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.
Nothing, but there is a law to punish them. This discrimination law makes it impossible to punish someone for being where they shouldn't be. That's the difference. It's eliminating protections from the current users.
Good intent does not negate bad loopholes.
It boils down to this. The loons in charge feel it righteous to strip the long held belief in privacy & decency away from 99.97% of the population, in order to transfer it to 0.03% of the population......rather than seek a better compromise that could make the majority of people happy, while not creating a nightmare situation for women, children, men, police officers, businesses, court systems, lawyers, etc. The things people with common sense still functioning have been saying "will" happen are "now" happening and will only get worse as time goes by. And when it ends up with more and more people getting assaulted, that can never be taken back or corrected for them. But that is okay, as long as we have those silly looking half man/half woman bathroom signs hanging in every facility. I really think people are going insane and somehow the special interest groups have managed to get them into dangerous positions of power.
I would be interested in finding out how many of those males were actually people who are in support of HB2 and trying to make a point. It appears all three are. It's shameful to see that the people that support HB2 are willing to expose themselves to women and children (you know, the ones who need to be protected from the perverts) in order to make a point.
A FAQ is not a law. The wording of the actual law is the problem. If they defined the issue within the law like the FAQ does, then the loophole would not be as broad.
You're aware that a website FAQ is not legislation, right? If not, then I think we all know who needs to be educated.
A FAQ is not a law. The wording of the actual law is the problem. If they defined the issue within the law like the FAQ does, then the loophole would not be as broad.
You're aware that a website FAQ is not legislation, right?
Are you a lawyer? Because that FAQ was written by one, referencing the Ordinance directly.
It boils down to this. The loons in charge feel it righteous to strip the long held belief in privacy & decency away from 99.97% of the population, in order to transfer it to 0.03% of the population......rather than seek a better compromise that could make the majority of people happy, while not creating a nightmare situation for women, children, men, police officers, businesses, court systems, lawyers, etc. The things people with common sense still functioning have been saying "will" happen are "now" happening and will only get worse as time goes by. And when it ends up with more and more people getting assaulted, that can never be taken back or corrected for them. But that is okay, as long as we have those silly looking half man/half woman bathroom signs hanging in every facility. I really think people are going insane and somehow the special interest groups have managed to get them into dangerous positions of power.
It says you can't limit use of facilities based on "gender identity" or "gender expression."
Catch the "expression" part? That means you can't stop a person that looks 100% like a man from going into the women's shower. If you ask him to leave or call the police? Guess what, you and the police can be sued for harassment discrimination based entirely on this new law. Before this law, you could use reasonable judgement and not be sued. Understand?
Further, allowing any "identity" to be claimed by anyone effectively causes the same problem as limiting discretion based on "expression." They basically wrote in two loopholes with no attempt to clarify within the law, just a FAQ thrown together after there was backlash. A web page which carries no legal authority.
It says you can't limit use of facilities based on "gender identity" or "gender expression."
Catch the "expression" part? That means you can't stop a person that looks 100% like a man from going into the women's shower. If you ask him to leave or call the police? Guess what, you and the police can be sued for harassment discrimination based entirely on this new law. Before this law, you could use reasonable judgement and not be sued. Understand?
Further, allowing any "identity" to be claimed by anyone effectively causes the same problem as limiting discretion based on "expression." They basically wrote in two loopholes with no attempt to clarify within the law, just a FAQ thrown together after there was backlash. A FAQ which carries no legal authority.
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.
