Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should it be allowed
NO 109 64.50%
YES 60 35.50%
Voters: 169. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2016, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,465,032 times
Reputation: 8599

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes. FELONY* indecent exposure issues in public facility (schools, etc.) restrooms, locker rooms, and showers, and the fact that parents DO NOT want their kids to be forced to involuntarily submit to that form of sexual abuse.

* Codified in all states as felonies because of the school grounds location and/or age of the victims.
What indecent exposure? I've been visiting public restrooms for over 50 years and nobody has whipped their dong out for all to ogle.

 
Old 04-11-2016, 01:54 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,286,813 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why on earth would anyone allow them to LEGALLY do so? THAT'S the issue. How do you not get that?

Trans persons with male genitalia do NOT belong in public female restrooms, locker rooms, or showers where MINORS may be present. And vice versa.
Last time I checked, a man isn't legally allowed to expose himself to children, allowing to let a transgender use the bathroom they identify with doesn't change that. But I find it interesting how you seem to just focus on the male genitalia....so is it cool for a woman to expose herself in the men's room or locker room or shower? Do you see where your hypocrisy? Male or female, people shouldn't be exposing themselves to others, especially minors.
 
Old 04-11-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,207,906 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Just stop. Or do you suggest that your opinion somehow overrules federal law and that you're somehow more informed on the issue than the law school profs at Cornell?
I have said that some cases MAY be moved to federal courts, but there is no REQUIREMENT for all cases to filed in federal court especially cases where there is a violation of STATE laws.

SOME MAY BE MOVED.

But 48 states do not REQUIRE all discrimination cases to be filed federally.
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,018 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I was using your link, you only read a), there are specific criteria that allows a defendant to move from state to federal - read down.


A defendant needs to have a reason, here's another link:



Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Should I File in Federal or State Court? | Nolo.com
Yes, and if the federal law overlaps the state law, that's a lawful reason.

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"
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts

Defendant's choice where the case is heard when laws overlap, not the plaintiff's. Defendant's lawyers in such cases nearly always remove the cases to federal court because overall the outcomes for defendants are better in federal court.

This goes into that a little...

Paterson, New Jersey Litigation Attorney :: Removing A Case To Federal Court :: Bergen County, New Jersey Civil Litigation Lawyer
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:05 PM
 
20 posts, read 19,179 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
North Carolina actually has a vibrant IT/Resarch/Business region. Known as the Triangle or Golden Triangle.
Which a bunch of tech companies deciding to pull out or look elsewhere.

Nothing washes the gold out of a triangle like some good ol' fashioned red state stupidity
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,803,654 times
Reputation: 7706
Boycotts are a blunt instrument.
As many innocent people are hurt
as evil meanies that are targeted.
Think of all the "little people" that
lost income because of Bruce canceling.
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,465,032 times
Reputation: 8599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse Canasta View Post
Which a bunch of tech companies deciding to pull out or look elsewhere.

Nothing washes the gold out of a triangle like some good ol' fashioned red state stupidity
NC's own stupidity, whipping out and ramming through this new law for no good reason.
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:25 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,338,198 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
Boycotts are a blunt instrument.
As many innocent people are hurt
as evil meanies that are targeted.
Think of all the "little people" that
lost income because of Bruce canceling.
Perhaps, in the future, the "little people" of NC will think twice before voting for knee jerking RWNJs.
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,803,654 times
Reputation: 7706
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
Perhaps, in the future, the "little people" of NC will think twice before voting for knee jerking RWNJs.
You think all of them did?
You seem comfortable hurting those who didn't.
Perhaps all the people working the Springsteen
concert were "RWNJs?"
 
Old 04-11-2016, 02:28 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,018 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
What indecent exposure? I've been visiting public restrooms for over 50 years and nobody has whipped their dong out for all to ogle.
Multiple occupancy locker rooms and showers, etc., in nearly all facilities (including schools) are open (meaning private facilities for each individual is NOT provided).

This isn't just about restrooms. It applies to multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities which include but are not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, shower rooms. It's deceptively dubbed the "bathroom bill" by opponents to deliberately mislead people on the actual language of the bill, which is intended to prevent issues of felony indecent exposure of opposite sex genitalia in multiple occupancy facilities in which various stages of undress frequently occur.

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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top