I think I am finally through with this conversation. Because there’s no conversation.
makes mental note to shop at Target this week
Now this is the first accurate thing you have said. Agreed. This is a nonissue anyway, and overtly banning these few people who have always used the restroom in accordance with how they were dressed will do nothing at all.
It’s a meaningless and empty gesture.
It’s sudden emergence is simply part of pushing the envelope as far as possible for this group, and that is my objection. Use whatever restroom you want. People have done that anyway, without incidence, and no one ever bothers anyone there. But stop using it as political leverage.
There was a creeper who took advantage of this option to use the wrong restroom recently though. He was arrested for peering at women while dressed as one.
Target isn’t worth shopping at anyway, so no difference here. They don’t have much I can’t get at Amazon cheaper and more conveniently.
Your posts have always seemed angry (I usually don’t remember particular posters, but you stuck out). If this attack you suffered contributed, that’s really horrible and I’m sorry that happened to you. What a scumbag he was. I got felt up at a movie theater when I was an adolescent so I know there are people who need to be stopped.
Agree that laws wouldn’t have affected a criminal such as the one who attacked you, but I’m not sure why you then say that strengthening VAWA would have any effect on criminal attacks. I doesn’t sound as if you were assaulted with a gun, so I’m not sure why that is there in sequence either, particularly as many have used guns to ward off attacks. And the rape kits? How does providing money stop attacks or protect anyone at all (and why and when are they unprocessed, but that’s a different issue)?
This is really perplexing, as you seem to express these as connected thoughts to the transgender bathroom stuff (which I agree is much ado about a nonexistent problem).
“I think I am finally through with this conversation. Because there’s no conversation.”
Sorry, but if there is no case law to back up your opinion and since all the decisions that have come down recently have ruled against the religious reasons, I don’t see your opinion being a likely outcome in these types of cases.
The Colorado Supreme court refused to hear the appeal for the Baker who wanted to refuse same sex wedding cakes on the basis of “artistic expression” leaving stand the lower courts ruling that “Because his cakeshop does not have a religious purpose, he is not protected by the religious exemptions in the state’s nondiscrimination law.” http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/25/3772462/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-cake-case/
Also encouraging news from the MI State Board of Education President supporting LGBT students in schools there and purposing guidelines that will allow Transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice… http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/04/mi-state-board-of-education-president-urges-support-for-lgbt-students/
As a Michigander, I’m very rarely proud of my pretty regressive state but today is an exception.
Schools are near and dear to me. My BIL is a Michigan teacher, spouse is a montessori teaching assistant, and my (gay) best friend/housemate will start student teaching this fall (currently working in a juvie education program). Both BIL and best friend know they have Trans students who are not out about their Trans status. They’re worried about this legislation coming to Michigan because bullying in our schools is really bad as it is (among other reasons).
My BIL is a conservative, Catholic Republican but is staunchly against this. He believes in protecting the privacy of his students and knows the straw man arguments put up by proponents are bupkis.
Yes, sometimes it’s not about politics or religion, but basic human decency.
And yet the gesture was made, with great fanfare. What was the point of this hurry-up law since, as you correctly state, transgenders have been using their preferred bathrooms forever without problems? Why did the NC legislature and governor go to such extraordinary lengths to “protect” us from the transgender bogeyman? If someone fantasizes a “problem” which actually doesn’t exist in the real world, IMO it’s that group which is trying to create the political leverage.
I imagine the Gov. McCrorys of the world are baffled. It wasn’t that long ago that demonizing LGBT was guaranteed political gold, with no downside. I guess the speed of the public’s change on this issue is disorienting, though Tennessee managed to get the message after it blew up in NC’s face.
How would I know? I’m not in the NC legislature.
I see it more as a reactionary move against all the pushing of the envelope on this issue. If everyone would just mind their own business and stop demanding that everyone else enthusiastically approve their views, all would be better served.
"If everyone would just mind their own business and stop demanding that everyone else enthusiastically approve their views, "
Kind of hard to do when you are being denied equal rights and discriminated on… I don’t care who “approves” of my gay son or not… what I care about is him having the exact same civil rights as everyone else and not to be legally discriminated upon due to his sexual orientation…
@IxnayBob yes, absolutely. I was attempting to show that this wasn’t really a partisan issue.
@romanigypsyeyes , you showed that well with your BIL’s example. DS had a very conservative, religious, Republican teacher, and DS was nervous how this favorite teacher would respond when DS came out as trans. As you can imagine, it takes some time to unlearn habits when it comes to pronouns and names (DS unofficially and then legally changed his name). This teacher, bless him, was among the first to use DS’s preferred pronouns and name, respectfully and to DS’s recollection, without slipping once (a success rate that I didn’t match at first, but I had more to rewire 
).
*******Update… Son’s transgender friend WILL NOT attend UNC-CH next year… apparently they have backed away from their promise to house her according to her gender identity…
@runswimyoga If you want your son to have the exact same civil rights as everyone else, that means that he can be discriminated against for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. What you are actually seeking is special rights. Under the law, everyone may be discriminated against for any reason unless they are a member of a special class.
The world will not end if your son is not permitted under the law to force a Pentecostal cake baker or pastor to take part in his wedding.
These are mostly non-problems. There’s plenty of bakeries and photographers around who welcome the business from your same sex wedding. Also, seems like people have been figuring out the bathroom thing quite well on their own without helpful clarifying legislation.
So these laws are the way for different groups to create symbolic wedge issues that play to their bases. If one side gets a favorable law or court ruling, then the other side responds back. Eventually it gets worked out.
All part of the messy sausage making of living in a democracy. The process is working pretty well imo, mostly because LGTBs are customers and employees. So there’s plenty of big businesses who will respond forcefully when their bottom line is being messed with.
I wouldn’t stress as long as your student stays on campus
Actually, @EarlVanDorn Protections offered by LGBT non-discrimination laws are not “special rights,” but are similar to the kinds of protections already offered in federal law for sex, race, religion, etc. such as:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Also, President Clinton did sign an executive order in 1998 which protected employees of the federal government, on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2014, President Obama expanded protections, signing an executive order protecting employees of the federal government and federal contractors on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
Currently in 22 states and many cities across America there are non discrimination laws inclusive of sexual orientation
We are seeking federal sexual orientation non discrimination inclusion so that these civil rights are not piece meal as one travels back and forth from state to state.
Sexual orientation has already been deemed a suspect class in courts its the level of scrutiny that hasn’t been decided
On October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court, in Windsor v. United States, to hold that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.[12][13][14] The decision of the Second Circuit was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2013, but the Supreme Court did not specifically state the level of scrutiny it applied. On January 21, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories that “classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny”, making it the second appellate court to do so.[15][16]