The "bathroom law" thread

[Predicto]

Maybe I am too old, but I dont care about urinal spacing anymore - we both know why we are here... I am not interested in peaking at anyones pepper but mine to ensure I am on target...

 

 

Yep.  And if someone peeks at mine, it's only going to make them sad and bitterly jealous.  

I don't think this whole movement is anything other than an obvious move by social conservatives to assert their beliefs on the masses.

 

 

No.  This whole thing is an obvious move by social conservative politicians and think tanks to galvanize social conservative voters, make them think that their values are under attack, and thus get them out to the polls.   They don't care about the actual issue.  They care about stirring up the outrage.   It happens every election.   

[Larry]

No.  This whole thing is an obvious move by social conservative politicians and think tanks to galvanize social conservative voters, make them think that their values are under attack, and thus get them out to the polls.   They don't care about the actual issue.  They care about stirring up the outrage.   It happens every election.

Yep.

It's a "get to the polls and vote Republican, or the gays will rape your daughter".

[Predicto]

These are laws in search of a problem to solve.

 

 

Oh no.  There is a real problem being solved here.  

 

The problem is conservative voter apathy.

[Zguy28]

Well, they keep telling people that they can't pass laws mandating discrimination. (Thus forcing us to keep passing more laws, mandating discrimination.)

Heck, they're even trying to take away our right to discriminate.

---

I keep flashing back to the fact that the issues which caused the Religious Right to come into existence, in the first place, their reson for existing as a political force, was in the 70s, and their desire to pass legislation discriminating against gays, based on their claim that gays were out there plotting to steal your children, if we don't discriminate against them. This actually is the reason why they became politically active, in the first place, IMO.

 

I personally agree with anti-discrimination laws. What defines a protected class may be disagreed upon, but I adhere to the laws of the land.

 

That being said, you can't say that social liberals are not asserting their beliefs (which there is nothing wrong with by the way). The whole progressive movement is about that. Let's not pretend when the side we agree with does X, its not X, but when the opposition does X, its very bad X. (and X is not referring to discrimation specifically, its asserting and promoting beliefs into public policy generally)

[twa]

Yep.

It's a "get to the polls and vote Republican, or the gays will rape your daughter".

 

They don't even want me to shower with her.....Durn bigots

[TheGoodBits]

They don't even want me to shower with her.....Durn bigots

Was this twa officially coming out of the closet on ES?

[Larry]

That being said, you can't say that social liberals are not asserting their beliefs (which there is nothing wrong with by the way). The whole progressive movement is about that. Let's not pretend when the side we agree with does X, its not X, but when the opposition does X, its very bad X.

The problem with the whole "both sides are pushing their beliefs" thing, though, is the attempt to at least imply that this makes both sides morally equal.

 

(Or, as we're seeing here, the attempt to say that the folks who are morally wrong are somehow justified in the wrongs which they are legislating, by painting themselves as defending themselves from the opposing, attacking, forces.) 

 

To cherry pick an extreme example, then the two sides are . . .

 

1)  People who think the black folks shouldn't be allowed to have sex with white women.

2)  And people who think it should be legal.

 

. . . then yes, two sides are both attempting to push their beliefs on society.  But that doesn't make them morally equal. 

[justice98]

I can just imagine the mayhem if all this leads to unisex bathrooms everywhere. Can you imagine going to the ballpark and having 40k using unisex bathrooms?

[Zguy28]

The problem with the whole "both sides are pushing their beliefs" thing, though, is the attempt to at least imply that this makes both sides morally equal.

 

(Or, as we're seeing here, the attempt to say that the folks who are morally wrong are somehow justified in the wrongs which they are legislating, by painting themselves as defending themselves from the opposing, attacking, forces.) 

 

To cherry pick an extreme example, then the two sides are . . .

 

1)  People who think the black folks shouldn't be allowed to have sex with white women.

2)  And people who think it should be legal.

 

. . . then yes, two sides are both attempting to push their beliefs on society.  But that doesn't make them morally equal. 

Who decides what is moral and what is not? Is it the SCOTUS?

[Larry]

Who decides what is moral and what is not? Is it the SCOTUS?

 

I know it when I see it. 

 

(Some times.  I'll freely admit, there are times when I can see that both sides actually have legitimate arguments, and I think it's a tough call.)

 

(This isn't one of them.) 

[twa]

Was this twa officially coming out of the closet on ES?

 

Are you trying to define/limit me? ....I'm feeling oppressed 

[Zguy28]

I know it when I see it. 

 

(Some times.  I'll freely admit, there are times when I can see that both sides actually have legitimate arguments, and I think it's a tough call.)

 

(This isn't one of them.) 

So, basically Larry determines the morality or moral equality of two things?

[Larry]

So, basically Larry determines the morality or moral equality of two things?

 

Sure. 

 

Don't you? 

 

There is no other way to make such decisions. 

 

Yes, society has come to consensus over a lot of things.  And it's possible to argue about whether there are certain principals thought to be given weight.  ("Do unto others", "Your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose".)  And it is possible to construct arguments, employing said principals, to attempt to sway others' opinions on the topic. 

 

But moral decisions cannot be decided any way other than by individual opinions.  Just like any other type of "judgement call", like the best football team or the best movie. 

[Bang]

PM sent. And since I can't corroborate it and therefore its gossip, I'm going to remove my post on it. My apologies to all.

Thanks! reply sent.

I totally get where you're coming from in that regard.

 

 

I think I feel for cops now who are going to have to walk a thin line in handling what I am sure will be and has been a spate of calls to bathroom transgressions, be it in a state with one of these laws, and those without.

I think they'll be in a no-win situation, and sometimes will look awful just trying to defuse a situation that could turn into a full on witch hunt.

 

~Bang

[Zguy28]

Sure. 

 

Don't you? 

 

There is no other way to make such decisions. 

 

Yes, society has come to consensus over a lot of things.  And it's possible to argue about whether there are certain principals thought to be given weight.  ("Do unto others", "Your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose".)  And it is possible to construct arguments, employing said principals, to attempt to sway others' opinions on the topic. 

 

But moral decisions cannot be decided any way other than by individual opinions.  Just like any other type of "judgement call", like the best football team or the best movie. 

Now you know me better than that Larry. I believe in the existence of objective moral values that flow from a Lawgiver.

[Hersh]

I personally agree with anti-discrimination laws. What defines a protected class may be disagreed upon, but I adhere to the laws of the land.

 

That being said, you can't say that social liberals are not asserting their beliefs (which there is nothing wrong with by the way). The whole progressive movement is about that. Let's not pretend when the side we agree with does X, its not X, but when the opposition does X, its very bad X. (and X is not referring to discrimation specifically, its asserting and promoting beliefs into public policy generally)

 

Your back and forth with Larry aside, I still would like you to define what it is the social liberals are pushing and, if you want, how that impacts religious conservatives.

[Zguy28]

Your back and forth with Larry aside, I still would like you to define what it is the social liberals are pushing and, if you want, how that impacts religious conservatives.

Would you say that including sexual orientation as a protected class was not pushed by social liberals? Or literally redefining the term marriage. I would say that has a huge impact on religious conservatives. Just ask the folks who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or to photograph one and are facing large monetary fines. But you already know this, even though you don't agree with it and call it discrimination.

 

Do you really feel the need to rehash all that?

[Larry]

Edit:

Deleted post. (And apologies for not doing it sooner.)

Off topic, and been beaten to death already.

[Hersh]

Would you say that including sexual orientation as a protected class was not pushed by social liberals? Or literally redefining the term marriage. I would say that has a huge impact on religious conservatives. Just ask the folks who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or to photograph one and are facing large monetary fines. But you already know this, even though you don't agree with it and call it discrimination.

 

Do you really feel the need to rehash all that?

 

How does including sexual orientation as a protected class impact your life or the lives of social conservatives?  

[thebluefood]

Funny I should see this thread today. I just came home from a meeting with an old professor of mine.

 

House Bill 2 ("The Bathroom Bill") has dominated the headlines here in North Carolina. It's a madhouse here, as I'm sure you've heard.

 

I've done a couple stories on it and I hoping to put a discussion together at the university about the bill's constitutionality.

 

In other words: "is House Bill 2 Legal?" In some respects, it's an obvious "no" but there is a serious case to be made for its legality, too (or, so some of my contacts have told me)

 

Hoping to get that set up by the week after Labor Day. If any of our resident legal eagles would like to weigh in as I put this together, I'd appreciate it.

[Larry]

As far as it's constitutionality, I would assume that that would depend on the SC's ruling on whether trans people are a protected class.  (Or something similar.  Whether they are entitled to an enhanced scrutiny, or something similar.) 

 

And my impression is that the SC decides whether a class is entitled to such protection, by looking at how many subordinate jurisdictions have passed legislation protecting it.  In effect, the SC ruling is at least partially based on the will of the voters. 

 

(If you happen to have some research into stories about the law - Whether there's been cases where the law would have helped, whether people have broken it, how many "false arrests" have been made, under it, things like that - I'd love to see them here.  This thread could use some more knowledge and research.) 

[Destino]

I think these laws as they relate to bathrooms are simple.  I personally do not care what bathrooms trans people use because I do not care which bathroom anyone uses.  So long as everyone goes about their business it's really all the same thing.  Where things would be less easy would be in locker rooms and areas where people are in a state of undress.  If you don't think so, imagine being the security/attendant/cop the first time a mom with her daughter encounter a swinging D sauntering back from the showers and mom freaks out.  I promise you whoever has to deal with it is going to have themselves a memorable day.   

[twa]

if which bathroom should not matter why is having them use the one under the law a issue?

 

Maybe we need to segregate them by age instead instead of sex

[Destino]

if which bathroom should not matter why is having them use the one under the law a issue?

 

Maybe we need to segregate them by age instead instead of sex

 

Because men don't want to wait in line.  Don't ruin this for us TWA.

[twa]

Because men don't want to wait in line.  Don't ruin this for us TWA.

 

Heh, men will piss anywhere......maybe they should make that legal