Gee, where have I heard this complete bullshit lie before... hmmmmm...
[Funny] xHamster blocks all porn in North Carolina.
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
The idea is that local governments know best how to manage their particular area. What works for Maine won't necessarily work for California, or even what works for Ontonagon County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (a whole lot of forest) won't work for Wayne County (Detroit) in the Lower Peninsula. Which works well for infrastructure (fire departments, road maintenance, resource management, water systems, etc.) to customize legislation to the needs of a particular area and population.
Applying this to things like civil rights is the problem, because then you end up with a patchwork of areas in a country that are unfriendly/unsafe by law for certain citizens, and those people will need to carry a guidebook of "Will I Get Arrested or Attacked? Road Trip USA" to travel in their own country. Which may sound like hyperbole, but that guidebook actually existed for black people traveling in the US pre-Civil Rights era and LGBT people have their own versions today.
Unless there are fewer rules, and neither government is exerting control in some situations, allowing individuals to choose for themselves how they will act, and others to choose how they will react.
Don't like what a business is doing? Vote with your wallet and patronize a business that meets your needs - don't go crying to the courts and have them force the business to comply with your request.
Please tell me how wonderfully that worked in the 1950s south.
GasBandit
Staff member
State and local government is usually more responsive to the constituency, and the constitution specifically says (in its tenth amendment) "Anything this document doesn't say the Federal government can do, it can't, and if it needs doing, that is on the states or the people themselves." We were founded on a distrust of distant rulers handing down edicts from on high. So our Federal government is supposed to be limited in power. We've kind of gotten away from that in recent decades, unfortunately.
Have you ever gotten angry with the only restaurant in town?
Are you two comparing the ability to live/work/eat with the ability to use the bathroom you want to use versus the one assigned to the type of genitals you have?
Come on. If you're not interested in having a serious discussion about a difficult topic just say so.
Until now if you dressed, acted, and otherwise appeared to be female, you used the female restroom. There was no law giving you that privilege, nor any law taking it away. Further, as the LGBT movement went forward people increasingly ignored how much a person looked like a male or female when they used the restroom and just let them be.
Someone decided to codify that as a right, though, and now we can't have nice things. Partly because "don't ask, don't tell" breaks down once you remove the "don't tell" part, and partly because there are predators that will use any loophole to avoid repercussions of their crimes.
The LGBT side doesn't want compromise. The recent lawsuit with the boy who wants to use the girl's changing room after the school provided facilities for them to change in order to protect the girl's rights to privacy from viewing or being viewed by a biological male. It isn't enough to provide reasonable accommodation. Even the disabled don't get this level of attention - businesses and schools are required to provide reasonable accommodation via the ADA, but they don't have to do everything that a disabled person wants just because they feel like they want it.
So, compromise? Of course you won't settle for compromise. That biologically male teenager must be permitted into the girl's locker room, showering and changing along with the girls because he thinks he might be transgender. Meanwhile a lot of men who have fully transitioned to women and vice versa with sex change operations, hormones, etc are turning around and telling people that their life wasn't improved.
And we think it's a great idea to let teenagers - whose brains aren't even fully formed and whose hormones are full-on swinging back and forth from moment to moment - decide based on their feelings that they should be changing and showering with the girls in their school?
Why don't we wait? Why can't we compromise on this?
We have 30 years of no compromise politics from the right. And 7 years of stalemate. Since there can no longer be consensus on simple issues, the side in power will decree.
I did not take you seriously when you support Jim Crow policies.
I did not take you seriously when you support Jim Crow policies.
Doesn't all this controversy come from the violation of that tacit understanding in high schools? As in, teenagers who identified as one gender and visibilized themselves as such were forced to use their 'biological' bathroom?
Just a reminder again, NC HB2 is a direct response to the city of Charlotte "codifying shit".
GasBandit
Staff member
Uhh, pretty much 90% of what the right has done for the last 30 years is capitulate. That's why republican voters are backing trump. They don't know what he stands for, nor do they care - they only want someone "who will fight."[DOUBLEPOST=1463161829,1463161797][/DOUBLEPOST]
Like I said when Blots said it, what is the road to hell paved with?
Dave
Staff member
xHamster videos?
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
Transgenders actually exist.
GasBandit
Staff member
Now Anonymous will want a law, or at a minimum a restraining order.
I don't know if "inhabited by the spirit of a female tiger" really equates to "transgender." I think it might be more than that.
I can't wait to see someone pull this just to get it tested by the court, like the guy who put his Inc. papers on the passenger seat to test Corporate Personhood.
--Patrick
This topic is categorized as Funny and I'm suing Halforums for false advertisement.
This whole thing became a clusterfuck and at this point even the people with "I'll go with you" pins, who are willing to join transgender people into their bathroom so they feel safe, can't help on even something as simple as a person by person basis.
This whole thing became a clusterfuck and at this point even the people with "I'll go with you" pins, who are willing to join transgender people into their bathroom so they feel safe, can't help on even something as simple as a person by person basis.
Well, Steinman sure loves his incredibly long posts to obfuscate his bigotry, so I'm gonna do the incredibly long rebuttal.
I'm concerned about the right to be treated equally. I guess I wouldn't say that being forced to use the wrong bathroom is as bad as being forced out of the restaurant but that doesn't make it ok.
So sorry that someone in government saw a situation where it was possible for people to be discriminated against and decided to prevent it from happening before it became an issue. Should we stop trying to pass laws to improve things because we have to worry about the religious right throwing a temper tantrum at every sign of progress? The LGBT movement didn't want this to turn into an issue of how well you pass because transitioning happens in stages. You don't go from looking like a man to looking completely like a woman (or vice versa) overnight. At some point you want to start living you life like the gender you feel right as, but instead you have to be told "no, you don't count yet because you aren't good enough yet." Its cruel and unnecessary.
Again, the reason the third bathroom is not the same is because it points out "you're not the gender you think you are. You're something different." They just want to be treated like the gender that they really are.
Oh, I see. You're just worried that transgender people will regret the transition! Well, don't worry. While it does happen, the vast majority of people are happier with their transition. Unfortunately you're right in that its not 100%, but imagine how those numbers would be if people weren't actively trying to discriminate against trans people.
Your compromise seems to be "be a second class citizen, but we'll stop physically and sexually assaulting you! (last part pending)." I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be jumping at the bit to take that offer on.
GasBandit
Staff member
Just because your particular brand of fascism has a smiley face emoticon on its badge doesn't mean someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot.
Last edited:
Oh God, wanting to ensure that people aren't discriminated against. So fascist.
Didn't you use a libertarian? When did you go all Mike Huckabee?
GasBandit
Staff member
You can't see your own bias. You are literally trying to use government power, which at its root and essence is the sanctioned use of force, to force other people to conform to how you think bathrooms should work. It's a common liberal trope. You have a desire to give more power to government to enforce what you think society should be and look like. Where everything has a law about it and an ordinance that dictates its use and permitted configuration. Where you are only allowed to do something if government explicitly gives you permission. The government is in charge of your health and well-being.
The fact that you can't see that my viewpoint is the quintessential essence of (secular) libertarianism, and can only fathom that your opponents must be hate-filled zealots is indicative of your major malfunction. There didn't need to be a law about who can use which bathroom. The law made things worse, not better. That's usually the case when leftists try to over-legislate and over-regulate every aspect of human life and culture.
No, I want to remove permission from people to discriminate.
I'm curious though, do you think that it is right for there to be laws discriminating based on race? If so, why is that something that the government should stop while this is different?
That's not even close to what he said. He said that there shouldn't be laws to regulate this shit at all.
ALSO
North Carolina School Board Lets Kids Carry Pepper Spray
(It took them about 2 days to rethink this)
ALSO
North Carolina School Board Lets Kids Carry Pepper Spray
(It took them about 2 days to rethink this)
GasBandit
Staff member
You have to be more specific than that. People discriminate every day hundreds of ways with infinite criteria without it being a crime. You want to prevent discrimination based on gender identity as it pertains to bathroom access. The problem here is there's no way to quantify gender identity other than by what someone claims. You get into a great big can of worms when you start having to say "ok, if you can pass for the gender, then you" well, who decides where the threshold is for who passes for what? This bathroom law nonsense has already led to cisgendered females being challenged because they apparently didn't pass for their own gender. So clearly, that's not a viable metric. It basically boils down to having to apply a protected status to anyone who says they belong to that protected status, and that opens ANOTHER huge can of worms. Not only does it enable a cisgendered males to have legal standing to invade the privacy of females - which also has already happened. Next, am I entitled to protection under affirmative action if I identify as a minority race? Plenty of light-skinned americans of african descent, you know. Heck, just ask Elizabeth Warren. If I self-identify as a Navy Seal, do I get TRICARE?
Context Matters: A Better Libertarian Approach to Antidiscrimination Law by David E. Bernstein
In short, to concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. Libertarians, however, are often willing to make certain exceptions to their opposition to antidiscrimination laws, so long as they can identify an appropriate limiting principle. This situation, however, has no limiting principle.
Well yes, ideally everyone could just use the bathroom they feel matches their gender identity and no one would say anything. This law would place someone who was discriminated against based on that in the legal right, not just the moral one. The acceptable answer to someone being discriminated against isn't to say "well, that just sucks. Guess you have to deal with it." It is to show that we as a society do not approve of that kind of behavior and want to stop marginalizing trans problems just because they don't effect many of us.
GasBandit
Staff member
You don't need a law to do that, and the law that the Charlotte city council passed had far worse practical effects than beneficial. By an order of thousands to one.
Do you believe that the only way a culture, a nation, a civilization can act positively is if their government forces them to do so by law?
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, it's usually the other way around. If you read that story I linked you, you'll see that, historically speaking, antidiscrimination laws FOLLOW a liberalization of common thought, not precede it.
Be careful about trying to use law to force people to change what they believe. Remember, Jim Crow was also law, that people then had to follow whether they agreed with it or not.
That's an interesting article, Gas, and makes a lot of good points. I think something that the anti-discrimination side of the argument is concerned about is the point that was brought up about Jim Crow laws, and that a powerful segment of Southern whites essentially had a cartel that not only threatened black citizens, but also white people who had no problem interacting with and doing business with their black neighbors. If a gay or trans person is born into a family in a town hostile to LGBT people, what are they supposed to do while growing up, or if they can't afford to leave that town? They have powerful forces that are actively working against them obtaining "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Other people may be afraid to support them becuase then they will also be labeled "sinners" and get blowback from the powerful members of the community. I think attitudes are changing, especially with younger people even in traditionally conservative areas, but that really doesn't help the people suffering discrimination now.
As suggested in the article, I guess if private businesses want the right to discriminate, they can be required to clearly make that known (such as a label stating who they won't serve on their entrances), then it is a much fairer environment for "voting with your dollars", because sympathetic people can also avoid such businesses. Though that seems like a step backward and is also a throwback to "Whites Only" and probably wouldn't go down very well. But, if we're going to allow private business to discriminate against any person for any reason, does that mean businesses are also going to be able to refuse to serve customers due to their religious beliefs? And should religion lose its special protected status and be treated exactly the same as other private entities (such as paying taxes)?
Also, I'd like to point out that laws dictating behavior of private citizens do not just come from the Left. War on Drugs, criminalizing sex work, obscenity laws, Prohibition (which still exists today through laws regarding interstate alcohol sales, "dry counties", and prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays), criminalizing drinking alcohol while watching Deadpool: those are all "think of the children" type laws that are strongly supported by the Right. Both sides are very good at trying to force others to conform.
As suggested in the article, I guess if private businesses want the right to discriminate, they can be required to clearly make that known (such as a label stating who they won't serve on their entrances), then it is a much fairer environment for "voting with your dollars", because sympathetic people can also avoid such businesses. Though that seems like a step backward and is also a throwback to "Whites Only" and probably wouldn't go down very well. But, if we're going to allow private business to discriminate against any person for any reason, does that mean businesses are also going to be able to refuse to serve customers due to their religious beliefs? And should religion lose its special protected status and be treated exactly the same as other private entities (such as paying taxes)?
Also, I'd like to point out that laws dictating behavior of private citizens do not just come from the Left. War on Drugs, criminalizing sex work, obscenity laws, Prohibition (which still exists today through laws regarding interstate alcohol sales, "dry counties", and prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays), criminalizing drinking alcohol while watching Deadpool: those are all "think of the children" type laws that are strongly supported by the Right. Both sides are very good at trying to force others to conform.