Republicans have the bathroom issue backwards

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Ok, so I think I understand what the deal is now. So you're saying that some perv is going to act like a Trans person to get in the locker room or shower and peak at the ladies at the gym or something right??? Which is probably the goal of a perv I imagine. To be able to go into the girls shower room and spy on them. Is that correct?? Basically???

originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: mOjOm


You are right about the derailing, sorry for my part in it.

I was doing it too so you don't ow me an apology. I just figured we better get back on topic before someone else had to say something to us.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Another "bathroom" thread....that conveniently leaves out the fact that the NC law (which this stems from) includes facilities with SHOWERS and locker rooms.

Which law do you mean? The state law that requires people have the proper birth certificate?

Or the Charlotte anti-discrimination law which is silent on restrooms, showers, or locker rooms.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, the more recent is "HB-2".

I'm talking about the former, the "anti discrimination" law.

It includes all public facilities, which includes locker rooms, showers. That was the intent of the entire "public facilities" argument.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

It includes all public facilities, which includes locker rooms, showers. That was the intent of the entire "public facilities" argument.

Yes. It did not specify locker rooms, showers, or restrooms, as you claimed.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Ok, so I think I understand what the deal is now. So you're saying that some perv is going to act like a Trans person to get in the locker room or shower and peak at the ladies at the gym or something right??? Which is probably the goal of a perv I imagine. To be able to go into the girls shower room and spy on them. Is that correct?? Basically???

yes...

which does happen, has happened, will happen

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

It includes all public facilities, which includes locker rooms, showers. That was the intent of the entire "public facilities" argument.

False. The intent was equal access to public facilities.

I just said that. public facilities.

are we not in agreement of what that means?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

It includes all public facilities, which includes locker rooms, showers. That was the intent of the entire "public facilities" argument.

False. The intent was equal access to public facilities.

And it does not NOT specify.

"Public facilities"...

Are we talking about kitchens and hookah lounges?

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain
Yes.

Now that that's clear. People have dressed as women in order to ogle women in showers? Examples?
This law would have made that permissible?

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
yes...

which does happen, has happened, will happen

Sure, I won't argue that. Dudes are already pervy now using their camera phones on women shopping and stuff. They're a creative bunch that's for sure.

But let's get the law straight first. Because not discriminating isn't the same as allowing anyone to just choose any bathroom they want on a whim either.

From what Phage is saying it doesn't specify anything exactly. It kind of leaves it open and just says you can't discriminate. Which I think is fine. That's like not saying anything either way and letting people figure it out themselves.

The new law that forces people into either or based on their birth gender is a problem for sure though.

Seems pretty simple. If these guys are using I feel like a woman defense the Judge should test them. Something like a bikini wax.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain


Now that that's clear. People have dressed as women in order to ogle women in showers? Examples?

www.breitbart.com

Funny you ask, on their front page, Breitbart just post about FIVE running examples of pervs going into female restrooms, showers, and recording or trying to gain access, etc.

Wouldn't LOGIC dictate that a law such as this would encourage sexual deviants to do more? Since they are deviants, since their M.O. is finding any loophole they can to gain access to their compulsions....LEGALLY.

Or am I "crazy and paranoid"?

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Since they are deviants, since their M.O. is finding any loophole they can to gain access to their compulsions....LEGALLY.

Since people use guns to kill people and commit crimes, shouldn't guns be illegal?

a reply to: mOjOm

Agreed, I'm not talking the new law (HB2).


I'm talking about the former, which makes legal precedent and formal PROTECTION for said sexual deviants to have FURTHER access.

That is my concern.

FYI...the guy on the council that helped spearhead the first law, is a registered sex offender. Thought it interesting.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Since they are deviants, since their M.O. is finding any loophole they can to gain access to their compulsions....LEGALLY.

Since people use guns to kill people and commit crimes, shouldn't guns be illegal?

Oh cmon Phage. You're better than that.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

FYI...the guy on the council that helped spearhead the first law, is a registered sex offender. Thought it interesting.

HB2 would not prevent him from molesting more boys nor would the Charlotte law have made it easier.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Since they are deviants, since their M.O. is finding any loophole they can to gain access to their compulsions....LEGALLY.

Since people use guns to kill people and commit crimes, shouldn't guns be illegal?

Oh cmon Phage. You're better than that.

Please explain.
You are saying that it's ok to deny someone equal protection under the law because it means that someone else may illegally take advantage of it, aren't you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

FYI...the guy on the council that helped spearhead the first law, is a registered sex offender. Thought it interesting.

HB2 would not prevent him from molesting more boys nor would the Charlotte law have made it easier.

actually my concern isn't "male on male" incidents. it's male on female offenders.

the male on male ones will happen regardless, like you stated, no matter what law

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

actually my concern isn't "male on male" incidents.

And yet, you felt it relevant to say this:

FYI...the guy on the council that helped spearhead the first law, is a registered sex offender. Thought it interesting.

a reply to: mOjOm

Last comment on the topic:

You are right on the conclusion, but to reach the conclusion that you state it had to be established that to be married was much more than just being a man and a woman.
This is where the justification of being two consenting adults that love each other and want to be together came into play as reason to be justification enough to get married. That does seem like the justification of love and want (which varies by individual) is the reason it does not matter if they are a man and a woman, that in turn makes the case a one of equal treatment. Again perception, the facts (earlier interpretations) said another thing.

The interpretation we now have is only valid because of the supreme court decision, not because it was common sense. Because for the earlier interpretations of marriage, it was not. The interpretations of laws made by congress are valid UNLESS they go against the constitution. (which now it does and that is why gay marriage is legal)

I tried to explain it respectfully without getting into the complex technical legal area.


Side note: If it is legal to some, it has to be legal for everybody else. Soon we may hear about amending the interpretation of marriage to include more than one partner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a reply to: Phage

Try to be a little less confrontational, it surely seems like you are resorting to this in order to ignore the other statements.

The reply in your post was for specifically the "quote" box on top, where it says the exact sentence I wrote when I replied back mentioning the word interpretation. Also, I retracted the remark of constitutional documentation because obviously it is not mentioned there.

On the interpretation made by congress note that unless the constitution says otherwise, they are the rule of the land.
This is such for cases where the constitution is not clear enough to be free of doubt.

Note: None of my statements are opinions, I base them on verifiable facts from a strict legal perspective.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peace.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Since they are deviants, since their M.O. is finding any loophole they can to gain access to their compulsions....LEGALLY.

Since people use guns to kill people and commit crimes, shouldn't guns be illegal?

Oh cmon Phage. You're better than that.

Please explain.
You are saying that it's ok to deny someone equal protection under the law because it means that someone may take advantage of it, aren't you?

I'm saying that said "equal protection" has not been thought out carefully, as it now opens a door for extra protection and plausible deniability for specifically male vs. female offenders/pervs