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.
What exactly is the "right to sue" part of the CLT bill??
I'm pretty sure it's fiction. Transgender and gender fluid folks leave a trail. There stories can be verified, and no one has a right to creep on everyone in a locker room, even if they are in their correct room.
If "getting sued" was half the problem you make it out to be wouldn't you be hearing about these lawsuits? There are biological women in the news getting flack for being in a ladies room because they look a little "Pat"ish... Who are they suing? Are people exchanging personal information every time they trade a question?
The Charlotte discrimination law was itself the basis of the right to sue for discrimination. That's how lawsuits work. You legislate a requirement and people sue if those requirements aren't met. I think you know this.
The Charlotte ordinance required no current or prior evidence of female appearance or behavior to claim female identity. In full adherence to the law, any man could decide he identifies as a woman at any time and enter the female facilities. Before the ordinance, the facility would have been free to remove him. Afterwards, he could claim a female identity for an hour while the girls shower and then go right back home to his wife and kids. Since the geniuses in Charlotte didn't want to take that extra little step of clearly defining what transgender consists of, if anyone tried to contest it, he could just say he's "gender fluid" and identifies as female from time to time.
A man in Seattle did it twice, with a girls swim team in the shower, shortly after their ordinance was passed. They couldn't do anything about it specifically because of the potential of lawsuit based on the new law.
Oddly enough, the website FAQ that Charlotte later published does a much better job of defining who the term "transgender" was supposed to cover than the law itself. Unfortunately, it's meaningless since they decided not to codify it in the actual legislation.
People choose EVERY SINGLE DAY to follow the law, or BREAK the law. If LGBT rights are the "cover" every perv has been waiting for - then GOOD. Flush them out, so we can deal with them accordingly.
Except the Charlotte ordinance would allow them to be wherever they want. Their being a perv and trying to sneak a peak in locker rooms wouldn't be illegal any longer...and in fact....be legally protected.
He did it twice? Seattle couldn't do anything? Why isn't he still doing it? Why isn't everyone doing it? Those are serious questions. If you're gonna lead off with it, give us the ENTIRE story. Was it a "protest" type deal? Was anyone assaulted? How was it resolved? How many pre-teen girls witnessed the sacred phallus?
Charlotte has an ordinance that you have to cut your grass. Can I sue you if you don't cut your grass? Is that not "how it works"?
The Charlotte discrimination law was the basis of the right to sue for discrimination. That's how lawsuits work. You legislate a requirement and people sue if those requirements aren't met. I think you know this.
The Charlotte ordinance required no current or prior evidence of female appearance or behavior to claim female identity. In full adherence to the law, any man could decide he identifies as a woman at any time and enter the female facilities. Before the ordinance, the facility would have been free to remove him. Afterwards, he could claim a female identity for an hour while the girls shower and then go right back home to his wife and kids. If anyone tried to contest it, he could just say he's "gender fluid" and identifies as female from time to time.
A man in Seattle did it twice, with a girls swim team in the shower, shortly after their ordinance was passed. They couldn't do anything about it specifically because of the potential of lawsuit based on the new law.
They don't see the conflict in protecting the right of privacy with one group so they don't feel judged or humiliated no matter which room they choose, while then violating that same right of another larger and more vulnerable group. The only logical answer is.....mens and womens....or penis and no penis rooms. They can't argue the logic so they call names and come up with crazy solutions like...."ban nudity in showers and changing rooms".
So their 'logic' then dictates the only logical thing to do is make it to where any man or woman, adult or child, trans or not, can use any restroom, changing room, locker room at any time without repercussions.
People choose EVERY SINGLE DAY to follow the law, or BREAK the law. If LGBT rights are the "cover" every perv has been waiting for - then GOOD. Flush them out, so we can deal with them accordingly.
That's the problem. Under the ordinance, they wouldn't be breaking a law.
He did it twice? Seattle couldn't do anything? Why isn't he still doing it? Why isn't everyone doing it? Those are serious questions. If you're gonna lead off with it, give us the ENTIRE story. Was it a "protest" type deal? Was anyone assaulted? How was it resolved? How many pre-teen girls witnessed the sacred phallus?
Charlotte has an ordinance that you have to cut your grass. Can I sue you if you don't cut your grass? Is that not "how it works"?
The city and the business owner could do nothing. Just like you want.
Strange nude men with little girls should disturb you like it does normal folks. You both joke about it and It seems to excite you. Might need to run down your IP address.
I can see a whole new employment sector opening up. Can you see the classified ads now: P***er Checkers needed, excellent benefits, no experience required.
That's the problem. Under the ordinance, they wouldn't be breaking a law.
So your fundamental problem is transgendered people? You don't strike me as the type...
Because there are laws against peeping and assault. Otherwise even a simple text amendment to indicate that a person's "transgenderism" must be more sincere than for the purpose of freaking people out to expose an otherwise non-existent threat (e.g., the Seattle incident, and any number of well-publicized Target displays). Sound reasonable?
I can see a whole new employment sector opening up. Can you see the classified ads now: P***er Checkers needed, excellent benefits, no experience required.
Well if they are in a locker room....it's right there so no need. Most in support of the Charlotte law keep changing the conversation back to restrooms because it's a losing battle in changing rooms and locker rooms. They want to pretend like those don't exist. Except for in schools (minors), most of us don't care about restrooms.
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.
