NBA Cancels 2017 All-Star Game In North Carolina Over Anti-LGBT Law (1 Viewer)

[CaptainCourtesy]

no it has been used to usurp power that it was never supposed to have. in fact it has evolved into the very thing that the founders didn't'
want to have happen and that the anti-federalist warned about.

that is why they implemented both the 9th and 10th amendments. which have been thrown by the way side and ignored by the court system for a while.

You mistake me for a Constitutional originist. I am not. It's evolved in the way that it has needed to evolve. When we were an agrarian society, when travel between states took days, states having more autonomy made sense. It no longer does. Therefore, utilizing the Supremacy Clause in this way is appropriate and helpful.

 

[ludin]

So, do you believe that a transsexual who has gone through FULL SRS and now has a penis, should change in the women's locker room because his DNA says he's female?

I am still debating on this issue.
I have not yet come to a conclusion.

I need to finda better source but at the moment this is exactly the problem that I am talking about.
California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

they have more and more of these types of cases coming up.

 

[calamity]

You mistake me for a Constitutional originist. I am not. It's evolved in the way that it has needed to evolve. When we were an agrarian society, when travel between states took days, states having more autonomy made sense. It no longer does. Therefore, utilizing the Supremacy Clause in this way is appropriate and helpful.

States rights in regards to allowing them ensure the civil rights of individuals has been proven to be inappropriate. It's definitely obsolete. Civil rights have to be enforced on the national level.

 

[calamity]

I am still debating on this issue.
I have not yet come to a conclusion.

I need to finda better source but at the moment this is exactly the problem that I am talking about.
California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

they have more and more of these types of cases coming up.

Yes. That (men taking advantage of transgender restroom laws) is a problem. And, it needs to be addressed...but not by altering civil rights on the state level, IMO.

What needs to be done is to enforce the laws and punish those who abuse the restroom for sexual purposes. It's not an easy fix. And, I am someone who thinks men should not be allowed in the woman's restroom, locker room etc.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am still debating on this issue.
I have not yet come to a conclusion.

I need to finda better source but at the moment this is exactly the problem that I am talking about.
California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

they have more and more of these types of cases coming up.

Exception proves the rule logical fallacy. Do you condemn all cops because some are corrupt? Do you believe that all guns should be banned because some will use them illegally?

 

[ludin]

You mistake me for a Constitutional originist. I am not. It's evolved in the way that it has needed to evolve. When we were an agrarian society, when travel between states took days, states having more autonomy made sense. It no longer does. Therefore, utilizing the Supremacy Clause in this way is appropriate and helpful.

I know you are not which is why and neither is the court which is a bad thing and a violation of their oath.
you want to change the constitution there is an amendment process for that.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I know you are not which is why and neither is the court which is a bad thing and a violation of their oath.
you want to change the constitution there is an amendment process for that.

I don't want to change the Constitution. I respect the Constitution too much. Everything we need for the past, present, and future is right there. We just have to use it appropriately.

 

[ludin]

Exception proves the rule logical fallacy. Do you condemn all cops because some are corrupt? Do you believe that all guns should be banned because some will use them illegally?

I am not condemning anything however these exceptions are happening enough more so now that
it needs to be addressed.

we already have laws that address those other things you mentioned.

we do not have laws that address this. in fact the so called courts have undone protections that have been in place.
they have set women's rights back decades and they have set privacy laws back decades.

sorry my wife and daughters privacy and safety are more important and nothing will change that view.

 

[ludin]

I don't want to change the Constitution. I respect the Constitution too much. Everything we need for the past, present, and future is right there. We just have to use it appropriately.

yet by not recognizing what the constitution says and why it was put in place you are changing it. more so you are changing it through what I consider
a corrupt process.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am not condemning anything however these exceptions are happening enough more so now that
it needs to be addressed.

we already have laws that address those other things you mentioned.

we do not have laws that address this. in fact the so called courts have undone protections that have been in place.
they have set women's rights back decades and they have set privacy laws back decades.

sorry my wife and daughters privacy and safety are more important and nothing will change that view.

I have no issue with it being addressed. But like those who want more gun control, how can it be addressed without harming law abiding citizens?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

yet by not recognizing what the constitution says and why it was put in place you are changing it. more so you are changing it through what I consider
a corrupt process.

"What I consider" is the key phrase. I do not. I recognize what the Constitution says. I also recognize that it was written in 1787, and is still applicable today, but in 1787, those who wrote it couldn't have conceived of the world where we currently live. Therefore intent, in some cases, is irrelevant.

 

[ludin]

I have no issue with it being addressed. But like those who want more gun control, how can it be addressed without harming law abiding citizens?

i don't see how a man in a dress going into a women's bathroom on purpose is a law abiding citizen. my wife and daughter are law abiding citizens.

 

[ludin]

"What I consider" is the key phrase. I do not. I recognize what the Constitution says. I also recognize that it was written in 1787, and is still applicable today, but in 1787, those who wrote it couldn't have conceived of the world where we currently live. Therefore intent, in some cases, is irrelevant.

no what they said is still applicable and they even knew that something could or might need to be changed. that is why they put in a process to do that.
what they did not do is put in a process that it could be changed by judicial opinion. for a judge to willingly change the constitution based on his political ideology
should be a crime.

they are doing something that they don't have the power to do.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

no what they said is still applicable and they even knew that something could or might need to be changed. that is why they put in a process to do that.
what they did not do is put in a process that it could be changed by judicial opinion. for a judge to willingly change the constitution based on his political ideology
should be a crime.

Judicial activism: SCOTUS making a decision I don't agree with. It is completely allowable for a judge to assess whether something is allowed in the Constitution or not. And of course everything in the Constitution is applicable today. That's my point.

they are doing something that they don't have the power to do.

No, they are performing their duties as justices.

 

[roguenuke]

no you have a right to privacy in a restroom or a locker room in which women and men expect that the opposite sex
will not be allowed in there.

And privacy is provided from all by stall doors, even in changing rooms and locker rooms (most public changing rooms have stalls). You have no right to privacy beyond anyone of either sex seeing your parts, or being forced to look at theirs.

 

[roguenuke]

I am not condemning anything however these exceptions are happening enough more so now that
it needs to be addressed.

we already have laws that address those other things you mentioned.

we do not have laws that address this. in fact the so called courts have undone protections that have been in place.
they have set women's rights back decades and they have set privacy laws back decades.

sorry my wife and daughters privacy and safety are more important and nothing will change that view.

You can't show that their safety is legitimately compromised by laws allowing people to use the restroom of their choice nor that they have any less privacy than before.

 

[ludin]

Judicial activism: SCOTUS making a decision I don't agree with. It is completely allowable for a judge to assess whether something is allowed in the Constitution or not. And of course everything in the Constitution is applicable today. That's my point.

No judicial activism: a ruling that is outside the constitution of the US or a ruling that manipulates that constitution to say something that it doesn't.
you don't get to make up my definitions.

No, they are performing their duties as justices.

Not when they rule counter to what the constitution says. that is their duty as a judge.

 

[ludin]

You can't show that their safety is legitimately compromised by laws allowing people to use the restroom of their choice nor that they have any less privacy than before.

read the link I just posted.
there are others out there as well.

this is starting to happen more and more.
I did show it you chose to ignore it which is typical of anything you post.

 

[VanceMack]

Exception proves the rule. I reject that it is widespread and I reject that it is a valid reason to prevent this. You don't take guns from everyone because a few use them illegally. You don't condemn all cops because a few are corrupt. You don't negatively affect all transsexuals because there are some perverts who will exploit this. If these perverts want to abuse someone, they will. They'll just do it another way.



She can still do that.



Incorrect. A TRANSSEXUAL can go into a different bathroom. Perhaps there needs to be some "tweaking" of the law, but this isn't black or white like you are presenting.

1-Unless something has changed, the verbiage presented was specifically marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression
http://goqnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Non-Discrimination-Ordinance-Amendments.pdf
That opens the door for all 58 and counting expressed type/form of 'gender'
2-How do you 'prove' someone is not a transsexual? Things have been bastardized to the point people are defined based on 'how they feel'.

I would completely...COMPLETELY agree that this all could have been resolved with a little foresight instead of a rush to pass an ordinance. Similar to the gay marriage laws that were forced on citizens with no planned implementation, the problem was not 'fixed' but rather made worse. You mention showering where appropriate body parts are found to be in evidence (penis-mens room...even for post ops, etc). Not a bad place to start. But really...was it necessary in the first place? I posted pictures of a bearded 'man' taking selfies in the womens room. Does anyone believe that person would catch **** going to the bathroom in a mens room? If a trans was dressed and presented as a woman, unless he or she was standing up and peeing in the sink, would anyone really make an issue of them using a stall?

 

[TurtleDude]

This assumes that people don't overreact by calling the cops on someone they suspect is a man or woman entering the wrong restroom or that some guard with more belief in his authority than brains doesn't accost a person he thinks might be the wrong sex entering a restroom. Then you get people being harassed over this law.

when I was in law school, there was a woman who later was on the cover of a national magazine for being in her city's first "domestic partnership". she had an androgynous first name and was the "quintessential" Pat from SNL type. A lady Law professor called on her the first day of class as "MR______ Dead silence. Called again-a few snickers. Finally, the target of the questions stood up and said ITS MS. so maybe you have a valid point and I suppose it could happen

 

[Grant]

1-Unless something has changed, the verbiage presented was specifically marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression
http://goqnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Non-Discrimination-Ordinance-Amendments.pdf
That opens the door for all 58 and counting expressed type/form of 'gender'
2-How do you 'prove' someone is not a transsexual? Things have been bastardized to the point people are defined based on 'how they feel'.

I would completely...COMPLETELY agree that this all could have been resolved with a little foresight instead of a rush to pass an ordinance. Similar to the gay marriage laws that were forced on citizens with no planned implementation, the problem was not 'fixed' but rather made worse. You mention showering where appropriate body parts are found to be in evidence (penis-mens room...even for post ops, etc). Not a bad place to start. But really...was it necessary in the first place? I posted pictures of a bearded 'man' taking selfies in the womens room. Does anyone believe that person would catch **** going to the bathroom in a mens room? If a trans was dressed and presented as a woman, unless he or she was standing up and peeing in the sink, would anyone really make an issue of them using a stall?

Any man in a full burka can also now enter women's washrooms. It seems human rights now evolve around which toilets people can use, who will be forced to sell cakes, and the importance of sexuality or skin color over competence and experience. Attention spans have shrunk to sound bites and ignorance is now being celebrated.

 

[roguenuke]

read the link I just posted.
there are others out there as well.

this is starting to happen more and more.
I did show it you chose to ignore it which is typical of anything you post.

And one incident does not make a threat. The same person could go into a men's restroom and do the same thing or simply go to places with far less people and not even bother with a disguise, simply walk in and assault people. To someone willing to commit sexual assault, another law preventing them from entering the restroom isn't going to stop them.

 

[ludin]

And one incident does not make a threat. The same person could go into a men's restroom and do the same thing or simply go to places with far less people and not even bother with a disguise, simply walk in and assault people. To someone willing to commit sexual assault, another law preventing them from entering the restroom isn't going to stop them.

that is simply 1 example there are many other incidents of this happening as well.
they have been posted on this forum many times.

again your attempt to ignore what is a concern for most women who are complaining of this very
thing in multiple places and have even filed lawsuits about it says more about the subject than your opinion.

actually it would as before seeing a man go into a women bathroom before the store could ask them to leave.
now if they do that they can be sued. so stores now cannot offer any type of assurances to the women
that come into their store.

this is similar to the guy that walked into the women's locker room started to get undressed and said I feel like a women
you can't ask me to leave and there was nothing the store could do about it.

again then are plenty of examples of this happening if you choose not to ignore it but we know that you ignore any and all
things that you don't like so as is aid this is your problem not mine.

my wife's and daughters safety is more important.

your minimization argument is a failure.

 

[roguenuke]

Any man in a full burka can also now enter women's washrooms. It seems human rights now evolve around which toilets people can use, who will be forced to sell cakes, and the importance of sexuality or skin color over competence and experience. Attention spans have shrunk to sound bites and ignorance is now being celebrated.

Any man in a full burka could enter the restroom and you can't force them to remove it because it could be a woman.

 

[Grant]

Any man in a full burka could enter the restroom and you can't force them to remove it because it could be a woman.

Exactly. It could be anyone, which seems to be the direction society is taking.