• 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!

North Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Cities From Protecting LGBT People

Somerville said:
Provide the curious with links to news stories about these common occurrences. In the meantime, why not say something about my earlier post: Would you want Mr Sheffield to walk into the Ladies room when your wife was in there?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were common, I said that they were starting to happen... There is thread right here at DP about one such incident and if there's one, then I can guarantee that there's more.
 
JANFU said:
Pervert? Are you referring to Gays, Lesbian, Transgender?
Click to expand...

Nope. The guy simply walked into a women's locker room and claimed that he was legally entitled to be there and was simply ogling the women and girls there. There's thread on it right here at DP.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The law already exists:

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-118(b)(4), (e) (2005).

(b) A new certificate of birth shall be made by the State Registrar when . . .

(4) A written request from an individual is received by the State Registrar to change the sex on that individual's birth record because of sex reassignment surgery, if the request is accompanied by a notarized statement from the physician who performed the sex reassignment surgery or from a physician licensed to practice medicine who has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Click to expand...

But many FTM only have the upper body surgery. They look like a male, but don't have the equipment. They would be required to go into the womens restroom since they are not able to get a revised BC until after full reassignment surgery.
 
TurtleDude said:
while its stupid to discriminate against people based on what their sexual preferences are, this is not promoting more government. Its about preventing cities from imposing laws on private actors
Click to expand...

One way to look at it is it also deprives individual locations the autonomy to create the kind of the city they want - one that prevents discrimination for instance. Some of these cities have had these policies for half a century and the GOP did away with that in all of an hour

I say attempting because between protests, corporate pressure, and lawsuits it will surely fail just as it did in indiana, michigan, arkansas, arizona, georgia. That is the conservative way after all - when you fail 5x, keep failing again. The ACLU will hammer their gender discrimination law in particular - some experts are already saying the state may lose $5.4 billion in federal funds - and removing the employment protections may go to SCOTUS because you can't protect race and gender etc while forbidding the protection of other groups
 
faithful_servant said:
Nope. The guy simply walked into a women's locker room and claimed that he was legally entitled to be there and was simply ogling the women and girls there. There's thread on it right here at DP.
Click to expand...

Cities that had laws protecting LGBT, those have now been shown the door under this bill?
The Bill included removing protections for Veterans and then they had to amend the Bill, is that correct?
 
I don't know. Why don't we start protecting people from being discriminated against? Period.
Society, made up of many parts to interact with each other. Point to differences and you will feel different. Equality, that is something that must be honored. If you want to be treated as an equal, don't set yourself apart and ask for preferential treatment.
 
I see HuffPo is now more click-bait headline than ever.

But typical liberal logic. Not giving someone something is the same thing as taking it away from them. If you don't let dudes wander in to check out girls' locker rooms, you hate gays :roll:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yep! The GOP is all about "small government" and "freedom"...as long as it's only for what they support. But when it comes to a city voting for and passing laws that apply only within that city, the GOP loves using the power of Big Government to impose their will on the people of that city.
Click to expand...

Not voicing my support for the action but you have it backwards. It's not big government for private establishments to give private establishments the choice of who and how they want to conduct business. Even if it's needed, it is anti-discrimnation that is big-government in it's essence, because you are regulating the actions of the private citizen.
 
It is now illegal in NC for this person to use the mens room.

CeSJb5VWAAAP7Yt.jpg

I wonder how that's going to go over in the womens room.
 
JANFU said:
Cities that had laws protecting LGBT, those have now been shown the door under this bill?
The Bill included removing protections for Veterans and then they had to amend the Bill, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Show me where that is stated in the bill and I can answer your question, but so far I haven't seen it....
 
faithful_servant said:
Show me where that is stated in the bill and I can answer your question, but so far I haven't seen it....
Click to expand...

Did cities have protections for others prior to this bill passing?
Did this bill remove a Cities right to do?
 
JANFU said:
Did cities have protections for others prior to this bill passing?
Did this bill remove a Cities right to do?
Click to expand...

I would just liek someone to show me the place in that bill where this was done since I can't seem to find it. What I've seen in this bill is language that prevents some guy from "self-identifying" as a woman and then going into the locker room at the local pool in order to ogle the women as they change clothes. Do you think that this is acceptable to allow or would you rather protect our girls from this kind of pervert??
 
Fishking said:
Not voicing my support for the action but you have it backwards. It's not big government for private establishments to give private establishments the choice of who and how they want to conduct business. Even if it's needed, it is anti-discrimnation that is big-government in it's essence, because you are regulating the actions of the private citizen.
Click to expand...

In other words, to you, freedom TO discriminate is more important than freedom FROM discrimination.

Which, of course, would allow the moneyed and the powerful to create and perpetuate an entire underclass of people based on race or religion or ethnicity. But hey, since when is the freedom of the poor and the not-powerful of any consequence, as long as you protect the freedom of the rich and powerful?
 
chromium said:
this was specifically to empower the bigots of the state to discriminate against minorities, nothing more
Click to expand...
surely you have proof of this opinion?... or is proof not required to make such claims anymore?


oh really, well neither is sexuality. The discrimination is by way of protecting certain groups but not others, and of course it's the ones they dislike the most that don't get protected
Click to expand...
that's true, sexuality is innate as well...as for protection, i dunno.. maybe folks need to consider why protections are deemed "necessary', and if it's actaulyl a valid necessity.

but as for this particular topic, I don't mind the state taking supremacy over local/municipal statutes on issues such as discrimination...
 
Glen Contrarian said:
In other words, to you, freedom TO discriminate is more important than freedom FROM discrimination.

Which, of course, would allow the moneyed and the powerful to create and perpetuate an entire underclass of people based on race or religion or ethnicity. But hey, since when is the freedom of the poor and the not-powerful of any consequence, as long as you protect the freedom of the rich and powerful?
Click to expand...

yeah!... so we should discriminate against the rich and powerful and protect the poor and powerless!!



that's the problem in a nutshell..... when you start down the road of anti-discrimination as we do, it simply turns into a battle of who to discriminate against, and who to protect.....and ot make it worse, it all ends up being partisan.
Republicans end up looking like they hate the poor and minorities.. democrats end up looking like they hate the rich and whites....
on this particular matter, I don't blame the politicians... I blame their bases... discrimination is what they want, and their vote is the currency they trade for it.
 
haymarket said:
Somebody who knows more about this please answer something for me as I am not in North Carolina nor do I follow the LGBT issues:

is the controversy here the idea that a person should use the public restroom based on the biological elimination equipment one has to expel urine from their own body?

Is that what this is about?
Click to expand...

That's what caused this, yes. Charlotte passed an antidiscrimination law concerning bathroom use.
 
Ending anti-discrimination laws is a step forward, not backwards. Telling people they have ignore their will and trade or allow people to use their property is a violation of property and of association rights. I have no problem ending laws that violate the rights of the citizens.
 
Henrin said:
Ending anti-discrimination laws is a step forward, not backwards. Telling people they have ignore their will and trade or allow people to use their property is a violation of property and of association rights. I have no problem ending laws that violate the rights of the citizens.
Click to expand...

These only have to do with certain parts of laws and the use of public facilities. This has nothing to do really with repealing antidiscrimination laws, only certain things that some don't like.
 
wolfsgirl said:
It is now illegal in NC for this person to use the mens room.

View attachment 67199283

I wonder how that's going to go over in the womens room.
Click to expand...

Exactly and really that's what I think transgender groups should do is bring in those transgender men and just basically go on a tour to show women who will be using their restrooms by law now.
 
roguenuke said:
These only have to do with certain parts of laws and the use of public facilities. This has nothing to do really with repealing antidiscrimination laws, only certain things that some don't like.
Click to expand...

Regardless it's a step in the right direction. :shrug:
 
roguenuke said:
Exactly and really that's what I think transgender groups should do is bring in those transgender men and just basically go on a tour to show women who will be using their restrooms by law now.
Click to expand...

They're women that purposely imbalanced their hormones to the point of being able to pass of as man. If anything these transgender people should sue their doctors.
 
I live in Virginia Beach and I am going to self identify myself as a female. Tourist season is almost here, and the oceanfront female restrooms will be full of game.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
In other words, to you, freedom TO discriminate is more important than freedom FROM discrimination.

Which, of course, would allow the moneyed and the powerful to create and perpetuate an entire underclass of people based on race or religion or ethnicity. But hey, since when is the freedom of the poor and the not-powerful of any consequence, as long as you protect the freedom of the rich and powerful?
Click to expand...

No, that's not the other words. I'm saying the very definition of anti-discrimination laws is big government. It's literally the government telling private establishments how to run things. The absence of such laws is not big government, it's literally the government staying out of the way.

That's my sole point.

-edit- It actually looks like it's both.

The part of the bill that bans people from using bathrooms that are different than their biological sex is big government. The part prohibiting various cities from implementing various anti-discrimination laws is not.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
I live in Virginia Beach and I am going to self identify myself as a female. Tourist season is almost here, and the oceanfront female restrooms will be full of game.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, we've been to VB many, many times for vacation. We love it. IMO the nicest beach on the east coast. We've been talking about going down there again this year. We usually take 3-4 vacas every year, that might be one of them this year. It is a favorite of ours. Hilton-Head has really nice beaches too though.

Please, stay out of the ladies rooms though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom