North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Kannap]

Just because you don't personally participate in assaulting queer people doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for what happens as a result of the bigoted laws you support and the environment your support creates.

i don't believe in guilt by association

sorry, not sorry

You don't have to feel guilty, though that doesn't change the fact that you are allowing these things to happen by supporting laws like this.

[Linux and the X]

Just because you don't personally participate in assaulting queer people doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for what happens as a result of the bigoted laws you support and the environment your support creates.

i don't believe in guilt by association

sorry, not sorry

It's not "guilt by association" when you're actively in support of harming people.

[Kannap]

Most politicians will answer to corporations, interestingly. They couldn't give a shit what the average Joe thinks until the money starts tumbling away.

I hope the Democrats in the NC General Assembly have enough backbone to refuse to pass a mere repeal, and instead demand active protection of trans rights. But I know they don't really give enough of a fuck about us to do that.

If it happens before November, they'll probably settle for a repeal because they're outnumbered by Republicans anyway and would just be outvoted on anything they try to do beyond a repeal.

Now, I would be sure that if Roy Cooper were elected governor in November and Democrats sweep the elections in November, some progress could begin to be made.

[District XIV]

Most politicians will answer to corporations, interestingly. They couldn't give a shit what the average Joe thinks until the money starts tumbling away.

I hope the Democrats in the NC General Assembly have enough backbone to refuse to pass a mere repeal, and instead demand active protection of trans rights. But I know they don't really give enough of a fuck about us to do that.

The Democrats have a minority in both houses of the NC GA. Realistically, there is no way they could pass additional protections for LGBT people, even if they could get a repeal through.

i don't believe in guilt by association

sorry, not sorry

It's not "guilt by association" when you're actively in support of harming people.

Last I checked, Luepola isn't in favour of harming LGBT people just because of their sexuality. This guilt by association, slippery slope and appeal to emotion argument doesn't work.

[Talanis Collective]

ignoring the fact that im not a bigot because im extremely tolerant of lgbt and other movements i oppose, why is being a bigot inherently evil?

besides, i support letting states decide, rather than squelching support for or opposition to LGBT at the federal level. wouldn't that be less bigoted by being fairer (more tolerant, if you will) to all sides?

No, that would not be less bigoted or fairer to all sides, because the south would jump on the first chances to oppress the rights of LGBT people. That is why the rest of us cannot sit around and allow that to happen, because if you stay neutral in times of oppression, you've chosen the side of the oppressor. It is simply unconstitutional to allow discrimination against LGBT people or to bar same sex couples from marrying or to bar transgender people from using their proper identified restroom. Why do you insist on supporting laws that are unconstitutional?

As a southerner, I'm not a fan of the generalization. If it were directed at a racial or sexual group, people would jump down the poster's throat. As far as the neutral thing, I disagree. I neither support nor oppose the bill because it really won't change much either way. Seriously, what does it matter where people pop a squat? I'd actually prefer if all bathrooms were unisex, mainly because then more men might bother to aim or wipe of the seats if they thought a woman might use it next. I've supported gay rights since middle school, way before it was "cool" anywhere, especially the south. I even support the rights of people to get sex changes to make them happier and more comfortable. That said, I don't give a wet fart if they get to use the bathroom with the stick figure they find most fitting on the door. I will always support equal rights, but never "special" rights. Suck it up and either hold it until you get home or find a place with one of those single-person locking bathrooms. Crisis averted.

[Luepola]

i don't believe in guilt by association

sorry, not sorry

You don't have to feel guilty, though that doesn't change the fact that you are allowing these things to happen by supporting laws like this.

no 'discrimination' law legalizes the redneck at the airport to throw a punch at the gay guy in line next to him

no anti discrimination law will stop this

my support of non-pro-lgbt bills has absolutely no effect on said assaults and to claim otherwise is factually incorrect

[Thermodolia]

No, that would not be less bigoted or fairer to all sides, because the south would jump on the first chances to oppress the rights of LGBT people. That is why the rest of us cannot sit around and allow that to happen, because if you stay neutral in times of oppression, you've chosen the side of the oppressor. It is simply unconstitutional to allow discrimination against LGBT people or to bar same sex couples from marrying or to bar transgender people from using their proper identified restroom. Why do you insist on supporting laws that are unconstitutional?

As a southerner, I'm not a fan of the generalization. If it were directed at a racial or sexual group, people would jump down the poster's throat. As far as the neutral thing, I disagree. I neither support nor oppose the bill because it really won't change much either way. Seriously, what does it matter where people pop a squat? I'd actually prefer if all bathrooms were unisex, mainly because then more men might bother to aim or wipe of the seats if they thought a woman might use it next. I've supported gay rights since middle school, way before it was "cool" anywhere, especially the south. I even support the rights of people to get sex changes to make them happier and more comfortable. That said, I don't give a wet fart if they get to use the bathroom with the stick figure they find most fitting on the door. I will always support equal rights, but never "special" rights. Suck it up and either hold it until you get home or find a place with one of those single-person locking bathrooms. Crisis averted.

Just so you are aware Kannap is from the south as well.

[Linux and the X]

Last I checked, Luepola isn't in favour of harming LGBT people just because of their sexuality. This guilt by association, slippery slope and appeal to emotion argument doesn't work.

They support a law that actively endangers trans women. So yes, they hold (partial) responsibility when a trans woman is harmed by it.

my support of non-pro-lgbt bills has absolutely no effect on said assaults and to claim otherwise is factually incorrect

You support a law that forces trans women to use the men's bathroom, actively putting them at risk.

[Talanis Collective]

Just so you are aware Kannap is from the south as well.

Pfeh, probably somewhere stupid like Florida or Texas. They don't count In all seriousness, though, only the older generations and the most uneducated (see: conservative) actively oppose LGBT rights in my state, so regardless of Kannap's origins, I'm not a fan of the lumping.

[Kannap]

As a southerner, I'm not a fan of the generalization.

As a southerner, I am surprised that you don't see that the overwhelming majority of the deep south is conservative and anti-LGBT and would be readily willing to jump on writing up some anti-same sex marriage laws if the Supreme Court didn't disallow it. All in the name of "religious freedom." Because as long as us Christians have the right to be discriminatory, disrespectful, and superior, who cares about the rights of minorities?

As far as the neutral thing, I disagree.

You can disagree all you like, but choosing to be neutral during times of oppression is choosing the side of the oppressor. Being neutral only benefits the oppressor because you're not willing to step in and stop them while they do their oppressing. Being neutral only serves to harm the oppressed because you're doing nothing to help them against the oppressor.

I've supported gay rights since middle school, way before it was "cool" anywhere, especially the south. I even support the rights of people to get sex changes to make them happier and more comfortable.

Congratulations on being a decent human being...

I will always support equal rights, but never "special" rights.

...Nevermind, I take the congratulations back. If I use the male bathroom because I am male, then what makes it a "special" right for a transgender man to use the male bathroom when he is also male. It's just basic human rights.

[Luepola]

wew lads i missed this one

ignoring the fact that im not a bigot because im extremely tolerant of lgbt and other movements i oppose, why is being a bigot inherently evil?

besides, i support letting states decide, rather than squelching support for or opposition to LGBT at the federal level. wouldn't that be less bigoted by being fairer (more tolerant, if you will) to all sides?

No, that would not be less bigoted or fairer to all sides, because the south would jump on the first chances to oppress the rights of LGBT people. That is why the rest of us cannot sit around and allow that to happen, because if you stay neutral in times of oppression, you've chosen the side of the oppressor. It is simply unconstitutional to allow discrimination against LGBT people or to bar same sex couples from marrying or to bar transgender people from using their proper identified restroom. Why do you insist on supporting laws that are unconstitutional?

what does the constitution outline as discrimination? cause im pretty damn sure the constitution does not list lack of bathroom choice as one

gays already have the federally mandated right to marry (a 'gay right' that i don't oppose, though i do oppose how it was implemented) so idk why you are bringing that up

[District XIV]

Last I checked, Luepola isn't in favour of harming LGBT people just because of their sexuality. This guilt by association, slippery slope and appeal to emotion argument doesn't work.

They support a law that actively endangers trans women. So yes, they hold (partial) responsibility when a trans woman is harmed by it.

Don't really wanna feed into Godwin's law here, but I'm gonna. By this logic, any German who voted for Hitler in 1932 is "partially responsible" for the outbreak of World War II, right?

As Luepola stated, no anti-discrimination law or a repeal of a discriminatory law is going to stop people from assaulting LGBT people. When some jackass punches a transgender person, for example, Luepola isn't "partially responsible." That logic doesn't work, and it especially wouldn't work in court.

[Luepola]

Last I checked, Luepola isn't in favour of harming LGBT people just because of their sexuality. This guilt by association, slippery slope and appeal to emotion argument doesn't work.

They support a law that actively endangers trans women. So yes, they hold (partial) responsibility when a trans woman is harmed by it.

my support of non-pro-lgbt bills has absolutely no effect on said assaults and to claim otherwise is factually incorrect

You support a law that forces trans women to use the men's bathroom, actively putting them at risk.

but surely if someone is that opposed to gays to the point where they would assault one then they would come do it regardless of the bathroom segregation laws

funny how i could easily apply kannap's line of reasoning as a valid response here

[Kannap]

Just so you are aware Kannap is from the south as well.

Pfeh, probably somewhere stupid like Florida or Texas. They don't count :p In all seriousness, though, only the older generations and the most uneducated (see: conservative) actively oppose LGBT rights in my state, so regardless of Kannap's origins, I'm not a fan of the lumping.

You've taken two strikes with your guesses, want to go for the third strike?

[Luepola]

Wow...

go on, answer the question

tell me why im so evil for being a bigot

please i really want to know

[Linux and the X]

cause im pretty damn sure the constitution does not list lack of bathroom choice as one

Not directly, but the Supremacy Clause applies.

but surely if someone is that opposed to gays to the point where they would assault one then they would come do it regardless of the bathroom segregation laws

Except that she wouldn't be in the men's bathroom if not for the law you support.

[Liriena]

So, you're not a bigot because you don't actually hate LGBT+ people. You just don't want them to have the same rights as you, and will support the nonsensical, harmful laws to achieve that.

in case you didnt get the memo, tolerance =/= support

intolerance would be me actively shunning, insulting, or attacking gays for being gay, none of which i do

If you are not intolerant towards LGBT+ people, then why do you oppose them having the same rights as you? If you are not trying to actively shun them, why do you support laws that enable the shunning? If you are not intolerant towards LGBT+ people, and wish no harm upon them, by support laws that may put LGBT+ people at a greater risk of being hurt?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be tolerant while supporting laws that sanction intolerance. You can't claim you are not bigoted just because you are not personally abusing LGBT+ people, while at the same time supporting laws that legalize the marginalization of LGBT+ people. You can't claim you are tolerant of LGBT+ people if you don't want them to have equal rights, much in the same way I could not honestly claim to be tolerant towards Jews while opposing any attempts at giving them the same rights as Christians.

Wow...

go on, answer the question

tell me why im so evil for being a bigot

Because being a bigot means you perceive and treat others unfairly on the basis of unreasonable prejudices. Asking why bigotry is evil is like asking why being racist or sexist is evil. If you are not an unabashed racist or sexist yourself, you should be able to understand why without my help.

You support letting a state decide that its cities cannot ban discrimination against LGBT+ people?

i guess limiting ones bathroom usage is apparently tantamount to stripping someone of their right to vote

That is not a proper response to my question.

Unfairly restricting trans people's access to restrooms may not be as horrible as depriving them of the right to vote, but it is a problem. It's a problem that could have very harmful consequences, and all for nothing.

If your only excuse for supporting this nonsensical legislation is that it's not as bad as stripping trans people of the right to vote, then I think it's fair to say you've ran out of excuses.

[Talanis Collective]

As a southerner, I'm not a fan of the generalization.

As a southerner, I am surprised that you don't see that the overwhelming majority of the deep south is conservative and anti-LGBT and would be readily willing to jump on writing up some anti-same sex marriage laws if the Supreme Court didn't disallow it. All in the name of "religious freedom." Because as long as us Christians have the right to be discriminatory, disrespectful, and superior, who cares about the rights of minorities?

Firstly, I don't agree that it is an "overwhelming" majority. Every single one of my friends who went to college, even one that once expressed the opinion that gays should all be flayed alive because the Bible said they were bad, ended up being pro-rights. We are from a deep south, country area. As education increases, so does support of these ideals. Also, I'm about as atheist as is humanly possible, so I don't care about Christian ideals.

You can disagree all you like, but choosing to be neutral during times of oppression is choosing the side of the oppressor. Being neutral only benefits the oppressor because you're not willing to step in and stop them while they do their oppressing. Being neutral only serves to harm the oppressed because you're doing nothing to help them against the oppressor.

I don't really see this as oppression. Not even discrimination, really. The law doesn't prevent anyone from living as or identifying as any gender that suits them, just where they can defecate. As far as I know, trans people can still get IDs with their chosen identity on it, even amend their birth certificates. Not sure if this is true for NC, but this law doesn't prohibit it.

...Nevermind, I take the congratulations back. If I use the male bathroom because I am male, then what makes it a "special" right for a transgender man to use the male bathroom when he is also male. It's just basic human rights.

See, bathroom availability is not a human right. Unless local, state, or federal health regulations demand it, public bathrooms aren't even required for businesses. I have deeper, more complex opinions on certain aspects of this issue, but they aren't essential to this situation. The fact is, wanting special recognition to use a certain bathroom is not protected by the constitution and not vital to one's ability to live as their desired gender. The impact of this law is more spiritual rather than practical, and no one's life is ruined by either its existence or non-existence.

[Thermodolia]

Just so you are aware Kannap is from the south as well.

Pfeh, probably somewhere stupid like Florida or Texas. They don't count In all seriousness, though, only the older generations and the most uneducated (see: conservative) actively oppose LGBT rights in my state, so regardless of Kannap's origins, I'm not a fan of the lumping.

Kannap is from NC btw.

[Liriena]

not vital to one's ability to live as their desired gender.

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

[Talanis Collective]

Pfeh, probably somewhere stupid like Florida or Texas. They don't count In all seriousness, though, only the older generations and the most uneducated (see: conservative) actively oppose LGBT rights in my state, so regardless of Kannap's origins, I'm not a fan of the lumping.

You've taken two strikes with your guesses, want to go for the third strike?

I was joking, as the little face indicated. I like to inject humor when possible.

[Thermodolia]

not vital to one's ability to live as their desired gender.

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

A good bit if I had to guess.

[Talanis Collective]

not vital to one's ability to live as their desired gender.

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

[Linux and the X]

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

[Kannap]

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Of course, they can just go in the street. Nobody needs a bathroom for them to use. It's not like when you've got to go, you've got to go