were if you saw them.

No one was being molested, no one was being attacked, no one was being told they had to to this or that to make other people happy.
edit on 23-4-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

as i mentioned, according to what was reported by the OP, the law was put in place becuase the city of Charlotte was doing just that.



Charlotte was forcing a 3rd restroom?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




the law was put in place becuase the city of Charlotte was doing just that.

The OP speculated about it. The law did not require any provisions for "accommodation" of transgenders. Charlotte was not "doing just that."


The non-discrimination in places of public accommodations ordinance prohibits a business that provides a public accommodation from discriminating against a patron or customer based on one or more of that person’s protected characteristics. Those protected characteristics are: race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, and national origin.




A place of public accommodation may not refuse to provide the full and equal enjoyment of its facilities based on a protected characteristic, such as gender identity and gender expression. Restrooms, locker rooms, and other changing facilities are covered by the ordinance.
The ordinance does NOT require the elimination of separate men’s and women’s facilities, and does not require a business to provide new or special restroom facilities. However, a business may not prohibit a transgender person from using the restroom or locker room consistent with the gender identified or expressed by that person.
The ordinance does not require a business to modify or reconstruct existing men’s and women’s restroom or changing facilities, although it may choose to do so to accommodate the privacy of its customers. Restroom facilities designated and signed for males or females are permissible and do not violate the ordinance.

charmeck.org...'S-Public%20Accomodations.pdf
edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The OP says a lot of things, including this:

"And I'd wager the ones who can pee standing up, went to the mens room, and the ones who must sit down, went to the ladies room."



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Let me quote from the OP, so we can establish a baseline for the last several pages of discussion:


The NC bill HB2, made it no longer possible for a city in NC to pass a sweeping law like this. Now it must be done at the state level. That is all. There was no mandate to be mean to LGBT people, or to limit any rights they had previously. Only to put a little common sense into things that shouldn't need to be explained in the first place.


So that is an excerpt from the prompt for this discussion.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And so because of that, we are not allowed to discuss the implications of the whole bathroom thing? Its in every headline across the nation.

Since we have the opportunity for it to be somewhat topical, we cannot discuss it? That is all I am doing here. Im discussing it here. Is that a problem?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Right.

HB2 made it the exclusive right of the state to enforce discrimination against transgendered in the use of bathrooms. Cities and counties are not allowed to write laws against discrimination in the use of bathrooms.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Let me quote from the OP, so we can establish a baseline for the last several pages of discussion:


The NC bill HB2, made it no longer possible for a city in NC to pass a sweeping law like this. Now it must be done at the state level. That is all. There was no mandate to be mean to LGBT people, or to limit any rights they had previously. Only to put a little common sense into things that shouldn't need to be explained in the first place.


So that is an excerpt from the prompt for this discussion.



Like California state not allowing San Francisco and West Hollywood to make laws accommodating their demographic's unique needs.

No mandate to be mean to LGBT or limit any rights they had?

Got a bridge to sell you.


edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Since we have the opportunity for it to be somewhat topical, we cannot discuss it? That is all I am doing here. Im discussing it here. Is that a problem?

There was no implication that separate facilities be required.

edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

And that is a fundamental disconnect for me. Your gender, what you have in your pants and how you choose to use it is not WHO you are. It may relate to WHAT you are. The various boxes you get stuck in. But WHO you are transcends those boxes.

Just my 2 cents on that subject.


Well, BFFT, with inflation and all, that 2 cents ain't gonna get you very far.

That's a nice little philosophy, might work for gay kids or whatever but falls a little bit short of the mark when WHO you are doesn't jive with WHAT you are as determined by what you have in your pants. If you think there's going to be some transcendental awakening in parents (or society) that WHO you are matters more than WHAT you are then why is anybody even talking about trans?

Johnny: Mom, dad, "I'm gay"
Mom-Dad:"That's okay, Johnny, we'll love you no matter what. Just be safe and respect yourself."

Johnny: Mom, dad, "I'm really a girl inside, want to live so everyone knows me as a girl and I want the body of a girl and DO call me Shirley."

Mom-Dad: "WTF? Son, we love you no matter what but there must be something really wrong with you so we're taking you to doctor after doctor until they figure it out and fix you. What are the neighbors (church, school, world) going to think if you look like a girl? Why can't you just be gay? Something is really wrong here - something is wrong with WHO you are."

Yeah, so maybe parents will eventually figure that out and come around especially since there's more knowledge about this sort of thing than there used to be but you can't tell me they still don't think you're broken even if they do their best to hide it. Society and people still think trans folks are mentally ill and if you think that doesn't equate with broken, then you are sadly wrong and in the minority.
 


And to your whole expense for businesses to build bathrooms? Haven't you read what was actually in the Charlotte anti-discrimination law? It has been posted twice now. It specifically says no such thing was being proposed or required. Not even necessary to put up a gender neutral sign on the door so that whole argument is completely moot.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
So since I last posted in this topic, I've read everything I could find on this law (laws) and have read everyone's posts and it seems blatantly clear that:



  • No special facilities were being demanded or specified in the law
  • All the law did was make it illegal to bar one from existing facilities on the basis of discrimination
  • The new law makes it impossible for that previous more local law to exist on a statewide basis now


So given all of that, and since as has been repeatedly pointed out both rhetorically and visually, 1) most of us have likely shared a restroom with trans folks on many occasions and never knew it, 2) a trans person is no more likely to inflict harm on someone in a restroom than a cisgender person, 3) "indecent exposure" is not automatically more likely just because someone's "equipment" is different (again, you've probably shared a restroom with a trans person many times and never known it)... and since our allies such as Britain are now issuing travel warnings to their own citizens when travelling to U.S. states with such laws (which, as an American, I feel ashamed of) ...

... I am forced to conclude that people's primary argument against trans people sharing restrooms with cis people simply boils down to, "I don't like it, and I I'm afraid X will happen, even though it's self-evident it isn't more likely to occur just because someone is trans," and, "Just as some (perhaps the same people, I don't know) believe same sex marriage will 'open the door' to incestuous marriages or bestiality - both of which are unsupported slippery slope fallacies - I also fear somehow this will make predation on children easier and more probable, even though I know that's already possible and this does nothing to make it more likely."

Basically, cutting through all the semantics... it's just plain unfounded fear imho. As it seemingly always is. And that's not legal basis enough to keep someone from peeing in the same facility as you, just as Kim Davis' religious beliefs were not sufficient legal basis to deny marriage licenses. As with same sex marriage, the world isn't going to erupt into flames if this happens, and I expect it will become the status quo, and people are just going to have to learn to live with it. That's all I have to say about this issue in the (for me) final analysis.

I respect the views of those who feel otherwise and no offense is intended, but logically that's what I see here.

Peace.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
More then a "bathroom" law. And, of course, you can refuse to do business with a single mom too - - - if its against your religion.

Lesbians: HB2 Encouraged Fertility Clinic to Reject Us



A female couple alleges a Charlotte fertility clinic turned them away because of North Carolina's recently-passed anti-LGBT law and, in response, they're joining the lawsuit against the legislation. Kelly Trent and Beverly Newell say their appointment at a fertility clinic was abruptly canceled after HB 2 passed last month, with the unnamed clinic explicitly saying they don't service same-sex couples. Trent and Newell have now joined the lawsuit against the bill, which is being spearheaded by Lambda Legal, ACLU, and ACLU of North Carolina. www.advocate.com...




top topics



 
42
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join