LOL .. true..a troll being a troll..isn't much for me to complain about.
It's not Jim Crow Laws,it's Federalism
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
LOL .. true..a troll being a troll..isn't much for me to complain about.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
It's a little sad that Annata's biggest fanboy is an inmate of one of the least-educated, most poverty-ridden backwaters in America who ends many of his statements with "lol".
This law isn't about Bruce Jenner sic.
To make a law that some slifht of size person whose penis has been removed, who has a vagina, who has grown breasts, who is wearing makeup and female cloths must use the mens room is patently unfair... inviting rape anyone?
The issue exposed here is more your hatred of Obama than anything else.
The bottom line; there should be seperate bathrooms for the GOP and you need to play Southern Man 100 times until you see yourself for the bigot you are.
When a state makes a bad law the Feds sonetimes step in. Nothing new Cracker.
Doesn't he end every statement with lol?
utterly stupid and without merit. rejected. The issue goes to "gender identity" -not surgically changed.
I your haste to label me bigoted, and going agaisnt Obama for it's own sake, you use incorrect facts.
Which is typical. You either make shit up,or are congenitally unable to connect the dots.
I post on the post, not the poster..it's a political board not a gossip board..
++
Here's another thing...Is this a problem in search of a solution? I haven't seen any documentation that the states were not accommodating ID trannys.
When issues are problematic they go thru the courts ( like gay marriage) where damage is shown.
What damage has been shown , where by the states accommodation was causing damage to the ID trannies?
*If it ain't broke don't fix it* what court cases are already involved?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
So you say. Open your eyes.
Like voter ID laws, you mean...or the bigoted bathroom laws that fear-crazed conservatives are passing?
So you think discrimination is OK unless you see damage?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Actually, no lol.
I'm not a fan of voter ID laws -they are a "problem in search of a solution "too
But the states clearly run their own elections, and they are constitutional -at least now that so called "pre-clearance" has been nullified.
There are more voter ID laws then not in the states.
what I'm saying is I haven't seen any discrimination/damage.
There my be, but in all the discussions I haven't seen any - which leads me to believe accommodation is already in place.
Do you think regs should be propagated for no reason?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
I suppose House Bill 2 and the other recently-passed hate laws escaped your attention, then?
it's hard to say.
I seem to recall back and forth lawsuits ( fed's/NC) -soit's become a "chicken or the egg" issue on that..
What I am saying is I have not seen any damage to ID trannys.
There may be , but I haven't seen any -which leads me to believe there was some sort of accommodation prior to this go 'round
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
So you know almost nothing about the issue?
Pat McCrory, the beleaguered governor of North Carolina, says he signed the controversial “bathroom bill”—HB2—because cities’ local gay-rights laws were “local government overreach.” When the U.S. Department of Justice notified him that the bill likely violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he angrily called it “Washington overreach.”
Now he says, “It’s time for the U.S. Congress to bring clarity to our national anti-discrimination provisions.”
But that wouldn’t be overreach.
By the time you read this, he may be calling for United Nations intervention.
It’s easy to see why McCrory doesn’t know which way to turn. On Monday, the state and the federal government sued each other over the bill, which (among other things) requires anyone using bathrooms in public schools and agencies to use only those designated for the sex noted on their birth certificates—thus barring transgender employees and students from using the bathroom consistent with their gender identities.
The federal government contends, and the weight of legal authority—including in the Fourth Circuit, North Carolina’s home—has found, that discrimination against employees or students on the basis of trans status is discrimination “because of sex” and is thus barred by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. HB2 does that; indeed, discrimination against trans people is its whole purpose.
But McCrory has a bigger problem: HB2 is also unconstitutional. Not just the bathroom provisions—the whole thing.
To understand why, go back to the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, the first major victory for gay rights in the Supreme Court. In 1992, the voters of Colorado had amended their state constitution to provide that no state agency, city, or county could make “homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships … the basis of … minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.”
In Romer, the Court struck down Colorado’s “Amendment Two,” holding:
[T]he amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.
Romer’s language—and the concept of “animus”—may hold the key to the cloudy future of HB2.
Much of the law has nothing to do with bathrooms and really isn’t even about trans people in particular.
HB2 has a larger goal: to thwart any movement toward equality for the state’s entire lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.
The bathroom rules occupy only one part of a five-part bill.
Part II says that no city or county can require its contractors not to discriminate against employees or customers based on sexual orientation.
Part III invalidates all present city and county ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination in private employment and public accommodations. It provides that only the state legislature can enact such a law from now on. Good luck with that one.
The state, in other words, has declared open season for discrimination on sexual orientation. That is mean-spirited, to be sure. But does it violate the Constitution?
Again, go back to Romer v. Evans—the answer begins there and branches out.
The North Carolina law has almost the same effect as Colorado’s Amendment Two, but its language is quite different.
The Colorado measure said no law could protect gays and lesbians; it didn’t say that no law could protect straights against discrimination by gays, if that were to become rampant.
It was textually aimed only at one group—as Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion said, “not to further a proper legislative end but to make [that group] unequal to everyone else.” That broad language made the measure an easy target for the Court, which said it “lack[ed] a rational relationship to legitimate state interests”—constitutional-speak for, 'This law is so mean that its only possible purpose is to hurt gays and lesbians'.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/
as mentioned.
I don't think so. homosexuality is "sexual orientation" and is already protected..
the difference is ID trannys have not been in court seeking relief - it was DoJ that issued the ruling ( unlike gay marriage/homosexuality)
without any court actions to show the need. why are you going off on Colorado homosexual law?
the article is smarmy stupid. This begs for Congressional definition -the NC governor is correct at least in that regard.
and I still don't see any damage to ID trannys ( necessitating executive IX) - whatever the internals of local/state laws resolve..
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
HB2 doesn’t just repeal the existing civil-rights ordinances protecting the LGBT community; it bars any locality or agency from enacting new ones.
That bar was one of the flaws in Amendment Two; similar bars were seen as yellow flags in a series of cases decided by the Burger Court about the repeal of state and local discrimination laws. In these cases, protections against race discrimination were not only repealed but also permanently removed from local decision-making.
HB2 bars basic protections against discrimination, not debatable policies that may or may not benefit LGBT people. And there’s a second factor at work here—a clear legislative purpose much like the one that the Romer decision called “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.”
“Animus” doesn’t have to mean lynch-mob hatred; as near as one can tell, the term means simply a conscious determination that one class of people don’t deserve or need rights or benefits available to everybody else. In Romer, Kennedy found animus in the text and structure of Amendment Two itself, noting how it singled out gays and lesbians for a burden it put on no one else.
Defenders of HB2 can argue that it disadvantages not just LGBT people but others who may want civil-rights protection, such as veterans, for example. That might be a good argument—if Parts II and III were freestanding bills. But HB2 has to be read as a whole, and if it is, the outlines of animus are clear.
This bill is, not to put too fine a point on it, obsessed with sex, with genitals, with the sexuality of transgender people, and with the entire LGBT community.
As a whole, it first stigmatizes and restricts transgender people, and only then goes on to sweep away existing protections against sexual-orientation discrimination.
Its justification seems to be a fear of trans people as criminals and sex offenders. There is no evidence, other than hateful stereotype, that they are either.
Even from a cold computer screen, the stench of animus assails the nostrils.
If a court finds the measure was born of animus, it could and should strike it down. HB2, like Amendment Two, is a constitutional monstrosity.
One of Anthony Kennedy’s favorite legal maxims comes from The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” Legislators in Raleigh have had their shot at kicking.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/
That bar was one of the flaws in Amendment Two; similar bars were seen as yellow flags in a series of cases decided by the Burger Court about the repeal of state and local discrimination laws. In these cases, protections against race discrimination were not only repealed but also permanently removed from local decision-making.
HB2 bars basic protections against discrimination, not debatable policies that may or may not benefit LGBT people. And there’s a second factor at work here—a clear legislative purpose much like the one that the Romer decision called “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.”
“Animus” doesn’t have to mean lynch-mob hatred; as near as one can tell, the term means simply a conscious determination that one class of people don’t deserve or need rights or benefits available to everybody else. In Romer, Kennedy found animus in the text and structure of Amendment Two itself, noting how it singled out gays and lesbians for a burden it put on no one else.
Defenders of HB2 can argue that it disadvantages not just LGBT people but others who may want civil-rights protection, such as veterans, for example. That might be a good argument—if Parts II and III were freestanding bills. But HB2 has to be read as a whole, and if it is, the outlines of animus are clear.
This bill is, not to put too fine a point on it, obsessed with sex, with genitals, with the sexuality of transgender people, and with the entire LGBT community.
As a whole, it first stigmatizes and restricts transgender people, and only then goes on to sweep away existing protections against sexual-orientation discrimination.
Its justification seems to be a fear of trans people as criminals and sex offenders. There is no evidence, other than hateful stereotype, that they are either.
Even from a cold computer screen, the stench of animus assails the nostrils.
If a court finds the measure was born of animus, it could and should strike it down. HB2, like Amendment Two, is a constitutional monstrosity.
One of Anthony Kennedy’s favorite legal maxims comes from The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” Legislators in Raleigh have had their shot at kicking.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Oh, you could probably scour the interwebs and find an incident. But that's the not the point, if even a single trans-sexual [or whatever] is inconvenienced, it's Selma AL all over again lol.
Then a call to arms goes out to the Crusaders. And then we end up in these stupid national conversations which leads the president to decree a one size fits all, dictate, that forces public schools in all 50 states to comply with the current liberal absurdity.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world thinks we're idiots.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Yup typical of anaata to make a thread on a topic of which he is illinformed at best then claim ignorance when his obvious bigotry is made clear.
nobody cares what you think, if you can even call most of your posts thoughts.
The topic is federalism , regulations, Congress, courts, damage...any of those.
Being concerned with process over feel good administrative regs is hardly "bigotry" - but if that's all you've got to add to the discussion....
It is all there is too discuss in a bigot thread.