A parting gift for the Bathroom Bill.

My opinions on the law and the subsequent HB2 bill are here to read. I am of the opinion that those who started this whole mess are at fault, and if this was not brought up, would not be an issue, and certainly wouldn't have affected NC as it has. But that's just my opinion and it's largely irrelevant.

But to find out that the person who initially pushed for this to become a law, had some pretty big problems of his own, and kind of relate to some of the opposition of this law, was shocking to say the least.

www.charlotteobserver.com...

A 2000 story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal said Sevearance-Turner had been a youth minister at a church in Gaffney. A jury there found him guilty of fondling a 15-year-old teenage church member while the boy slept. Before he stepped down as chamber president, Sevearance-Turner said the N.C. Values Coalition’s criticism “did not surprise him.” He said his conviction had not stopped him from achieving success, such as being chamber president. He couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday. Q Notes, a publication that covers Charlotte’s LGBT community, reported Thursday that he had resigned. Fitzgerald said Thursday that Sevearance-Turner’s role in supporting the ordinance is troubling. “No one who is a convicted sex offender should be leading a campaign to allow men to be in women’s bathrooms and showers,” she said. “It’s just common sense.” The most controversial part of Charlotte’s expanded nondiscrimination ordinance would allow transgender individuals to use either a men’s or women’s restroom. If the person identifies as female, they would be allowed to use a women’s restroom in places of public accommodation. Opponents have said that would make it easier for men to prey on women and girls inside women’s bathrooms. Supporters said there are already laws against that, and that transgender people are the ones who face danger in bathrooms. The N.C. General Assembly is considering a special session to overturn part of the ordinance. Read more here: www.charlotteobserver.com...=cpy

Now the argument that transgender people are a threat to others in the bathroom isn't really even a valid one. It's premise is ignorant.

But the person who pushed this bill isn't a transgender at all, he is a child molester. (convicted) So now the fears that all those horrible right wing nut jobs had, seems to be kind of well founded in the context of this case. Although the ones to fear aren't the ones this law mentions specifically, it seems they are being used for cover in this case, so should this guy or others like him, get caught being in the wrong place, they have a legal defense.

Again, this shouldn't even be discussed, people should and will learn to co-exist in spite of their differences. The LGBT community should be outraged at this, and instead of continuing to lambaste the Republicans for having views that differ from theirs, should be aggressively outing people such as this who hide behind the safety of the LGBT protection, while being the stereotypical pervert that right wingers were talking about.

Pee where you want and don't draw attention to something that needs no attention. And if you hurt a child, you need killing.(IMHO)

I must be missing something here...simply close the stall door...then let them guess!
Cheers

a reply to: network dude
S&F. Well put. This was a non-issue from the start. Most times people are oblivious to what is happening around them. Unless you want to draw attention to yourself, this should not be a problen.

originally posted by: network dude
The LGBT community should be outraged at this, and instead of continuing to lambaste the Republicans for having views that differ from theirs, should be aggressively outing people such as this who hide behind the safety of the LGBT protection, while being the stereotypical pervert that right wingers were talking about.

I'm sure LGBT people ARE outraged at people molesting children, regardless of who they are. But the Republicans are the ones who are so intent (and have been for 50+ years) on denying the rights of groups of people, based on their sexuality and gender identity, NOT because they simply "have different views". So, the lambasting of the Republican party is warranted.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: network dude
The LGBT community should be outraged at this, and instead of continuing to lambaste the Republicans for having views that differ from theirs, should be aggressively outing people such as this who hide behind the safety of the LGBT protection, while being the stereotypical pervert that right wingers were talking about.

I'm sure LGBT people ARE outraged at people molesting children, regardless of who they are. But the Republicans are the ones who are so intent (and have been for 50+ years) on denying the rights of groups of people, based on their sexuality and gender identity, NOT because they simply "have different views". So, the lambasting of the Republican party is warranted.

But you can hate on republicans all the time, when some kiddie fiddler tries to slip in a law enabling him and others like him to be able to enter the wrong bathroom, and then hide that behind the transgender thing, well, I though that might make those who were used for this purpose a bit angry. But since you mentioned that republicans are dumb, I guess that closes this chapter.

Oh ,and the guy who likes to diddle kids and pushed for this part of the bill, well,.....he wasn't a republican.

a reply to: network dude

Although the ones to fear aren't the ones this law mentions specifically, it seems they are being used for cover in this case, so should this guy or others like him, get caught being in the wrong place, they have a legal defense.

Same old argument huh? It's a bad law because someone might do something bad.
Like with guns?

a reply to: Phage

Actually, I feel it's a bad law becasue it brings attention to something that wasn't an issue, and now forces it to become an issue. Plus the part where the guy pushing this is exactly the kind of person the republicans who tried to stop the bill were talking about, NOT transgender people in general, is a tad ironic.

I didn't make any laws about guns, it seems our forefathers did that. And amazingly enough, killing folks is illegal just as inappropriately touching a child is. But for that crime, both laws discussed seem to protect that guy more than anything. A person who hurts a child has outlived his usefulness on this Earth as far as I am concerned.

a reply to: network dude

Actually, I feel it's a bad law becasue it brings attention to something that wasn't an issue, and now forces it to become an issue.

Yeah. Better to keep things hidden and not talk about them.

A person who hurts a child has outlived his usefulness on this Earth as far as I am concerned.

I would tend to agree. But it really has nothing to do with who can use which restroom.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

Actually, I feel it's a bad law becasue it brings attention to something that wasn't an issue, and now forces it to become an issue.

Yeah. Better to keep things hidden and not talk about them.

I just don't see it as that. It wasn't an issue before, so making a large production about it, only shines a bright spotlight on it, making it something that MUST be discussed and dealt with. Before, it seemed to function just fine.

Kind of like the kid in Virginia who may have been the catalyst for all this. That kid was getting along just fine until some parents got involved and made a stink about it. Before that, the school knew about it, and made arrangements so it wasn't a problem.

I guess that's the difference here. I think people should be intelligent enough on their own to deal with things at this level, where as you and others seem to want government intervention. (as long as it's the kind you agree with)

Until the transgender person him/her self stands up and claims there is a problem, why is it someone else's place to be a champion for their cause? They might not want the un-needed attention. But then I am not even sure they were asked.

but the fact that we all think differently is what makes this place fun.

a reply to: network dude

I just don't see it as that. It wasn't an issue before, so making a large production about it, only shines a bright spotlight on it, making it something that MUST be discussed and dealt with.

Maybe a review of the actual ordinance would be in order.
The purpose and intent of the Charlotte law:

It is the intent of the city to avoid becoming a passive participant in private sector commercial discrimination by refusing to procure goods and services from business firms that discriminate in the solicitation, selection, hiring, or treatment of vendors, suppliers, subcontractors, or commercial customers on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or disability in connection with city contracts or solicitations by providing a procedure for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints of discrimination involving city contracts or solicitations.

The "bathroom" clause, which was stricken, would have removed several specific exemptions to the law:

Sec. 12-59. - Prohibited sex discrimination.
(a) It shall be unlawful to deny a person, because of sex, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a restaurant, hotel, or motel.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private.
(2) YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities.
(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.”

The prior section, 12-58 might also be of interest. If you're interested.
charmeck.org...

Until the transgender person him/her self stands up and claims there is a problem, why is it someone else's place to be a champion for their cause?

Again, the law was about nondiscrimination in general. There has been quite a bit of "championing" for that. Both by those directly affected and by others. The law prohibited discrimination in a variety of situations. The section specifying restroom usage was deleted, it was not an added provision. Tell me, if that bathroom clause had not been written at all, instead of being deleted. What would the difference be?

Who made the big stink about the law? Who made a law specific to who can't use any given restroom?

I was of the mindset that government has no business in the nation's bedrooms.

Obviously, the once private bedrooms had become a political battleground over many decades now and the 'war' has almost petered out, with laws enacted and documents signed.

With that now behind us, there is only one private room left to engage the masses into vitriolic turmoil: The bathroom.

I think the issue is as simple as that. We will set the forces against each other to 'fight the good fight'.

Next up: Mindcrime.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think another way to put it; LGBT wastes time arguing with Republicans about their belief, and should spend that time, instead, on outing the people that help destroy the logic behind the GOP belief system/platform base.

TBH, using the words "Republicans" and "Democrats" as if they possess some innate traits seems silly. Its a box people fit themselves into...we should laugh at people who look silly walking around in boxes. instead of acknowleding them seriously.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The vote in favor of NC HB2:
Democrats in favor: 11
Republicans in favor: 32

So, while the Republicans carried it, it is hardly a purely partisan issue.

The problem isn't transgender people, the problem is heterosexual perverts who may try to play the system. Laws already prohibit illegal activity in restrooms, so these restroom ordinances really are unnecessary and should be defeated/repealed because punishing people that haven't done anything wrong is only going to make this situation worse.

originally posted by: Phage
Tell me, if that bathroom clause had not been written at all, instead of being deleted. What would the difference be?

My guess is, the NC legislature would not have had to meet and make a law reversing something that was idiotic to begin with. In other words, nothing would have come from it at all. And while I doubt we need more laws making it illegal to discriminate against people, I also doubt there would have been an uproar over another one being made. But then I am just a citizen of NC and have no legal authority.

I think everyone should just get along and be nice to each other. If you need a law to make you do that, perhaps you aren't a very good person to begin with.

a reply to: network dude

In other words, nothing would have come from it at all.

But, it would still allowed anyone to use the restroom they chose.

I think everyone should just get along and be nice to each other. If you need a law to make you do that, perhaps you aren't a very good person to begin with.

Yes. People who would discriminate based solely upon who someone is is probably not a very good person. It's unfortunate that such laws are necessary.

originally posted by: network dude

But the person who pushed this bill isn't a transgender at all, he is a child molester. (convicted) So now the fears that all those horrible right wing nut jobs had, seems to be kind of well founded in the context of this case.

Jared Fogle and Jerry Sandusky are both convicted sexual offenders too. Because they are heterosexual men who preyed on children, should we penalize all heterosexual men for their offenses? While the GLBT community could probably have retained a better principled representative in this situation, it still doesn't make discrimination against an entire class of people acceptable.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The vote in favor of NC HB2:
Democrats in favor: 11
Republicans in favor: 32

So, while the Republicans carried it, it is hardly a purely partisan issue.

Which kind of is the point: we blame "the republicans" instead of the specific individuals who cast the vote (or whatever idiocy is going on at the moment)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

we blame "the republicans" instead of the specific individuals who cast the vote (or whatever idiocy is going on at the moment)

Election year.

Maybe he USA should all just go back to wearing diapers!

Obviously they are not grown up enough as a society to use the potty




So much fuss over useing the Fing toliet!