![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
libodem | May 2016 | OP |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #1 | |
LiberalArkie | May 2016 | #2 | |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #3 | |
Fast Walker 52 | May 2016 | #6 | |
LiberalArkie | May 2016 | #10 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2016 | #14 | |
LiberalArkie | May 2016 | #15 | |
unc70 | May 2016 | #16 | |
OldArtilleryMan | May 2016 | #20 | |
MillennialDem | May 2016 | #25 | |
alarimer | May 2016 | #49 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2016 | #29 | |
LiberalArkie | May 2016 | #30 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2016 | #42 | |
Triana | May 2016 | #59 | |
SCantiGOP | May 2016 | #7 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2016 | #8 | |
notemason | May 2016 | #12 | |
ohnoyoudidnt | May 2016 | #9 | |
Blue_Tires | May 2016 | #46 | |
ckimmy57 | May 2016 | #52 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #4 | |
polmaven | May 2016 | #43 | |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #45 | |
Ford_Prefect | May 2016 | #47 | |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #48 | |
Boudica the Lyoness | May 2016 | #54 | |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #55 | |
Boudica the Lyoness | May 2016 | #57 | |
RKP5637 | May 2016 | #58 | |
ProfessorPlum | May 2016 | #61 | |
AlbertCat | May 2016 | #65 | |
ProfessorPlum | May 2016 | #60 | |
Saviolo | May 2016 | #64 | |
AlbertCat | May 2016 | #66 | |
ProfessorPlum | May 2016 | #68 | |
Saviolo | May 2016 | #69 | |
Stryst | May 2016 | #63 | |
Rhiannon12866 | May 2016 | #5 | |
Mr.Bill | May 2016 | #11 | |
Hiraeth | May 2016 | #17 | |
passiveporcupine | May 2016 | #13 | |
MADem | May 2016 | #18 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #19 | |
MADem | May 2016 | #21 | |
PatrickforO | May 2016 | #22 | |
Thespian2 | May 2016 | #24 | |
PatrickforO | May 2016 | #50 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #31 | |
Enthusiast | May 2016 | #23 | |
CompanyFirstSergeant | May 2016 | #26 | |
AgerolanAmerican | May 2016 | #27 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #32 | |
doc03 | May 2016 | #28 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #33 | |
Flatpicker | May 2016 | #34 | |
L. Coyote | May 2016 | #35 | |
uhnope | May 2016 | #40 | |
L. Coyote | May 2016 | #62 | |
ChisolmTrailDem | May 2016 | #36 | |
hopemountain | May 2016 | #37 | |
PATRICK | May 2016 | #38 | |
hopemountain | May 2016 | #39 | |
eridani | May 2016 | #41 | |
Boudica the Lyoness | May 2016 | #56 | |
eridani | May 2016 | #67 | |
randr | May 2016 | #44 | |
neohippie | May 2016 | #51 | |
libodem | May 2016 | #53 |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:00 PM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
1. This entire bathroom thing is so absurd. What do they want, a cop outside each bathroom with
an invasive full body scan. These wackos pushing bathroom laws are such a pack of damn fools.
|
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:08 PM
LiberalArkie (15,340 posts)
2. And why did the administration bring it up right during elections?
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:10 PM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
3. Yep! Excellent question! n/t
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:20 PM
Fast Walker 52 (7,723 posts)
6. what administration? NC govt is the one who started pushing it
Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #6)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:23 PM
LiberalArkie (15,340 posts)
10. Why did they start pushing, because some where Washington told them they had to allow
it to take place.
|
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #10)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:34 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (46,734 posts)
14. The directive to schools and states came AFTER the NC rights-killing legislation. . . nt
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #14)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:39 PM
LiberalArkie (15,340 posts)
15. Why did NC pass the state law if the federal gov did not have a law saying to do it.
I wasn't keeping app with the matter really.
So you are saying that out of the clear blue sky NC passes a law saying that biological gender is what matters in bathrooms before the federal government even said anything about gender and bathrooms? |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #15)
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:10 PM
unc70 (5,915 posts)
16. NC went first
The Feds responded
This is really a continuation of the RW snit when same-sex marriage was made legal by the Court. Suddenly it went from weddings to bathrooms. |
Response to unc70 (Reply #16)
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:42 PM
OldArtilleryMan (7 posts)
20. The city of Charlotte NC
passed a city law permitting transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identified with.
The NC legislature then passed a law that prohibited localities from passing such laws. The governor signed it into law. It was an effort to throw a crumb to the religious right wing nuts. Does anyone think they were not already doing this? Moreover, what problems has it caused? |
Response to OldArtilleryMan (Reply #20)
Sun May 15, 2016, 09:53 PM
MillennialDem (2,367 posts)
25. If you want to play that game, bathroom bills were discussed by republicans in Arizona in 2013.
Response to unc70 (Reply #16)
Mon May 16, 2016, 10:16 AM
alarimer (16,245 posts)
49. There's some other stuff in the bill that has gotten no attention.
It's a trojan horse. They took away the right to sue under state law for employment discrimination and also prohibits cities from setting their own minimum wage. What worries me is that they will repeal the bathroom portion but leave the rest intact.
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-north-carolinas-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-a-trojan-horse https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/03/24/nc-gop-bathroom-bill-is-a-steaming-load-of-crap/ |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #15)
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:26 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (46,734 posts)
29. Don't post made up stuff as if it were fact when you "weren't keeping app {sic} with the matter". nt
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #29)
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:30 PM
LiberalArkie (15,340 posts)
30. I am sorry to have offended you. I just simply asked a question.
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #30)
Mon May 16, 2016, 06:09 AM
Bernardo de La Paz (46,734 posts)
42. Okay. It's just that your questions contained assumptions posed as facts.
You didn't ask "if" the feds started it, but "why" which assumes that they did start it.
Glad it got sorted out in the end. |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #15)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:36 PM
Triana (22,666 posts)
59. City of Charlotte passed anti-discrimination law saying LGBT could use
whatever facilities they identified with re: gender.
McCrory and rest of NC Taliban disliked this so RUSHED into special session to pass a state law that effectively overturned Charlotte's (and added additional wording that prevented cities and municipalities from paying contract workers more than NC min wage and wording that prevented anyone from suing for discrimination in the workplace or elsewhere). It was gross administrative overreach by NC gov and leg. (though HE accuses Obama Admin of "overreach" it's McCrory & cronies who are actually guilty of it). Passing of HB2 caused backlash from many schools, businesses, organizations and caused NC to lose millions of dollars in business and possibly millions in fed education funding. Public schools all over the country thus asked DOJ to clarify rules for them so they can ensure they are following federal law and do not also lose funding. So, DOJ clarified. THAT'S why "fed govt" stepped in. They HAD to - were forced to by McCrory and his thugs. |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:20 PM
SCantiGOP (13,572 posts)
7. The NC legislature
and other GOP-controlled legislatures are who brought up the issue.
|
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:21 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (46,734 posts)
8. Because North Carolina put it in an omnibus rights killing bill. Ask Gov McCrory . . nt
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #8)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:30 PM
notemason (272 posts)
12. Bingo
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:22 PM
ohnoyoudidnt (1,858 posts)
9. The GOP made it an issue.
Should Obama have ignored their actions and done nothing?
|
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #2)
Mon May 16, 2016, 09:45 AM
Blue_Tires (55,445 posts)
46. Because N.C. signed it into law and it's very controversial?
And it sets a very ugly precedent for slippery-slope laws further down the road??
Jesus H. Christ... You can't win for losing... Had Obama said nothing and ignored the issue, the usual suspects would be going apeshit on this site... ![]() |
Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #46)
Mon May 16, 2016, 11:25 AM
ckimmy57 (307 posts)
52. Exactly
You are 100 % right
|
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:11 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
4. By Jove, I think you've got it!
Airport pornascans at every bathroom. It's a reason for some gross pig to get a free look at the genitals of every little kid out there.
|
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)
Mon May 16, 2016, 07:52 AM
polmaven (9,463 posts)
43. And do we all need to carry
our birth certificates with us wherever we go in case we need to use the bathroom?
|
Response to polmaven (Reply #43)
Mon May 16, 2016, 09:29 AM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
45. It's absurd! The individuals dreaming up these laws demonstrate quite a
view of the inner working of their perverted minds.
|
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #45)
Mon May 16, 2016, 10:02 AM
Ford_Prefect (7,429 posts)
47. The individuals are a very well paid group of "christian" operatives in Orlando Florida.
They have been engineering legislative attacks in a number of GOP dominated states as part of the Koch plan to disable the bill of rights and federal authority in general. They wrote the laws and coordinated the legislative passage. The FBI should be looking at them for RICO violations. This one outfit is responsible for many of the recent legislative attacks on LGBT people, the recent spate of excessive and inaccurate regulation of abortion service providers and women's health clinics, and the recent focus against access to sex ed. information and birth control for teens.
|
Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #47)
Mon May 16, 2016, 10:08 AM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
48. Thanks for the additional information!
![]() |
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)
Mon May 16, 2016, 11:49 AM
Boudica the Lyoness (2,899 posts)
54. The fuss is not about men who have become women
using the women's bathroom. What I'm outraged about is that all men will have to be allowed in - because it would sex discrimination if men were expected to use only the men's facilities.
I was assulted as a girl by a strange man and I don't want to provide the entertainment for voyeurs. This stripping of women/girls of their right to privacy/dignity is a huge step backwards for women's rights. Don't you dare fucking call me a whacko and a damn fool for not wanting it to be legal for a man to follow me into the bathroom to watch me on the toilet! THERE'S GREAT BIG GAPS AROUND THE DOORS!!! I'm disgusted Obama for doing this. Will his daughter's college dorm allow the boys that to use the girls showers? Will they get male roommates? If they don't allow that then that will be sex discrimination. |
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #54)
Mon May 16, 2016, 11:56 AM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
55. I wonder, what is the solution? I ask this in all seriousness. n/t
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #55)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:25 PM
Boudica the Lyoness (2,899 posts)
57. If a Transgender person look like the sex they want to be
no one will be the wiser. For all others there should be a separate unisex rest room. Some places call them family restrooms - it's like for men with small children, people who have to have an helper of the opposite sex go in with them. Great idea.
|
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #57)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:30 PM
RKP5637 (66,537 posts)
58. I agree with a number of things you've said. I like the idea of a separate unisex rest room as you
described it.
|
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #57)
Mon May 16, 2016, 01:00 PM
ProfessorPlum (11,223 posts)
61. I see what you are saying
but imagine how this plays out in real time . . .. say you see someone going into the ladies room that looks like a mannish woman - what are you going to do? That person could be a cisgender woman who just looks mannish, or might be a transgender person who is transitioning but doesn't "pass". In both cases, I still think that person has a right to use the women's bathroom, don't you?
And what about lesbians who look into stalls and scope you and your daughter out? They certainly belong in the women's room, and there aren't special laws about that. The same is true for gay men in men's rooms. It's just a solution without a problem - criminal activity can happen in restrooms, but we don't need new laws to deal with it. |
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #57)
Mon May 16, 2016, 05:38 PM
AlbertCat (17,505 posts)
65. there should be a separate unisex rest room.
Oh yes... separate...but equal!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #54)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:46 PM
ProfessorPlum (11,223 posts)
60. somehow, we've all been sorting ourselves out with very little trouble
prior to this without making life even more miserable for our transgender friends.
|
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #54)
Mon May 16, 2016, 04:57 PM
Saviolo (3,233 posts)
64. But that's not the issue, either.
Last edited Tue May 17, 2016, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1) Trans woman (MTF transsexuals to use a slightly outdated term) do not identify as men. They are women. They aren't trying to get into the women's washroom as men, they're trying to get into the woman's washroom as women. They're not trying to get a peek at you, hell, a lot of them are straight women, and attracted to men.
It's the same with trans men. They do not identify as women, they identify as men. They are trying to use the men's room as men, not as women. They also are not trying to peek at guys, they're just using the washroom for who they are. So, you are afraid that they will now have to allow all men into the women's washroom, but trans women are not men! They view themselves (and request that all others) as women. They're asking to be recognized as women, and thus it would not be changing any "rules" about men not entering the women's restroom. Also, currently there is nothing stopping men from walking into a women's washroom, other than being recognized as men while they do it, and that's not going to change in any way. |
Response to Saviolo (Reply #64)
Mon May 16, 2016, 05:43 PM
AlbertCat (17,505 posts)
66. ^THIS^
Trans is not a drag act, y'know....
This seems to be what people don't get. It's not a guy in women's clothes. It's akin to that "homosexuality is not a choice" debunked crap the religious like to tout. Like the sign I saw in Raleigh said: It wasn't about water fountains then and it isn't about bathrooms now. This happened because Charlotte did something it wasn't supposed to do in our Conservative Nirvana of NC. ![]() |
Response to Saviolo (Reply #64)
Tue May 17, 2016, 12:11 PM
ProfessorPlum (11,223 posts)
68. Thank you for saying what I was trying to say
in a much better way. This is exactly the correct point.
|
Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #68)
Tue May 17, 2016, 01:40 PM
Saviolo (3,233 posts)
69. Tons of other ancillary issues involved.
Like, who gets to decide who "passes?"
Additionally, restricting people from using the washroom of the sex they identify with has its own pitfalls. A trans woman is going to present as a woman. If the assertion is that they were born as men, so they must use the men's room, you have an entirely new problem. Are women going to be okay with trans men entering the women's washroom because they were born as women? They present as men! They dress as men, look like men, and identify as men. Guaranteed women don't want them in the ladies' room. |
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)
Mon May 16, 2016, 02:20 PM
Stryst (714 posts)
63. Republicans passing a set of intrusive laws with no structure to enforce them.
"Limited intrusion small government" for ya.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:18 PM
Rhiannon12866 (190,135 posts)
5. Exactly!!! K&R..
![]() ![]() |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:27 PM
Mr.Bill (22,519 posts)
11. What the MSM is not reporting
is that in California, we have basically had this law, at least regarding our schools since 2013 and there have been no problems.
|
Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #11)
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:12 PM
Hiraeth (4,805 posts)
17. oh no, Mr.Bill !!
you don't say
![]() |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 07:32 PM
passiveporcupine (8,175 posts)
13. Absolutely
This is a farce.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:24 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
18. Not "illegal shit."
It's NO SHIT.
The CONGRESS hasn't been doing shit for all these years. And the obstructionist Republicans are the ones who are the PARTY OF "NO." |
Response to MADem (Reply #18)
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:28 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
19. Absolutely
Totally earning that 9% approval rating. Republicans want the people to hate the government. Worst possible representatives, evah.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 09:06 PM
PatrickforO (14,219 posts)
22. Nice caption. However, I like to make sure the blame for 'illegal shit'
is placed squarely where it belongs:
- The oligarchs - Wall Street - The Military Industrial Complex - Other big corporations I say this because they are the ones who OWN our government. Sure, the worms we go through the sham of electing to national office are doing illegal shit. But it is illegal shit that benefits billionaires. |
Response to PatrickforO (Reply #22)
Sun May 15, 2016, 09:50 PM
Thespian2 (2,741 posts)
24. Do you mean the 60 or so people
who own America, and, of course, both political parties?
Ask Jill Stein who runs America... |
Response to Thespian2 (Reply #24)
Mon May 16, 2016, 10:57 AM
PatrickforO (14,219 posts)
50. They are exactly who I mean.
Response to PatrickforO (Reply #22)
Sun May 15, 2016, 11:07 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
31. So True
We have a secret war in Yemen, with a media blackout, to avoid talking about it.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 09:32 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
23. Kicked and recommended! nt
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 09:58 PM
CompanyFirstSergeant (1,558 posts)
26. What is the quote....
...about robust debate over a few bullshit topics?
Hell, I'm from Brooklyn, so that is the fucking quote. Ya gotta pee, ya gotta pee. Just go pee. |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:00 PM
AgerolanAmerican (1,000 posts)
27. maybe it's a distraction from the latest new war
did you hear that we now have ground troops in Yemen?
You'd think that would be a little more interesting from a "duty to inform the public" point of view than the bathroom thing. |
Response to AgerolanAmerican (Reply #27)
Sun May 15, 2016, 11:08 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
32. YES
Just bitched about it above and scrolled down to read this.
Jinx. |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:06 PM
doc03 (33,907 posts)
28. I have been wondering where those people had gone before, maybe they
didn't use restrooms?
![]() |
Response to doc03 (Reply #28)
Sun May 15, 2016, 11:11 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
33. Funny
No one could tell. Nobody noticed. It's a made up thing to legislate, like women's bodies, because they can't govern.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:48 AM
Flatpicker (894 posts)
34. Less the media
than the local governments themselves.
I don't think this was even an issue until someone decided it should be illegal. Would have thought that this would have come up 15 years ago when Family Bathrooms and Baby Changing stations started popping up. Those were unisex also. |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 01:10 AM
L. Coyote (51,129 posts)
35. What a pile of crap. Name one thing illegal the government is doing.
Seriously, so we can get right on it. And when did Fox News become cover-up agents for Obama. The whole premise that the media exosts to lay down cover for a criminal government is laughable and a conspiracy theory at best.
|
Response to L. Coyote (Reply #35)
Mon May 16, 2016, 03:51 AM
uhnope (6,419 posts)
40. +1. The OP basically says the transgender bathroom issue is a conspiracy to distract us
from thing *THEY* don't want us to know.
In other contexts, the OP would be considered transphobic |
Response to uhnope (Reply #40)
Mon May 16, 2016, 01:44 PM
L. Coyote (51,129 posts)
62. And notice, the poster cannot even name one thing.
Or, it is just a hit-and-run with no intent except to distract us by saying we are being distracted!
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 01:51 AM
ChisolmTrailDem (9,463 posts)
36. Why do nearly every single one of these image memes have to include...
...a word like "shit" or "fucking"?
I can't post that shit to my fucking facebook wall. My auntie is on my facebook, for gawd sake! |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 02:25 AM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
37. such as the TPP??? nt
Response to hopemountain (Reply #37)
Mon May 16, 2016, 03:46 AM
PATRICK (12,227 posts)
38. The Public Toilet?
They would rather have us focus on the absurd, the shame and disgrace of ludicrous national priorities than ANY of the life and death priorities that are important to all of humanity.
|
Response to PATRICK (Reply #38)
Mon May 16, 2016, 03:48 AM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
39. Trans Pacific Parntersip
to be clear
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 04:59 AM
eridani (51,907 posts)
41. Vigilantes are already taking action--cand being real creeps
One woman had a strange, eye-opening encounter in a Target bathroom.
http://www.upworthy.com/one-woman-had-a-strange-eye-opening-encounter-in-a-target-bathroom?c=upw1 She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me. I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre even. This wasn't a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren't really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away into one of the larger stalls. I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out. "Sorry about that," she said. "But, you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom. I was making sure you were a woman." I walked out, utterly gobsmacked, and it wasn't until I caught up with my daughter and told her the whole ridiculous story that I realized the complete and utter irony of it. This woman deliberately made me feel horribly uncomfortable just because she was uncomfortable with the extremely vague possibility of someone being different from expected behind a closed and locked stall door. My daughter raised a brow and asked, "Did you tell her that your teenage daughter has a girlfriend?" "She probably would have blinded me with hand sanitizer or something," I joked. |
Response to eridani (Reply #41)
Mon May 16, 2016, 12:20 PM
Boudica the Lyoness (2,899 posts)
56. The woman freaked out when a woman
stared at her while she was on the toilet. Imagine what she'll feel like when men are staring at her.
This is my point; when we are perched on the toilet we can be watched by any Tom, Dick and Harry. I never thought it would be a Democratic administration who would allow women and girls to be violated. I plan to take my husband in to guard the door every time I use a public restroom. I won't be the only one either. |
Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #56)
Tue May 17, 2016, 02:58 AM
eridani (51,907 posts)
67. There's a difference? Transgendered people keep very low profiles.
It is idiotic to suggest that they are going to put their eyeballs to toilet stall cracks. I sure the fuck don't want FTMs in womene's bathrooms. I don't want to be sharing the same bathroom with a man with a full beard, even if he still has a vagina.
|
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 09:13 AM
randr (12,287 posts)
44. All because of the Freedom of Religion Act
that Bill Clinton signed to appease his right wing partners.
The fundies are using this to claim they have "right"s that are being infringed upon due to the nature of their personal religious hatred of other peoples. A litmus test should be used to determine the veracity of their "religious" beliefs. Do they follow the "Golden Rule" or not? |
Response to libodem (Original post)
Mon May 16, 2016, 11:21 AM
neohippie (1,131 posts)
51. Actually There is a lot more to HB2 than just the bathroom portion
Here is a link to 18 questions and answers about the impact of this law
http://www.ncjustice.org/?q=18-questions-18-answers-real-facts-behind-house-bill-2 It affects the rights of persons as far as any type of workplace discrimination lawsuits by taking away one's right to take grievances to state courts. It affects the the possibility for local governments to make their own minimum wage laws in our state. It affects the ability of any local government in the state to enact family leave policies that may differ from those set by the state and so on... There's a lot more going on here than just who potties where, also the law was written so that each portion of it has to be removed individually so even if the bathroom portion of the bill get's overturned, the portions of the law that affect employment and workplace discrimination still stand so there is a lot more going on here than simple distraction |
Response to neohippie (Reply #51)
Mon May 16, 2016, 11:38 AM
libodem (19,288 posts)