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.
And somehow children exposing themselves to the same sex doesn't bother you?
If it's in the context of where various stages of undress are typically expected such as multiple occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, etc., it's not codified as indecent exposure. The converse, however - exposing male genitalia in women's such facilities and vice versa, IS codified as indecent exposure.
If it's in the context of where various stages of undress are typically expected such as multiple occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, etc., it's not codified as indecent exposure. The converse, however - exposing male genitalia in women's such facilities and vice versa, IS codified as indecent exposure.
So you are cool with a man exposing himself to boys or a woman exposing herself to girls?
Look, keep adamantly advocating that MINORS be forced to be unwillingly subjected to FELONY indecent exposure in their schools, park districts, state parks, etc. How can that NOT win more supporters to the LGBT cause?
I'm just so tired of these unrelated businesses getting involved in the bathroom debate. PayPal, like Bruce Springsteen (another recent addition to the NC bandwagon) are in no way related to children's bathroom choices. I wish they would just focus on business and let the politicians handle the politics.
It does remind me of that incident with Planet Fitness though- Planet Fitness (I think, or another gym) said that people with female parts had to use the female restroom and people with male parts had to use the male restroom. The media was up in arms, but the members were happy because aside from the liberal media, ordinary people didn't want people mixing parts in the bathroom.
Care to dispute the US DOJ on that? I already posted the link.
In the case of overlapping state and federal laws, such as discrimination, it's the defendant's choice where the case is heard, NOT the plaintiff's. Federal courts have better outcomes for defendants, so nearly all such cases are removed to federal court.
No, the defendant can only get a case moved to federal court in specific situations I described in my link, why is this so difficult for you to grasp.
So let's use yours, did you even bother to read the article. They need to have specific reasons, a defendant cannot just move a case, it has to meet specific criteria and if you read up on the other 48 states you will see that these exceptions are rare and almost every case is in state court.
So let's take an example of a case in North Carolina, Joe's Restaurant refuses service to a same sex couple, locally owned business, patrons are from NC, where do you think the case would go before HB2 - state court is the answer. That is now no longer an option.
Another thing I noticed from your article although not sure this is true in each state, case needs to be $75,000 minimum so what happens to these cases that are under the minimum, poorly crafted legislation to say the least.
Also the federal courts are already over burdened, I don't believe they were looking for more business.
Quote:
A defendant can remove a case from the state court system only if the case is one in which the federal court has “original jurisdiction.” The federal court has original jurisdiction if a federal question is involved, including when treaties or a Constitutional issue is involved such as with civil rights matters. (This article will not discuss removal of those cases.) The federal courts also have original jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction which occurs when the plaintiff is from a different state than all of the defendants. This is the most common basis of removal of a state court case. Finally, the case must be worth at least $75,000 for the federal court to have jurisdiction.
I'm just so tired of these unrelated businesses getting involved in the bathroom debate. PayPal, like Bruce Springsteen (another recent addition to the NC bandwagon) are in no way related to children's bathroom choices. I wish they would just focus on business and let the politicians handle the politics.
It does remind me of that incident with Planet Fitness though- Planet Fitness (I think, or another gym) said that people with female parts had to use the female restroom and people with male parts had to use the male restroom. The media was up in arms, but the members were happy because aside from the liberal media, ordinary people didn't want people mixing parts in the bathroom.
Exactly:
Quote:
Most Americans (59 percent) aren't comfortable with the idea of transgender students picking which bathroom or locker room to use, and think they should use the facilities of the gender they were born as, while 26 percent think they should be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their preferred gender...
Republicans (at 71 percent) are more likely than Democrats (56 percent) and independents (55 percent) to think transgender students should have to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their birth gender
I gave the NJ link as an example. What makes you think a defendant's lawyer won't take all steps necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients?
Your NJ link gives no data, whatsoever, on the percentage of cases that actually get removed to Federal Courts.
Further, from your link:
When can a case be removed to the federal court?
A defendant can remove a case from the state court system only if the case is one in which the federal court has “original jurisdiction.” The federal court has original jurisdiction if a federal question is involved, including when treaties or a Constitutional issue is involved such as with civil rights matters. (This article will not discuss removal of those cases.) The federal courts also have original jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction which occurs when the plaintiff is from a different state than all of the defendants. This is the most common basis of removal of a state court case. Finally, the case must be worth at least $75,000 for the federal court to have jurisdiction.
The article also states that Federal Court "can be perceived" to be more favorable to defendants. Probably because of the prohibition of seeking "pain and suffering" damages in Federal Court. What percentage of discrimination cases even seek "pain and suffering" damages?
So, to sum up, you've provided nothing to back up your assertion that "nearly all" discrimination cases end up in Federal Court rather than State Court - to include this article from NJ.
You're not comprehending the effect of the federal statute that gives defendant's the right of removal. If you disagree, take it up with the US DOJ.
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"
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.
I already posted the link. 