|
NC school allows students to carry pepper spray in case they encounter trans classmates in bathroom
|
|
Topic Started: May 11 2016, 01:52 PM (2,040 Views)
|
|
coverpoint
|
May 11 2016, 04:09 PM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,273
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 03:53 PM
- coverpoint
- May 11 2016, 03:41 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 03:15 PM
A "boy" does not have grounds to sue a teacher for questioning him about his desire to enter a bathroom either before or after the Charlotte ordinance. The ordinance deals with discrimination, not the rights and duties of school staff. That is like saying that a teacher can be sued by a black student because there are laws that prohibit discrimination of public access based on race; or questioning a Christian student because there are laws that prohibit discrimination of public access based on religion. The Charlotte ordinance just adds gender identification to the list of those that cannot be discriminated against.
Actually, many teachers have been sued for discrimination against blacks and other protected classes where no discrimination occurred. So yes, adding another protected class will eventually lead to law suits by greedy lawyers looking to make a quick buck because they know that the school system and other government agencies will almost always settle even when no discrimination occurred. As others have pointed out, real transgender folks have been using the bathroom of their choice all along at it was not a problem so why was the ordinance needed? It was needed because some lawyers saw an opportunity to create business. The ordinance is not about bathrooms. It is about adding gender expression to the city’s laws regarding discrimination. Here is the actual law:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CityClerk/Documents/NDOrdinance.pdf
The ordinance changed nothing regarding the practice of those that self-identify as a different gender than their birth certificate indicates as to the bathroom they choose to use. Only the North Carolina State law does that.
Under the Charlotte ordinance, men who do not actually self identify as women are still prevented from using the woman’s restroom (and visa versa). The Charlotte ordinance did nothing to change that. The only thing it did (with regards to bathrooms) is that it prevents one from prohibiting (discrimination of public accommodation) a person that self-identifies as a different gender as to the bathroom they choose to use.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:09 PM
Post #42
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 03:58 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 03:49 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 03:34 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
What the Charlotte ordinance did is make it permissible for a man to enter the women's room. Prior to the Charlotte ordinance if a man entered the women's room the folks who run the facility could intercept the man prior to his entering and tell him that he can not go in. If the man were to tell those questioning him that he "identifies" as a female then the person who runs the facility would have to decide if he wanted to allow the man to enter based on that assertion. If the person who runs the facility told the man they he was not permitted to enter the women's room then there was nothing that the man could do other than accept their decision or choose to violate the law by committing what would then be considered trespassing. After the Charlotte ordinance, in the same situation the folks who run the facility could question the man who was about to enter the women's room but they could not stop him. If they tried to stop him then they would open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit. So, even if the man looked like a guy, walked like a guy, talked like a guy, and was pretty obviously some kind of perv, they can not stop him from entering the women's room to peep at women just be creepy in general. As you yourself pointed out, the Charlotte ordinance was not necessary as trans folks were already using the bathroom of their choice but the loosely written nature of that ordinance forced a response at the state level. That response was also badly written. So we have two laws being written by people with different political agendas about something where no law was actually needed.
So what I hear you saying is that there has been no actual rash of men peepers hanging out in women's bathrooms. The people who wrote the second law are just assuming that this would be the case because "reasons". Well, that makes perfect sense. Clearly the assumption that significant numbers of men would reveal themselves to be creepy peepers who like to hang out in women's bathrooms is a rational reason for passing a law that makes it illegal for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. In conservativeville... I did say it was a badly written law.
Generally speaking, folks who are actually transgender won't be questioned when they enter the bathroom of their choice. This is why the ordinance was not needed. Do you remember that creep who asked the sleazy questions of women? I posted a topic on it a while back. Anyway, under the Charlotte ordinance, rather than asking his creepy questions in a open store where there are cameras that prevent him from getting away with going too far, he could be doing the same thing in a bathroom and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
The NC law need to be re-written with a standard other than birth certificate. In my opinion, most folks who gone so far as to alter their appearance and take hormones to change their nature are fine and should be permitted into the restroom they are transitioning to.
These are the guys that you don't want in the women's room.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
May 11 2016, 04:10 PM
Post #43
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
The promotion of hate that seeks victims as a binding agent for desperate idiots to justify their prejudice was never acceptable but it gets less so everyday as conservatives up the ante.
|
|
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
May 11 2016, 04:13 PM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 15,996
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- May 11 2016, 02:10 PM
Excellent. If so leftist pervert using the "trans" excuse and goes in the female bathroom, he deserves it. No sympathy from me. The only inappropriate bathroom activity I know of is your personal actions that you have repeatedly described in here.
Perhaps you should be pepper sprayed?
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
May 11 2016, 04:21 PM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:09 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 03:58 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 03:49 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So what I hear you saying is that there has been no actual rash of men peepers hanging out in women's bathrooms. The people who wrote the second law are just assuming that this would be the case because "reasons". Well, that makes perfect sense. Clearly the assumption that significant numbers of men would reveal themselves to be creepy peepers who like to hang out in women's bathrooms is a rational reason for passing a law that makes it illegal for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. In conservativeville...
I did say it was a badly written law. Generally speaking, folks who are actually transgender won't be questioned when they enter the bathroom of their choice. This is why the ordinance was not needed. Do you remember that creep who asked the sleazy questions of women? I posted a topic on it a while back. Anyway, under the Charlotte ordinance, rather than asking his creepy questions in a open store where there are cameras that prevent him from getting away with going too far, he could be doing the same thing in a bathroom and there would be nothing anyone could do about it. The NC law need to be re-written with a standard other than birth certificate. In my opinion, most folks who gone so far as to alter their appearance and take hormones to change their nature are fine and should be permitted into the restroom they are transitioning to. These are the guys that you don't want in the women's room.  So, what I hear you telling me is that if creepy male peepers hang out in women's bathrooms and ask women pervy questions, there is nothing anyone could do about it because there and no cameras and reports by multiple women would be dismissed out of hand because "reasons".
Do you understand how ludicrous this sounds?
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
Post #46
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html
So, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
May 11 2016, 04:27 PM
Post #47
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol. So, what I hear you saying, is that a man who fondled a little boy, and as a man can easily enter public men's rooms and fondle other little boys, was really trying to make it easier for his pedophile friends who like little girls?
Is that REALLY your argument?
|
|
|
| |
|
CautionaryTales
|
May 11 2016, 04:28 PM
Post #48
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,262
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol. From that ^^^ link
At a City Council meeting Feb. 8, Mayor Jennifer Roberts cited a survey that showed discrimination was a real problem for the LGBT community. During the meeting, she said the survey was conducted by the LGBT Chamber. ... Scott Bishop, the head of MeckPAC, a lobbying group for the LGBT community, said last month the chamber wasn’t involved in the survey. He said a social worker distributed the surveys, which were then forwarded to MeckPAC.
In an interview with the Observer, Sevearance-Turner said his group didn’t conduct the survey.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html#storylink=cpy
|
Have you paid your internet taxes?
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:31 PM
Post #49
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol.
So, what I hear you saying, is that a man who fondled a little boy, and as a man can easily enter public men's rooms and fondle other little boys, was really trying to make it easier for his pedophile friends who like little girls? Is that REALLY your argument? No, it was just me making a joke while in the process linking to background material about the fact that one of the folks behind the Charlotte ordinance was guilty of sex crimes.
I was trying to bring some levity to the actual fact that one of the guys behind this unneeded ordinance is actually a sex offender. Personally I hope that my joking hypothetical is just that.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:32 PM
Post #50
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 04:28 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol.
From that ^^^ link At a City Council meeting Feb. 8, Mayor Jennifer Roberts cited a survey that showed discrimination was a real problem for the LGBT community. During the meeting, she said the survey was conducted by the LGBT Chamber. ... Scott Bishop, the head of MeckPAC, a lobbying group for the LGBT community, said last month the chamber wasn’t involved in the survey. He said a social worker distributed the surveys, which were then forwarded to MeckPAC. In an interview with the Observer, Sevearance-Turner said his group didn’t conduct the survey. Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html#storylink=cpy I read the article and could care less about the source for the data. The data source does not change the fact that the head of the LGBT Chamber of commerce (one of the big groups that pushed this ordinance) is in fact a convicted sexual offender.
I am merely pointing out one of those weak coincidences that was being used as justification for this entire topic. Weak coincidences are awesome are they not?
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
CautionaryTales
|
May 11 2016, 04:43 PM
Post #51
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,262
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:32 PM
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 04:28 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol.
From that ^^^ link At a City Council meeting Feb. 8, Mayor Jennifer Roberts cited a survey that showed discrimination was a real problem for the LGBT community. During the meeting, she said the survey was conducted by the LGBT Chamber. ... Scott Bishop, the head of MeckPAC, a lobbying group for the LGBT community, said last month the chamber wasn’t involved in the survey. He said a social worker distributed the surveys, which were then forwarded to MeckPAC. In an interview with the Observer, Sevearance-Turner said his group didn’t conduct the survey. Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html#storylink=cpy
I read the article and could care less about the source for the data. The data source does not change the fact that the head of the LGBT Chamber of commerce (one of the big groups that pushed this ordinance) is in fact a convicted sexual offender. I am merely pointing out one of those weak coincidences that was being used as justification for this entire topic. Weak coincidences are awesome are they not? Your attempt at levity is noted
|
Have you paid your internet taxes?
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:45 PM
Post #52
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 04:43 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:32 PM
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 04:28 PM
I read the article and could care less about the source for the data. The data source does not change the fact that the head of the LGBT Chamber of commerce (one of the big groups that pushed this ordinance) is in fact a convicted sexual offender. I am merely pointing out one of those weak coincidences that was being used as justification for this entire topic. Weak coincidences are awesome are they not?
Your attempt at levity is noted I am an engineer, not a comedian. I shall stick with my day job.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Ronin
|
May 11 2016, 04:53 PM
Post #53
|
|
- Posts:
- 552
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- Mar 23, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- May 11 2016, 02:10 PM
Excellent. If so leftist pervert using the "trans" excuse and goes in the female bathroom, he deserves it. No sympathy from me. Law enforcement throughout the country had stated this is simply not happening. I'd be more worried about being in the bathroom with you.
Edited by Ronin, May 11 2016, 04:56 PM.
|
|
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
May 11 2016, 05:03 PM
Post #54
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:31 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:22 PM
So I was doing some background research on the Charlotte ordinance just to make sure I was not off base with my statements (I do not think that I am BTW) but I ran into this. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.htmlSo, one of the main guys who pushed for this ordinance is actually one of the pervs in question. Only he fondled a boy rather than a girl. I guess he felt bad for his perv buddies who like girls and wanted to let them use the bathroom with their potential victims too lol.
So, what I hear you saying, is that a man who fondled a little boy, and as a man can easily enter public men's rooms and fondle other little boys, was really trying to make it easier for his pedophile friends who like little girls? Is that REALLY your argument?
No, it was just me making a joke while in the process linking to background material about the fact that one of the folks behind the Charlotte ordinance was guilty of sex crimes. I was trying to bring some levity to the actual fact that one of the guys behind this unneeded ordinance is actually a sex offender. Personally I hope that my joking hypothetical is just that. Okay, you were making a joke.
However, allow me to point out that there is this thing called "creating a public nuisance" which allows the police to arrest creepy male peepers who get their jollies hanging out in women's public restrooms asking women pervy questions.
|
|
|
| |
|
CautionaryTales
|
May 11 2016, 05:07 PM
Post #55
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,262
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:45 PM
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 04:43 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 04:32 PM
Your attempt at levity is noted
I am an engineer, not a comedian. I shall stick with my day job. Fair enough

|
Have you paid your internet taxes?
|
| |
|
clone
|
May 11 2016, 06:30 PM
Post #56
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
All this stuff reminds me of Obama's safe school czar...Kevin Jennings....sick puppies...
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
May 11 2016, 06:47 PM
Post #57
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,160
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
My daughter was already using hair spray on the eyes of transgenders....Pepper spray tends to permeate the entire ladies room...........
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
Freaks
|
May 11 2016, 07:26 PM
Post #58
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,951
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 03:28 PM
Can someone explain to me when transgender people started attacking children in public restrooms... Um. I think some people are missing the point. The point isn't transsexuals, it's people abusing the whole transsexual thing to do things they shouldn't. Which, yeah, anybody could do anyways but it's going to be a lot bigger mess if somebody claims they were just a transsexual and the other person is a bigot.
|
"I'll be the fella to save his Cinderella, by turnin' her dream world into real life."
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
May 11 2016, 07:38 PM
Post #59
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Freaks1932
- May 11 2016, 07:26 PM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 03:28 PM
Can someone explain to me when transgender people started attacking children in public restrooms...
Um. I think some people are missing the point. The point isn't transsexuals, it's people abusing the whole transsexual thing to do things they shouldn't. Which, yeah, anybody could do anyways but it's going to be a lot bigger mess if somebody claims they were just a transsexual and the other person is a bigot. Except nothing stops perverted men from dressing up as women and hanging out in women's restrooms now. And it hasn't been happening. So why now is it suddenly going to happen? Answer is, it's not.
This is conservatives making up a hypothetical problem which would already be a problem if it were going to be a problem, because they want to take out their frustrations on the LGBT community and make their lives harder.
|
|
|
| |
|
clone
|
May 11 2016, 07:41 PM
Post #60
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- Robert Stout
- May 11 2016, 06:47 PM
My daughter was already using hair spray on the eyes of transgenders....Pepper spray tends to permeate the entire ladies room........... Hair spray combined with a lighter can be quite effective....
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|