• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCrory, lawmakers, Justice Department all turn to courts for action on HB2

what would have happened if the federal government had actually stuck to the constitution as it was written?

this bathroom idiocy is just that. its a complete waste of time and money. as if someone is going to sit in the lavatories checking the crotch of every person in every stall

a member of the bar whose posts display no concern for protecting the rights of citizens ... because protecting such rights would be prohibitively expensive in his legal opinion
 
a member of the bar whose posts display no concern for protecting the rights of citizens ... because protecting such rights would be prohibitively expensive in his legal opinion

1) I tire of your silly personal comments that demonstrate a complete lack of consistency, You spend half your claims about me stating I am not an attorney and then you post this crap and pretend I am making a "legal" opinion somehow different than others "Opinions"

2) We can debate all night whether using a public toilet is a "right" we can also debate whether claiming you should have rights based on what sex you want to be rather than the one medical science says you are

3) and yes, protecting certain "rights" that really are not a major issue to most Americans at the cost of millions of dollars is something that is subject to reasonable arguments on both sides. after all, you have constantly claimed that the rights (rights that are specifically referenced in the Bill of rights) of gun owners should be obliterated because you claim honest gun owners "cost" society too much.

this is not a LEGAL opinion BTW which is something you constantly demonstrate a lack of understanding, its my opinion just as others have opinions.
 
1) I tire of your silly personal comments that demonstrate a complete lack of consistency, You spend half your claims about me stating I am not an attorney and then you post this crap and pretend I am making a "legal" opinion somehow different than others "Opinions"

2) We can debate all night whether using a public toilet is a "right" we can also debate whether claiming you should have rights based on what sex you want to be rather than the one medical science says you are

3) and yes, protecting certain "rights" that really are not a major issue to most Americans at the cost of millions of dollars is something that is subject to reasonable arguments on both sides. after all, you have constantly claimed that the rights (rights that are specifically referenced in the Bill of rights) of gun owners should be obliterated because you claim honest gun owners "cost" society too much.

this is not a LEGAL opinion BTW which is something you constantly demonstrate a lack of understanding, its my opinion just as others have opinions.

then your opinion is without a basis in law
we finally agree
 
then you opinion is without a basis in law
we finally agree

another lie and since you don't have a law degree aren't you conceding that everything you post on any legal topic has no basis on law?

you have an opinion that the federal government should waste lots of our money worrying about a stupid law so Obama can pander to a key constituency of the Democrat Party. People on the other side supported a law that pretends to attack this constituency group of the Democrat party based on the stupid belief that somehow society's health and safety is threatened if someone who appears to be a woman walks into the ladies' lavatory but has the XY chromosome. The entire issue is a charade and a waste of time
 
2) But, most importantly, people who believe they have been discriminated against are not allowed to go to court. Had that been the case in Virginia a few decades ago, the Loving v. Virginia decision might not have happened, which means that my brother could go to prison just for travelling through the state with his wife, who is black. That part of the NC law is clearly unconstitutional.

Yep, agree here. I actually don't give a **** (no pun intended) about the bathroom part of the bill. It is an over reach in reaction to the over reach on the part of the Charlotte cities law imho. The FAR bigger issue is relating to the ability to bring forth discrimination cases to court.

However, neither side focuses on this, because the reality is this is just the next battle in this idiotic culture war, where all that matters is the messaging rather than substance
 
is that your best legal opinion about this matter?
where would we be today if the congress in 1964 chose not to move forward with the civil rights act, instead using the excuse that would incur a use of excessive resources
You would trivialize the 1964 civil rights acts to transgender toilets?
 
You would trivialize the 1964 civil rights acts to transgender toilets?

are they both not equal rights issues?
 
Yep, agree here. I actually don't give a **** (no pun intended) about the bathroom part of the bill. It is an over reach in reaction to the over reach on the part of the Charlotte cities law imho. The FAR bigger issue is relating to the ability to bring forth discrimination cases to court.

However, neither side focuses on this, because the reality is this is just the next battle in this idiotic culture war, where all that matters is the messaging rather than substance

Having to have a birth certificate to prove your gender is hilarous. But if I am visiting the state, I won't carry my birth certificate. If they don't let me use the restroom, I will just take a leak right in the middle of the restaurant, since the penalty for urinating in public is just a fine, and no jail time. LOL.
 
are they both not equal rights issues?
No, one is vastly different from the other. There really is no comparison and it does an injustice to those who worked so hard for equal rights to treat it as a toilet issue. Time for some perspective.
 
No, one is vastly different from the other. There really is no comparison and it does an injustice to those who worked so hard for equal rights to treat it as a toilet issue. Time for some perspective.

then your position is equal rights for the trans community is less important than it is for other minorities
novel, tho not surprising
 
then your position is equal rights for the trans community is less important than it is for other minorities
novel, tho not surprising
What 'other minorities' are you referring to? Is it a man's right to shower with women?
 
No, this is a fight entirely of the right wing's making. Seems you guys are aching for another judicial smackdown.

How? By refusing to walk lockstep when the left commanded them to march?
 
How? By refusing to walk lockstep when the left commanded them to march?

By once again making up a problem that doesn't exist as a smokescreen for their personal prejudices and using the State as a cudgel to enforce them.
 
LOL, geez maneez.

How long until a urinal is deemed illegal because it is prejudiced against women and transgenders who are not equitably and emotionally served by such a device.

That sounds absolutely no more crazy than this concocted issue.

Penises be here. Vaginas pee there.

Why is that so damn hard?
 
What 'other minorities' are you referring to? Is it a man's right to shower with women?

a trans' ability to use the restroom of the gender with which they identify
rather than being segregated in this old manner
no blacks allowed.jpg
 
a trans' ability to use the restroom of the gender with which they identify
rather than being segregated in this old manner
So Black people self-identified as being Black? Had they only self-identified as being White then perhaps civil wars, sit-ins, and marches could all have been avoided.
 
So Black people self-identified as being Black? Had they only self-identified as being White then perhaps civil wars, sit-ins, and marches could all have been avoided.

black people were discriminated against under jim crow laws

just as trans people are now discriminated against under HB2

amazed i even needed to explain that similarity
 
black people were discriminated against under jim crow laws
Quite right, and initiated by the Democrats. This was clearly against the intent of the Constitution
just as trans people are now discriminated against under HB2
Actually they are not. If women aren't allowed to privacy when they use public toilets or showers it is they who are being discriminated against. Surely a right to privacy is important.
amazed i even needed to explain that similarity
It's amazing that you even try to draw a parallel.
 
just as trans people are now discriminated against under HB2

amazed i even needed to explain that similarity

What discrimination? We're talking about taking a piss. Should boys be allowed in the girls locker rooms now if they feel like it?
 
What discrimination? We're talking about taking a piss. Should boys be allowed in the girls locker rooms now if they feel like it?
Unless you can pee wherever your feelings lead you then yes, that seems to be the argument. Culture seems to be evolving in a downward spiral.
 
Unless you can pee wherever your feelings lead you then yes, that seems to be the argument. Culture seems to be evolving in a downward spiral.

People do have a right to not be discriminated against based on gender.
 
People do have a right to not be discriminated against based on gender.

Do you comprehend how absurd this is? If you have a penis, you pee there. If you have a vagina, you pee there.

If this isn't plain as day, then it's time to cull the herd.
 
Back
Top Bottom