Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Charlotte should have worked with the GA to ensure their ordinance was in compliance with state law. I see the hypocrisy in some where they're all for a city overriding state law if it suits their political agenda, but in the same breath suggest that the state has no choice but to adhere to the federal government because the federal law overrides the state and, by golly, that is how the government is structured! Please....you can't have it both ways.
Now, I can kind of agree Charlotte could have done this differently, but what state laws did they know they would be violating? I mean, since they had to do a special session and create the law to ban what Charlotte passed, so there was no pre-existing law, by definition.
Now, I can kind of agree Charlotte could have done this differently, but what state laws did they know they would be violating? I mean, since they had to do a special session and create the law to ban what Charlotte passed, so there was no pre-existing law, by definition.
I agree. Charlotte's ordinance was dangerous, but I don't think anyone claimed it violated state law. I'm also not sure most people were aware that Title VII and Title IX have been redefined in recent years to equate gender with "gender identity."
How long until laws against minority racial discrimination are extended to those who claim a "racial identity?"
Now, I can kind of agree Charlotte could have done this differently, but what state laws did they know they would be violating? I mean, since they had to do a special session and create the law to ban what Charlotte passed, so there was no pre-existing law, by definition.
GA spent 00.114% the amount of time the City spent on debating the bill. Many other cities have similar ordinances. If you stand with vulfpeck and skinsguy37, you are standing on on the wrong side of history. Some KKK members said racial mixing was "dangerous" also. Don't be fooled.
Can we send all of his kind to Mississippi and let them do as they wish. We'll accept all the refugees who dont want to be there
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of you guys aren't originally from these parts. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a state where voters and their representatives share your values?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of you guys aren't originally from these parts. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a state where voters and their representatives share your values?
Man, these posts keep on getting better and better.
GA spent 00.114% the amount of time the City spent on debating the bill. Many other cities have similar ordinances. If you stand with vulfpeck and skinsguy37, you are standing on on the wrong side of history. Some KKK members said racial mixing was "dangerous" also. Don't be fooled.
I'm so far from their side, you must be kidding. Obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit or you just skipped over the thread. Don't be like the other side just flying around without thinking.
However, I do believe that the Charlotte community leaders could have handled it better and picked a non pedophile as their main champion of this ordinance so it doesn't play right into the hands of the idiots parroting the common sense protect our daughters BS.
I also think in many ways, the ordinance wasn't really needed as I'm not sure there was documented discrimination against transgendered people and most trans people who would be affected by this just want to live their lives without drawing more attention to themselves and I also think they could have been a bit more careful with their wording, but hey, I'm all for it if they vote for it as that's what they were elected to do. If the people of Charlotte didn't like it that much, they can decide at the next election. But I think a more careful approach and everything would have died down.
But I'm completely against the way the republican leadership in this state have been acting the last several years up to and including this crap with HB2. Even more the other crap fed into this bill beyond the bathrooms, which while it makes for a great battle of pithy quotes, is the tip of the ice berg to the damage the bill does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of you guys aren't originally from these parts. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a state where voters and their representatives share your values?
Oh and I'm from these parts. Was born on Wade Ave. and I thought this place did reflect the values I currently hold and I think most currently hold. All these rural people will be crying in their corn flakes if this crap keeps up and you can't skim the three metros and all their carpetbaggers to pay for your roads any more.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of you guys aren't originally from these parts. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a state where voters and their representatives share your values?
Cool, the old Daughters of The American Revolution card.
Cool, the old Daughters of The American Revolution card.
I'm just saying that if you want to deport your neighbors to Mississippi over a policy disagreement, maybe you'd be more comfortable with more like-minded neighbors
I'm just saying that if you want to deport your neighbors to Mississippi over a policy disagreement, maybe you'd be more comfortable with more like-minded neighbors
NC has plenty of like minded people. Why would we punish them by sending them to Mississippi? We would send them to places like California, Maryland, New York, Hawaii not places like Mississippi, Alabama, or Oklahoma.
Maybe you should learn to discuss issues on their merits instead of attacking (or deporting) those that disagree with you? Then you wouldn't feel the need to homogenize your surroundings.
Anywho... Back to the topic...
How is equating gender and "gender identity" any different than race and "racial identity." Based on these precedents, are we on the verge of seeing Rachel Dolezal types being able to claim racial discrimination? I think so. Would this be a bad thing? Maybe not...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
