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
  • …
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • …
  • 30
Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,718 Views)
brumdog44 May 2 2016, 06:08 PM Post #301
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Tolerance and maturity are not legal principles. If they were solutions, there would be no hate crime legislation. There would be no need for legislation based on discrimination. There would no affirmative action. There would be no need for disability rights laws.

There was, and is, need for legal principles based on what classes need protection and what actions constitute discriminatory practice.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 2 2016, 06:28 PM Post #302
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
May 2 2016, 06:08 PM
Tolerance and maturity are not legal principles. If they were solutions, there would be no hate crime legislation. There would be no need for legislation based on discrimination. There would no affirmative action. There would be no need for disability rights laws.

There was, and is, need for legal principles based on what classes need protection and what actions constitute discriminatory practice.
Hmmm. You make a fair point. But isn't the lack of a law in this case giving the transgendered community equal rights (along with everyone else)?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 2 2016, 06:56 PM Post #303
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dreachon
May 2 2016, 06:28 PM
brumdog44
May 2 2016, 06:08 PM
Tolerance and maturity are not legal principles. If they were solutions, there would be no hate crime legislation. There would be no need for legislation based on discrimination. There would no affirmative action. There would be no need for disability rights laws.

There was, and is, need for legal principles based on what classes need protection and what actions constitute discriminatory practice.
Hmmm. You make a fair point. But isn't the lack of a law in this case giving the transgendered community equal rights (along with everyone else)?
Only if you assume that it is a right and if you assume that it isn't an infringement of other's rights.

You must also keep in mind that transgender is not a federally protected class which would then mean it is left up to the states.

I think that an argument can be made for making transgender a federally protected class and it can be argued whether restroom usage is contained within that. However, unless this is a federal decision -- a federal law -- I think that a state courts can only rule on this based on the state's laws. In terms of the Supreme Court ruling on this, I don't see how they can rule it to be a protected class unless the state has deemed it so. North Carolina clearly has not. It's different when we are talking about sexual orientation -- a federally protected class.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 2 2016, 08:48 PM Post #304
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
May 2 2016, 06:56 PM
dreachon
May 2 2016, 06:28 PM
brumdog44
May 2 2016, 06:08 PM
Tolerance and maturity are not legal principles. If they were solutions, there would be no hate crime legislation. There would be no need for legislation based on discrimination. There would no affirmative action. There would be no need for disability rights laws.

There was, and is, need for legal principles based on what classes need protection and what actions constitute discriminatory practice.
Hmmm. You make a fair point. But isn't the lack of a law in this case giving the transgendered community equal rights (along with everyone else)?
Only if you assume that it is a right and if you assume that it isn't an infringement of other's rights.

You must also keep in mind that transgender is not a federally protected class which would then mean it is left up to the states.

I think that an argument can be made for making transgender a federally protected class and it can be argued whether restroom usage is contained within that. However, unless this is a federal decision -- a federal law -- I think that a state courts can only rule on this based on the state's laws. In terms of the Supreme Court ruling on this, I don't see how they can rule it to be a protected class unless the state has deemed it so. North Carolina clearly has not. It's different when we are talking about sexual orientation -- a federally protected class.

Well, I do believe they will be made a federally protected class in the near future, so maybe that's why I feel less concerned about establishing new law.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 3 2016, 01:54 AM Post #305
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
That's pretty much the reason why I disengaged here. WHEN they become a protected class, this conversation will be pointless.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 3 2016, 07:00 AM Post #306
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
May 3 2016, 01:54 AM
That's pretty much the reason why I disengaged here. WHEN they become a protected class, this conversation will be pointless.
Becoming a federally protected class doesn't end the conversation. At that point it still becomes a matter of what those protections mean. If it's spelled out in legislation, so be it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 May 3 2016, 07:31 AM Post #307
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
My take on this issue:

USA Today Article on Bathroom Issue

I didn't write the article obviously, but I cannot disagree with it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 3 2016, 08:04 AM Post #308
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
rkl15
May 3 2016, 07:31 AM
My take on this issue:

USA Today Article on Bathroom Issue

I didn't write the article obviously, but I cannot disagree with it!
I mean, pretty much nail on the head right there.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 3 2016, 10:44 AM Post #309
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
rkl15
May 3 2016, 07:31 AM
My take on this issue:

USA Today Article on Bathroom Issue

I didn't write the article obviously, but I cannot disagree with it!
do like.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 5 2016, 12:30 AM Post #310
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/US/justice-department-ncs-anti-lgbt-law-violates-us/story?id=38882535
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 5 2016, 06:28 AM Post #311
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
bri -- you have argued that gender identity and sex are not the same thing. Title 9 SPECIFICALLY deals with sex discrimination -- there is no mention of gender identity anywhere to be found in it.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

If you are agreeing with the DOJ's interpretation, then you have to agree with the argument that gender identity is a sex. Are you now going to make that argument? IMO, the bathroom law has the possibility of being struck down, but it will not be because of Title 9 -- complete misapplication of that law.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 5 2016, 07:28 AM Post #312
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
May 5 2016, 06:28 AM
bri -- you have argued that gender identity and sex are not the same thing. Title 9 SPECIFICALLY deals with sex discrimination -- there is no mention of gender identity anywhere to be found in it.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

If you are agreeing with the DOJ's interpretation, then you have to agree with the argument that gender identity is a sex. Are you now going to make that argument? IMO, the bathroom law has the possibility of being struck down, but it will not be because of Title 9 -- complete misapplication of that law.
Just out of curiosity, would post-op transgender qualify?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 5 2016, 11:50 AM Post #313
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dreachon
May 5 2016, 07:28 AM
brumdog44
May 5 2016, 06:28 AM
bri -- you have argued that gender identity and sex are not the same thing. Title 9 SPECIFICALLY deals with sex discrimination -- there is no mention of gender identity anywhere to be found in it.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

If you are agreeing with the DOJ's interpretation, then you have to agree with the argument that gender identity is a sex. Are you now going to make that argument? IMO, the bathroom law has the possibility of being struck down, but it will not be because of Title 9 -- complete misapplication of that law.
Just out of curiosity, would post-op transgender qualify?
I believe so, as I think that most (if not all) states recognize it as a change of sex.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 13 2016, 09:49 PM Post #314
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 07:00 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 06:28 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 06:10 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 05:24 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 05:10 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 04:48 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2016, 04:33 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 04:23 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2016, 04:18 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 04:11 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
They aren't forced. Forced would mean that is the only option. It's not. Where are we that providing extra accommodations is now 'forcing'?
That was Aarons question. If all three are available should trans people be forced to use the family restroom. That's what I thought he was asking anyways.
I think the question was about whether they should be allowed to use either the restroom of their physical sex or the unisex bathroom as opposed to their gender identity.
Yes. Dreach, are you with Brian that a person should be able to use the bathroom that they are more comfortable with even if that is the opposite of their biological sex and a unisex bathroom is available ?
Yes. Otherwise we would need a law saying they can't, which I'm against. Though I do think the overwhelming majority of the time, they would choose the unisex bathroom.
ok, so I'm curious. I am a straight white non trans male. Do you give me the same consideration? If I'm more comfortable in the women's restroom, is that where I should be allowed to go? I'm not talking about irregular situations with kids, or elderly, a disgustingly dirty men's restroom or lack of changing tables...etc. just a regular old situation where I need to pee and I determine that I'm more comfortable in the women's restroom. What do you say?
When is this actually a real life situation though? I prefer to deal in reality.

But, to answer your question, since I'm against a law telling you that you can't, then sure. There are probably lots of situations where it doesn't say you specifically can't do something but no one actually does because it doesn't make any sense. As long as everyone acts like mature adults. I really don't think there would ever be an issue. You're essentially describing unisex bathrooms, which we know work just fine.
Ok, fair enough. So the same thing then for a high school boy? If he feels more comfortable in the girls bathroom then that's the one he should be allowed to be in at school?
He's not an adult. He doesn't get to make that decision. Schools and locker rooms are inherently different situations.
This is why I posed the original question to you about schools. This IMO is the most overreaching I've seen from an executive order: the federal government telling states what to do in their public schools -- not only in the bathroom but in locker rooms as well.....at the potential cost of losing federal funding for disobeying it -- despite the guidelines NOT being law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/index.html

"The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding."

...."Schools should let transgender students use bathrooms, locker rooms and other sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the guidance."....."Schools cannot require students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate before treating them consistent with their gender identity, the guidance states."
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 13 2016, 10:10 PM Post #315
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
May 13 2016, 09:49 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 07:00 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 06:28 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 06:10 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 05:24 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 05:10 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 30 2016, 04:48 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2016, 04:33 PM
dreachon
Apr 30 2016, 04:23 PM
brumdog44
Apr 30 2016, 04:18 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
That was Aarons question. If all three are available should trans people be forced to use the family restroom. That's what I thought he was asking anyways.
I think the question was about whether they should be allowed to use either the restroom of their physical sex or the unisex bathroom as opposed to their gender identity.
Yes. Dreach, are you with Brian that a person should be able to use the bathroom that they are more comfortable with even if that is the opposite of their biological sex and a unisex bathroom is available ?
Yes. Otherwise we would need a law saying they can't, which I'm against. Though I do think the overwhelming majority of the time, they would choose the unisex bathroom.
ok, so I'm curious. I am a straight white non trans male. Do you give me the same consideration? If I'm more comfortable in the women's restroom, is that where I should be allowed to go? I'm not talking about irregular situations with kids, or elderly, a disgustingly dirty men's restroom or lack of changing tables...etc. just a regular old situation where I need to pee and I determine that I'm more comfortable in the women's restroom. What do you say?
When is this actually a real life situation though? I prefer to deal in reality.

But, to answer your question, since I'm against a law telling you that you can't, then sure. There are probably lots of situations where it doesn't say you specifically can't do something but no one actually does because it doesn't make any sense. As long as everyone acts like mature adults. I really don't think there would ever be an issue. You're essentially describing unisex bathrooms, which we know work just fine.
Ok, fair enough. So the same thing then for a high school boy? If he feels more comfortable in the girls bathroom then that's the one he should be allowed to be in at school?
He's not an adult. He doesn't get to make that decision. Schools and locker rooms are inherently different situations.
This is why I posed the original question to you about schools. This IMO is the most overreaching I've seen from an executive order: the federal government telling states what to do in their public schools -- not only in the bathroom but in locker rooms as well.....at the potential cost of losing federal funding for disobeying it -- despite the guidelines NOT being law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/index.html

"The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding."

...."Schools should let transgender students use bathrooms, locker rooms and other sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the guidance."....."Schools cannot require students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate before treating them consistent with their gender identity, the guidance states."
Yeah that seems like a bad idea. Forget leaving it up to the states, individual districts probably need authority over how they're going to handle this. While one school might have lots of bathrooms and money to make changes easy, another may be severely overcrowded and lacking the funds to make significant changes.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • …
  • 30

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:53 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy