North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rae317 said:
So, Target should prevent transgender customers from using the correct bathroom?

What about Target stores in states (19) and cities (225) that include gender identity in their non discrimination laws? What about boycotting all the other stores in those places?

What about transgender employees who are still protected under title VII - including use of bathrooms consistent with their gender identity?

What is the goal of this boycott?
Click to expand...
safety
perhaps more importantly, it is people putting a finger in the leaking dike of insanity.
 
Here are some of the comments regarding the DOJ:
Gov. Pat McCrory
Click to expand...
*"A claim by the Obama administration charges that one part of House Bill 2, which requires state employees in public government buildings and students in our universities to use a restroom, locker room and shower facility that match their biological sex, is now in violation of federal law. The Obama administration has not only staked out its position for North Carolina, but for all states, universities and most employers in the U.S.
Click to expand...
“The right and expectation of privacy in one of the most private areas of our personal lives is now in jeopardy. We will be reviewing to determine the next steps.” *
Click to expand...
N.C. Speaker of the House Tim Moore
Click to expand...
*"The letters received today serve to give notice that President Obama intends to sue the State of North Carolina unless we yield to his views. They are not court decrees or automatic declarations of law and the issues raised in his letters are far from being decided. President Obama’s interpretation of Title VII and Title IX would radically change all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes.
Click to expand...
“Rather than effectively engage in the legislative process, the Constitutional process by which elected representatives of the people of North Carolina and the United States enact laws, the Obama Administration continues to circumvent the will of the electorate and instead unilaterally exert its extreme agenda on the people directly through executive orders, radical interpretations of well-settled common-sense laws and through the federal court system. We will discuss these issues with the Governor and the Senate and determine next steps.”*
Click to expand...
Senate Leader Phil Berger
Click to expand...
*"This is a gross overreach by the Obama Justice Department that deserves to be struck down in federal court, and I cannot say it any better than Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer did recently:
Click to expand...
“‘This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.’”*
Click to expand...
abc11.com/uncategorized/notable-figures-react-to-dojs-warning-letter-on-hb2/1323718/
 
rae317 said:
So, Target should prevent transgender customers from using the correct bathroom?

What about Target stores in states (19) and cities (225) that include gender identity in their non discrimination laws? What about boycotting all the other stores in those places?

What about transgender employees who are still protected under title VII - including use of bathrooms consistent with their gender identity?

What is the goal of this boycott?
Click to expand...
Target should be allowed to set the policies that are reflective of their corporate ownership’s views.
Shoppers, OTOH, can choose where they wish to shop, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see the DOJ threaten action against groups promoting a boycott. 🤷

Jon
 
JonNC said:
though I wouldn’t be surprised to see the DOJ threaten action against groups promoting a boycott. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
I have never ever heard of the DOJ taking legal action against anyone or any organization promoting a boycott. On what grounds would such legal action be based?
 
Thorolfr said:
I have never ever heard of the DOJ taking legal action against anyone or any organization promoting a boycott. On what grounds would such legal action be based?
Click to expand...
On the grounds that it is non-government-approved speech, as well as restraint of trade.
 
Muzhik said:
On the grounds that it is non-government-approved speech, as well as restraint of trade.
Click to expand...
Can you give me some examples of people ever having been prosecuted by the government for engaging in a boycott before?
 
Thorolfr said:
Can you give me some examples of people ever having been prosecuted by the government for engaging in a boycott before?
Click to expand...
I am being moderately facetious. It is established in constitutional law that the government cannot compel speech, i.e., you cannot be forced by law to display a pro-Hillary election poster on your lawn. However, if you choose not to use your skills to promote or advocate for homosexual activities, the government can and will take away everything you own as punishment for violating the civil rights of the homosexuals. I.e., government-compelled speech.

Likewise, if you opposed Obamacare and chose not to participate in it (i.e, boycotted it) the government can and will fine you and otherwise punish you for “boycotting” Obamacare.
 
Some comments regarding the DOJ:
Gov. Pat McCrory
Click to expand...
*"A claim by the Obama administration charges that one part of House Bill 2, which requires state employees in public government buildings and students in our universities to use a restroom, locker room and shower facility that match their biological sex, is now in violation of federal law. The Obama administration has not only staked out its position for North Carolina, but for all states, universities and most employers in the U.S.
Click to expand...
“The right and expectation of privacy in one of the most private areas of our personal lives is now in jeopardy. We will be reviewing to determine the next steps.”*
Click to expand...
Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek
Click to expand...
“North Carolina’s bathroom privacy law, HB2, fully complies with federal law. It’s absurd to assert, as the Department of Justice does, that by placing the word ‘sex’ in federal nondiscrimination laws, Congress intended to force states to open their restrooms to people of the opposite biological sex. Governor McCrory and the state of North Carolina are fulfilling their duty to protect the privacy rights of their citizens. The DOJ should stop bullying North Carolina with falsehoods about what federal law requires.”
Click to expand...
N.C. Speaker of the House Tim Moore
Click to expand...
*"The letters received today serve to give notice that President Obama intends to sue the State of North Carolina unless we yield to his views. They are not court decrees or automatic declarations of law and the issues raised in his letters are far from being decided. President Obama’s interpretation of Title VII and Title IX would radically change all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes.
Click to expand...
“Rather than effectively engage in the legislative process, the Constitutional process by which elected representatives of the people of North Carolina and the United States enact laws, the Obama Administration continues to circumvent the will of the electorate and instead unilaterally exert its extreme agenda on the people directly through executive orders, radical interpretations of well-settled common-sense laws and through the federal court system. We will discuss these issues with the Governor and the Senate and determine next steps.”*
Click to expand...
Senate Leader Phil Berger
Click to expand...
"This is a gross overreach by the Obama Justice Department that deserves to be struck down in federal court, and I cannot say it any better than Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer did recently:
Click to expand...
“‘This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.’”
Click to expand...
abc11.com/uncategorized/notable-figures-react-to-dojs-warning-letter-on-hb2/1323718/
 
Holly3278 said:
This is ridiculous. The federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity!
Click to expand...
The highest court to examine this question so far (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which NC happens to be a part of) has decided that Title IX protections for “sex” apply to trans people.
 
Thorolfr said:
I have never ever heard of the DOJ taking legal action against anyone or any organization promoting a boycott. On what grounds would such legal action be based?
Click to expand...
Be patient. With the threats against those who do not comply with the White House approved position on climate change being threatened, this type of "hate speech " can’t be far behind.

Jon
 
Muzhik said:
I am being moderately facetious. It is established in constitutional law that the government cannot compel speech, i.e., you cannot be forced by law to display a pro-Hillary election poster on your lawn. However, if you choose not to use your skills to promote or advocate for homosexual activities, the government can and will take away everything you own as punishment for violating the civil rights of the homosexuals. I.e., government-compelled speech.

Likewise, if you opposed Obamacare and chose not to participate in it (i.e, boycotted it) the government can and will fine you and otherwise punish you for “boycotting” Obamacare.
Click to expand...
I thought Justice Roberts said it was a tax, not a fine. :hmmm:

Jon
 
Doesn’t he have a daughter going to college soon? Doesn’t he care about HER safety? The secret service agents won’t be in the shower WITH her, but she and others are at risk of voyeurism if you let delusional males use the female designated facility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top