Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 30
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,728 Views)
rkl15 Apr 26 2016, 09:06 PM Post #151
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
rkl15
Apr 26 2016, 08:34 PM
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 04:01 PM
rkl15
Apr 26 2016, 07:15 AM
Yep, sorry. miss-type.

estimated that there are 700,000 in the US.

Estimated population in the US of 322,762,018.

Let's say that 25% (random number) are opposed, or would feel uncomfortable with this law.

That would mean we are making a law for 700,000 people and making 80,690,505 uncomfortable.

This law is a waste of time, money and other resources.
I am against the Charlotte law, but making it a numbers issue is the wrong way to go about it. It shouldn't be about popularity, it should be about whether the law is right and just or not.

BTW, I've already cited the Reuters polls which showed the even split between people in favor of allowing transgenders to use the bathroom they are comfortable with and those opposed. Again, it's not about the numbers.

"The rights of the minority should never be voted on by the majority".
-- Thomas Jefferson
We are a democracy. Majority rules?

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson


In this type of decision you will never have everyone agree what is "right" or "wrong".
Therefore, majority needs to rule.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'democracy'.

Webster's definition: A form of government in which people choose their leaders by voting.

Democracy is a system of representation, not a system where all issues are voted on by the general population. It is a system intended to elect members who make educated decisions. And if they are simply voting by what is popular and not what is right, they truly are not serving justice. In which case, the checks and balance system will rule on it.

If you think it is anything different, then I would like to know what the general public vote on each constitutional amendment was.



I know what a Democracy is:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-primarystressmäk-rschwa-semacron
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: from early French democratie "democracy," from Latin democratia (same meaning), from Greek demokratia "democracy," from demacronmos "people, the masses" and -kratia "rule, government," from kratos "strength, power, authority" --related to EPIDEMIC
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation
2 : a political unit (as a nation) that has a democratic government
3 : belief in or practice of the idea that all people are socially equal

Laws are created by people elected to office by majority vote.

I know we basically agree on this. But I see it as government trying to be too Politically Correct.

My question (and I don't know) are there alot of transgender people out there asking for this law?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM Post #152
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators."

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 26 2016, 11:41 PM Post #153
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Apr 26 2016, 09:06 PM
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
rkl15
Apr 26 2016, 08:34 PM
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 04:01 PM
rkl15
Apr 26 2016, 07:15 AM
Yep, sorry. miss-type.

estimated that there are 700,000 in the US.

Estimated population in the US of 322,762,018.

Let's say that 25% (random number) are opposed, or would feel uncomfortable with this law.

That would mean we are making a law for 700,000 people and making 80,690,505 uncomfortable.

This law is a waste of time, money and other resources.
I am against the Charlotte law, but making it a numbers issue is the wrong way to go about it. It shouldn't be about popularity, it should be about whether the law is right and just or not.

BTW, I've already cited the Reuters polls which showed the even split between people in favor of allowing transgenders to use the bathroom they are comfortable with and those opposed. Again, it's not about the numbers.

"The rights of the minority should never be voted on by the majority".
-- Thomas Jefferson
We are a democracy. Majority rules?

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson


In this type of decision you will never have everyone agree what is "right" or "wrong".
Therefore, majority needs to rule.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'democracy'.

Webster's definition: A form of government in which people choose their leaders by voting.

Democracy is a system of representation, not a system where all issues are voted on by the general population. It is a system intended to elect members who make educated decisions. And if they are simply voting by what is popular and not what is right, they truly are not serving justice. In which case, the checks and balance system will rule on it.

If you think it is anything different, then I would like to know what the general public vote on each constitutional amendment was.



I know what a Democracy is:

Main Entry:de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation:di-primarystressmäk-rschwa-semacron
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural -cies
Etymology:from early French democratie "democracy," from Latin democratia (same meaning), from Greek demokratia "democracy," from demacronmos "people, the masses" and -kratia "rule, government," from kratos "strength, power, authority" --related to EPIDEMIC
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation
2 : a political unit (as a nation) that has a democratic government
3 : belief in or practice of the idea that all people are socially equal

Laws are created by people elected to office by majority vote.

I know we basically agree on this. But I see it as government trying to be too Politically Correct.

My question (and I don't know) are there alot of transgender people out there asking for this law?
Short of a law being put on a referendum, democracy is NOT about laws being passed by popular vote. And it's honestly a good thing that they are not. For instance, slavery is not something that should ever been put up to a popular vote. Women's voting rights should not have been up for a popular vote (which would have only been men voting on the issue to begin with). If you want to talk about government waste and expense, then why would you be talking about laws being put up for a public vote? THAT would result in an incredible amount of expense.

In terms of the number of transgenders wanting the law......I would say that if absolutely that a vast majority are opposed to the North Carolina law. And while you want say that 700,000 isn't a significant amount of people, I'd say that more than qualifies as a significant number. That's seven times the number of people as there are in Flint, Michigan. Should we ignore what has went on there with their water supply since it 'really wasn't that many people'?

I am in agreement that the Charlotte law should not have been established. I am in total disagreement that the shouldn't have been established because there are 'more straight people than transgenders'.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 26 2016, 11:55 PM Post #154
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators."

br
Again, the last part is your words based on what some of those in favor of passing the bill have said. You can put emphasis on that all you want, but it has no bearing in what the outcome of a legal ruling will be on the issue. So you can contain to sling mud or you can cite actual law where you believe that it is unconstitutional, which I have gone on record as saying it may be. But I haven't heard you make that actual reasoned argument yet.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 27 2016, 08:39 AM Post #155
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal.

br
Ok, so your position is clear now. I think it was Dreach who had a major problem with the white woman identifying as black. He's been very inconsistent on the issue of identifying with other groups who have obvious physical differences.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 27 2016, 09:02 AM Post #156
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 18 2016, 09:28 AM
Brian, Dreach, and Brum, here are some students who generally support your position:
You can jump to 55s

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho[/utube]
So it's fair to say that Brian agrees with most of the UW students in this video--everyone should be free to identify with whatever sex/race they choose. (Let's pretend this was done at WSU so Brian doesn't have to identify with the Huskies. :-) I'm going to guess that Brian/Dreach/Brum/Eel have some problem with a 5'-9 guy identifying with someone who's 6'-5, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 27 2016, 09:59 AM Post #157
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 11:55 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators."

br
Again, the last part is your words based on what some of those in favor of passing the bill have said. You can put emphasis on that all you want, but it has no bearing in what the outcome of a legal ruling will be on the issue. So you can contain to sling mud or you can cite actual law where you believe that it is unconstitutional, which I have gone on record as saying it may be. But I haven't heard you make that actual reasoned argument yet.
The mud-slinging is my disappointment showing.

Here's the ACLU breakdown of the constitutional protections of the LGBT community:

https://www.aclu.org/rights-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgendered-people

This law violates the equal protection clauses in the constitution.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 27 2016, 11:43 AM Post #158
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Posted Image

http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=8355554&t=7971975
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 27 2016, 01:41 PM Post #159
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 27 2016, 09:59 AM
brumdog44
Apr 26 2016, 11:55 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators."

br
Again, the last part is your words based on what some of those in favor of passing the bill have said. You can put emphasis on that all you want, but it has no bearing in what the outcome of a legal ruling will be on the issue. So you can contain to sling mud or you can cite actual law where you believe that it is unconstitutional, which I have gone on record as saying it may be. But I haven't heard you make that actual reasoned argument yet.
The mud-slinging is my disappointment showing.

Here's the ACLU breakdown of the constitutional protections of the LGBT community:

https://www.aclu.org/rights-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgendered-people

This law violates the equal protection clauses in the constitution.
I asked for this issue in particular was unconstitutional -- you gave me a link from the ACLU on LGBT in which I saw nothing listened in terms of the North Carolina case.

There is a general statement that is listed:

"The ACLU believes the Equal Protection Cluase prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation as well."

Even the ACLU won't go as far as saying the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment) does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; rather, the ACLU is stating their belief that it does. There is a difference between the two.

I would also say the connection is tenuous at best. Its text:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--------------------------------------------------------

Side note: probably one item that is getting lost in all of this is that I think the North Carolina law fails to give a penalty for breaking the law....it doesn't even establish the breaking of the law as being trespassing. So what exactly is the punishment for breaking it?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 27 2016, 03:56 PM Post #160
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
It violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates against people based on their gender. It also violates an individual's right to privacy by forcing people to out themselves. It violates title IX because public institutions which receive public funds will be discriminating based on gender it also will potentially force people to undergo medical treatment they may not want or even be advised against just to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.

I think the court will strike down the law on all of the above accounts. It is blatantly unconstitutional. And, quite frankly, an embarrassment for our nation. The world is laughing at us.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Apr 27 2016, 04:53 PM Post #161
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 27 2016, 09:02 AM
HoosierLars
Apr 18 2016, 09:28 AM
Brian, Dreach, and Brum, here are some students who generally support your position:
You can jump to 55s
So it's fair to say that Brian agrees with most of the UW students in this video--everyone should be free to identify with whatever sex/race they choose. (Let's pretend this was done at WSU so Brian doesn't have to identify with the Huskies. :-) I'm going to guess that Brian/Dreach/Brum/Eel have some problem with a 5'-9 guy identifying with someone who's 6'-5, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.
Fishing again? Not surprising Lars. Wash, Rinse, repeat.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 27 2016, 06:32 PM Post #162
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 27 2016, 03:56 PM
It violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates against people based on their gender. It also violates an individual's right to privacy by forcing people to out themselves. It violates title IX because public institutions which receive public funds will be discriminating based on gender it also will potentially force people to undergo medical treatment they may not want or even be advised against just to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.

I think the court will strike down the law on all of the above accounts. It is blatantly unconstitutional. And, quite frankly, an embarrassment for our nation. The world is laughing at us.
Every single bit of what you said assumes that someone agrees with your notion that gender is not a physical attribute. The lack of acceptance that it is not universally defined the way you define it is something you have accused others of doing -- not being able to see the point of both sides of the issue. The fact that you say it is 'blatantly unconstitutional' to me says you either underestimate what the term blatant is or the term unconstitutional. It may be ruled unconstitutional but it most definitely is not a slam dunk case.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 27 2016, 06:42 PM Post #163
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 27 2016, 09:02 AM
HoosierLars
Apr 18 2016, 09:28 AM
Brian, Dreach, and Brum, here are some students who generally support your position:
You can jump to 55s

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho[/utube]
So it's fair to say that Brian agrees with most of the UW students in this video--everyone should be free to identify with whatever sex/race they choose. (Let's pretend this was done at WSU so Brian doesn't have to identify with the Huskies. :-) I'm going to guess that Brian/Dreach/Brum/Eel have some problem with a 5'-9 guy identifying with someone who's 6'-5, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.
So......I change my mind on the issue, debate against the Charlotte law, and you still want to throw pot shots at me. Do you even read, bro?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 27 2016, 06:49 PM Post #164
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Apr 26 2016, 09:11 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 26 2016, 08:56 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 25 2016, 08:36 PM
These are completely different issues. Just as guns and bathrooms are. You would have a more relevant argument if public facilities were still segregated. But we realized that was the wrong thing to do a long time ago. We're catching up in the LGBT world.
No, they are very similar issues. Why is it ok for a man to identify as a woman, but it's not ok for a white woman to identify as a black woman? Somebody must have a way to rationalize this double-standard.
I don't have a problem with somebody identifying as another race. I don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. I do have a problem with unconstitutional, discriminatory, bigoted, and transphobic laws being passed under the false-pretense of "protecting children from sexual predators."

br
You just said that you don't have a problem with someone identifying as an animal. So are you then ok with that person having the same rights protections and privileges as the animal he identifies as? For example, if I identify as a dog, are you ok with me shitting on the sidewalk or on a park as long as a human picks it up when I'm done? Please answer yes or no and explain.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Apr 27 2016, 06:54 PM Post #165
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 27 2016, 06:32 PM
sirbrianwilson
Apr 27 2016, 03:56 PM
It violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates against people based on their gender. It also violates an individual's right to privacy by forcing people to out themselves. It violates title IX because public institutions which receive public funds will be discriminating based on gender it also will potentially force people to undergo medical treatment they may not want or even be advised against just to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.

I think the court will strike down the law on all of the above accounts. It is blatantly unconstitutional. And, quite frankly, an embarrassment for our nation. The world is laughing at us.
Every single bit of what you said assumes that someone agrees with your notion that gender is not a physical attribute. The lack of acceptance that it is not universally defined the way you define it is something you have accused others of doing -- not being able to see the point of both sides of the issue. The fact that you say it is 'blatantly unconstitutional' to me says you either underestimate what the term blatant is or the term unconstitutional. It may be ruled unconstitutional but it most definitely is not a slam dunk case.
Www.dictionary.com/browse/gender

here's how I see it...I know there are trans-phobic àssholes out there. I know there are people who would prefer to "keep our state straight." And I know that makes it not a "slam dunk" in your eyes. I can understand that, but I really don't see a stronger argument on the other side. When this bill is deemed unconstitutional, there will be much celebration and some grumbling. But eventually it will be celebrated and looked back on as a win against a shameful time in our cultural history. Similar to a brown v BOE ruling is viewed.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 30

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy