{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/14/2016 2:47:30 AM
11
-
Which federal law?
-
The discrimination ones...
-
Nope, doesn't even fall NEAR the realm of either Constitutional or Federal law
-
Yeah it kinda does
-
Nah, it doesn't You can't generalise laws. [quote]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.[/quote] What life, liberty or property is North Carolina denying with no due process of law? Where does this say that trans people are allowed to be in another person's bathroom? We don't even have stare decisis (jurisprudence) for something like this.
-
It kinda gives people the right to fire refuse service to lgbt people soooo.... That's highly illegal. This already happened and failed dude go away now. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article68961827.html
-
Edited by AurumPrimavera22: 4/14/2016 10:05:13 PMNo, it doesn't. It restricts people from using the facilities made for another in the idea of decency and privacy as they have always been supported. Do you think straight men should be allowed to use the womens' restroom openly? Your link is entirely irrelevant and hyperbolic to the situation. HB2 was for housing discrimination, as the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional. Try again.
-
Except you're wrong... That article wasn't an exaggeration it is also silly to try to restrict who uses what bathroom since there are much more serious issues and the ideas you use are extremely [quote]hyperbolic[/quote]
-
I never said the article was an exaggeration lmao. It's entirely irrelevant. It's a whole other issue, no? It's with housing and directly relates to the refusal of a service based on sexual orientation. What the OP is about is the prevention of people who were not intended to use the facility. These two ideas and ruling are entirely incongruous to one another. It doesn't matter if there are more serious issues, that is a red herring technique. That is entirely besides the OP. And nice job using the word hyperbolic incorrectly because I used an example entirely within the realm of the issue. You brought up an issue completely tangential and then further supported yourself with a Constitutional amendment (Federal law) that devotes no protection to these individuals in context of the dispute.
-
Edited by Nun: 4/15/2016 11:36:03 AMIt's both one law ya fool. And both of those are illegal. This guy isn't one of those things you can argue the Supreme Court would call this an animus and will be struck down with the same ruling. Btw this may be a shock but the constitution protects all people... http://associatesmind.com/2013/06/26/what-is-unconstitutional-animus/
-
It's pretty dumb
