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.
You seem to forget that in addition to individual stalls for toilets, locker rooms also have open space for changing. I still haven't heard justification for some trans people wanting to use multiuse spaces when single use gender neutral spaces are available.
Guess what? A sign saying gun-free zone doesn't stop people from shooting up a place , nor does no smoking always stop people who want to smoke, people will still turn right on red when there is a sign forbidding one to do so, people will still speed through residential neighborhoods with speed bumps and posted speed limits. Should we do away with all regulations because a criminal minority will sometimes slip through? The point is that at least with rules in place it does give one the right to complain when those rules are violated, and give protection if someone in authority is present. Public restrooms are not here for the purpose of boosting self-esteem or group empowerment politics. Totally ignoring women and girls' concerns is actually very male chauvinist.
So are you saying we need to have more regulations or less regulations? And here I thought right wingers were against big government trying to tell them what they can and cannot do...
Yes. In Illinois and Missouri, to name just two of the states in which this is happening.
Quote:
"One woman, speaking during the public comments portion of Thursday's regular Dist. 211 board meeting, and who is also a member of the D211 Parents For Privacy group, told the board of an alleged incident she had just learned of. A female student preparing for swim class two years ago in the girls bathroom at Fremd supposedly saw a male, who had requested access to use the female locker rooms due to being transgender, without clothes on. The female student was said to have been greatly disturbed by the incident.
“This female student came forward to say that back in 2013, ‘Student A’ (the transgender student) violated rules by entering the girls swimming locker room, got completely naked, exposing his male genitalia to her,” parent Barb Wilson told the board. “Exposure is a form of sexual abuse.”
Wilson continued: “The OCR (Office of Civil Rights) report dated Nov. 2 backs this up...
A father, trembling as he spoke and concerned about his daughter’s privacy, believes the board members are not qualified to hold office.
“When you made this decision you were not representing the majority of the students who you are supposed to protect,” he said. “The best way to handle this situation is to assign him his own bathroom and locker room, which will help ensure his safety.”
"Superintendent Daniel Cates remains adamant that the district is not in violation of the law and warned that the Obama administration's position "is a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications."
"The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one's gender is not the same as one's anatomy," Cates said in a statement. "Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms — where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities — for a reason."
Yes in those specific cases that conflict with federal law as outlined in the article you posted bu ta rather large majority of cases stay at the state level, a defendant cannot just decide to move a case out of state court.
Wrong. It's not a conflict, it's an overlap.
I'll cite the U.S. Justice Dept. again...
Quote:
"The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called “original jurisdiction.” Sometimes, the jurisdiction of state courts will overlap with that of federal courts, meaning that some cases can be brought in both courts. The plaintiff has the initial choice of bringing the case in state or federal court. However, if the plaintiff chooses state court, the defendant may sometimes choose to “remove” to federal court"
And, no, most of such cases do not stay at the state level. It's in the defendants' best interest to remove the cases to federal court, which is their legal right.
The state law was passed after Charlotte adopted a non-discrimination ordinance allowing transgender people to use public restrooms in line with their gender identity.
Shame on PayPal for abandoning 400 people who need jobs in Charlotte, a community that supports LGBT rights.
The state law was passed after Charlotte adopted a non-discrimination ordinance allowing transgender people to use public restrooms in line with their gender identity.
Shame on PayPal for abandoning 400 people who need jobs in Charlotte, a community that supports LGBT rights.
The boycott hammer doesn't care who gets squished.
Collateral damage.
I mean if PayPal wants to not be in NC due to the law, more power to them. Why are you all getting so butt hurt about it?
If a business wants to stop doing business in a state or city, it has all the power too as do you have the ability to stop buying stuff from them. Not sure why some of you are getting so sensitive about it.
I guess now you know how it would feel if a law, like the one in Mississippi, allows for businesses to discriminate against LGBT people......pot meet kettle.
I agree. And what's interesting is that some of the same people getting so "butt hurt" (as you put it) in another thread were saying that a company's right to fire anyone for any reason -- or even for no reason -- should be unquestioned. Well, in this case, such a company "fired" a state.
The state law was passed after Charlotte adopted a non-discrimination ordinance allowing transgender people to use public restrooms in line with their gender identity.
Shame on PayPal for abandoning 400 people who need jobs in Charlotte, a community that supports LGBT rights.
The bill does more than just that, it discriminates against the entire LGBT community. But you keep thinking this is just about seeing a man's penis in the woman's bathroom.
The bill does more than just that, it discriminates against the entire LGBT community. But you keep thinking this is just about seeing a man's penis in the woman's bathroom.
When did I say that? Please show me!! I only wrote that most people in Charlotte to do not agree with the bill. Did you bother to read my post before responding to it?
In fact, there are 2.4 million registered Democrats in NC who didn't vote for Gov McCrory. To judge all people in a state because of some bigoted politicians is also discrimination IMO.
By the way, I don't know why anyone would ever see a man's penis in a women's restroom. I assume a person who uses the bathroom would go into a private stall. That's what I do. Maybe you think women's restrooms have urinals?
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.
