- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Tax-payer money will be wasted. The defense of the law will have to be financed apart from the state AG, at least until such a time he can be impeached, disbarred or otherwise removed from office.
A
ARSpade
Guest
All laws are the imposition of somebody’s morality on somebody else.I’m sure that some Christians would like to impose a Christian equivalent of shari’a law on everyone.
So I’m sure that some Progressives would like to impose the progressive equivalent of sharia law on everyone.
The only way to limit the amount of imposition going on is by being Libertarian (or an anarchist), which is what this place was originally supposed to be.
Since progressives want to impose their morality, such as it is, on me via the law (and thus via the barrel of a cop’s gun) I really don’t have any problem doing the same back.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
As pointed out earlier, it almost certainly runs afoul of several Supreme Court decisions, Romer vs Evans, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan and Reitman v. Mulkey.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Man Disguised as Woman Recorded “Hours” of Mall Restroom Video: Investigators:
nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html
nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html
P
pnewton
Guest
If I were a peeping tom, I would move to New York where no one would question a man in the women’s restroom, or legally could question it.
S
St_Francis
Guest
**The bill says the standard for using a bathroom is what is on one’s birth certificate. In N C, one can send in papers certifying one has had a sex change operation and one’s birth certificate will be changed to reflect that. **
So, all those manly-looking once-women, now men, can simply have their Birth certificates changed to be able to use the men’s bathroom.
They have probably already gone through the this process to get their driver’s license changed.
So, all those manly-looking once-women, now men, can simply have their Birth certificates changed to be able to use the men’s bathroom.
They have probably already gone through the this process to get their driver’s license changed.
S
St_Francis
Guest
This is a 20-minute video with many incidents on it. I watched for only a few minutes, and saw probably at least 2 cases per minute.
All except one that I saw involved criminal activity in women’s rooms of one sort or another. The one that did not involve criminal activity had the case of the young man who thinks he is female and has rejected using alternative places, wanting to be allowed into the girls’ bath- and locker rooms.
All except one that I saw involved criminal activity in women’s rooms of one sort or another. The one that did not involve criminal activity had the case of the young man who thinks he is female and has rejected using alternative places, wanting to be allowed into the girls’ bath- and locker rooms.
And since it is a “may-issue” concealed carry state, the victims will probably have no gun to protect herself.
Jon
U
Used2beSherryG
Guest
Well, duh! The title makes me laugh…then I want to cry. If someone told me a few years ago that we would spend time sorting out who can use the men’s or women’s rest rooms, I would never have believed it. I am now surprised that these bathroom names have not yet been changed to reflect the new idea that it’s whether we FEEL like a man or a woman that is important, not what God made us. North Carolina, stand firm and God bless
P
pnewton
Guest
It is a lot of evidence against the myth that men dressed as women do not pose any danger. The question is now whether changes the law lessens the danger. All of these events happened before the advent of laws allowing men in women restrooms. I guess I am of the opinion that such laws will deter reporting that could save women and girls from becoming victims of sexual assault.
E
Ender
Guest
Romer v Evans was about the amendment to the Colorado constitution that specifically prohibited giving protected status to homosexuals et al. It is not likely to be applicable in a case where they are not specifically accorded special status instead of being barred from receiving that status.
Reitman v Mulkey invalidated a change to the California constitution that allowed individuals to decline to sell or rent their homes to qualified applicants as they saw fit. Again, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the Carolina law that simply does not accord special status to one particular group.
Arlington Heights was a case of racial segregation that seems to have even less to do with the NC law. It’s also necessary to recognize that there are several parts to the law: 1) limiting bathroom use to the gender of birth, 2) specifying which are the protected groups under NC law, 3) forbidding cities from imposing regulations not spelled out in NC law. These are all independent of one another. Your cases go to part (2), so even if that part was ruled unconstitutional it would have no effect on the other parts of the law.
Ender
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But they are barred from receiving that status since the whole reason for this new state law is to prevent the Charlotte law. It doesn’t matter what the new law specifically says but that its intent is to prevent LGBT people from receiving any protection on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and the reason it will be struck down is because its passage was intended to single out a specif disfavored group as a result of animus. And the new law wasn’t even a normal piece of legislation. A special session of the legislature was hurriedly called to specifically pass this law (at great expense), the first time this had been done is quite a few years.
The Charlotte city council did not have the authority to grant that special status in the first place. In effect, the state statute simply returned things to their state constitutional position. The state statute actually changes nothing that existed prior to the illegal city ordinance. No ones rights or standing is being denied or changed by the statue. The statute is not specific to any protected group or their status.
Jon
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If the Charlotte city ordinance was illegal, then why pass a new law? Wouldn’t it have been easier to have a court declare the Charlotte law to be illegal under North Carolina state law?
If what you say is correct, it appears that many other places in North Carolina besides Charlotte were unaware that they lacked the authority to grant protection to LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and don’t know state law very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Carolina
E
Ender
Guest
If the law is struck down it will have nothing to do with previous cases or the presumed “animus” of its authors. It will be because of the personal animus of the justices who would prefer that these laws not exist.
Ender
E
exnihilo
Guest
The law probably will be struck down. The courts love to invalidate democracy for the sole purpose of promoting gross immorality.
This isn’t really as much of an issue as you make it out. In North Carolina a city can be unincorporated. It can have its charter revoked. So if the General Assembly can make a city not exist it certainly can pass any law it wants to restrict a cities actions. Cities don’t have rights. Their actions are not binding on the rest of the state and its government. Also, there have been plenty of other laws passed to reign in actions of cities, counties, and their officials.
A
aclausen
Guest
The whole intent of a constitution is to define and limit the powers of a government, even a democratic one. The Founding Fathers made it rather clear that they distrusted the democratic will when it came to individual liberties just as much as they distrusted any other facet of government.
E
exnihilo
Guest
If that is the intent of a constitution then it has to be strictly interpreted which it isn’t. If you can stretch it to say anything then it can’t define and limit. I’m no fan of democracy but it is the same courts who proclaim us one, except when they exert their power.
- Status