North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Neutraligon]

How is that better? It's more expensive and less load-effective.

You just described compromise.

That doesn't solve the problem in buildings that would be grandfathered in. Since those buildings tend to stick around there would need to be a solution to deal with buildings that only have 2 restrooms.

[Wallenburg]

You just described compromise.

That doesn't solve the problem in buildings that would be grandfathered in. Since those buildings tend to stick around there would need to be a solution to deal with buildings that only have 2 restrooms.

They are converted, of course. We didn't make exceptions for existing buildings with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[Neutraligon]

That doesn't solve the problem in buildings that would be grandfathered in. Since those buildings tend to stick around there would need to be a solution to deal with buildings that only have 2 restrooms.

They are converted, of course. We didn't make exceptions for existing buildings with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

[Galloism]

They are converted, of course. We didn't make exceptions for existing buildings with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

Also, renovations to comply with the Americans with disability act in preexisting buildings is subsidized with a tax credit, passed by a congress not allergic to disabled people.

[Neutraligon]

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

Also, renovations to comply with the Americans with disability act in preexisting buildings is subsidized with a tax credit, passed by a congress not allergic to disabled people.

That too. Adding a third restroom is a very large expense, making 1 wheelchair accessible restroom in a building need not be because typically that would include removing a single toilet to make a wider stall, possibly increasing the door width and a few other normally relatively minor changes.

[Wallenburg]

They are converted, of course. We didn't make exceptions for existing buildings with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

Meh, that's not really true.

The largest misconception by business owners under Title III is the standard for existing facilities. There is no “grandfather clause” exempting older facilities. Instead, older facilities are obligated to make changes that are “readily achievable”—or which can be made without great expense or effort.

Under Title III of the ADA, all “new construction” (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the ADAAG.

Title III is also applicable to existing facilities. One of the definitions of “discrimination” under Title III of the ADA is a “failure to remove” architectural barriers in existing facilities. This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations to bring their facilities into compliance with the ADAAG. The standard is whether “removing barriers” (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is “readily achievable,” defined as “easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense.”

The statutory definition of “readily achievable” calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed “fix” and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be “readily achievable” for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to Title III; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the “maximum extent feasible” but if following the usual standards would “threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building” then alternative standards may be used.

There are exceptions, but they are hardly as extensive as just exempting all historical buildings. Similarly, incorporating gender-neutral restrooms, whether partially or in full, would have some exceptions, but probably nothing broad or sweeping for entire classes of public buildings.

[Neutraligon]

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

Meh, that's not really true.

The largest misconception by business owners under Title III is the standard for existing facilities. There is no “grandfather clause” exempting older facilities. Instead, older facilities are obligated to make changes that are “readily achievable”—or which can be made without great expense or effort.

Under Title III of the ADA, all “new construction” (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the ADAAG.

Title III is also applicable to existing facilities. One of the definitions of “discrimination” under Title III of the ADA is a “failure to remove” architectural barriers in existing facilities. This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations to bring their facilities into compliance with the ADAAG. The standard is whether “removing barriers” (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is “readily achievable,” defined as “easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense.”

The statutory definition of “readily achievable” calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed “fix” and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be “readily achievable” for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to Title III; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the “maximum extent feasible” but if following the usual standards would “threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building” then alternative standards may be used.

There are exceptions, but they are hardly as extensive as just exempting all historical buildings. Similarly, incorporating gender-neutral restrooms, whether partially or in full, would have some exceptions, but probably nothing broad or sweeping for entire classes of public buildings.

As I mentioned the number of restrooms for that act did not need to increase, and for the most part the changes would have been relatively simple and not very costly. There were exceptions like showing that it would have been to costly to change existing restrooms for the group.

[Grenartia]

1. Who gives a fuck about the safety of trans people, amirite?

2. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, as we all know. So really, the schools are quite centrist when it comes to reality.



1. Read. My. Sig. Then as yourself why I, of all people, would call for something which oppresses people outside the gender binary.

2. What I said was meant as a guideline to distinguish between legitimate identities and transphobic "jokes" like the attack helicopter meme.

3. So, you'd be perfectly fine with this guy in a women's locker room? After all, he was born with a vagina (and most transmen don't opt for bottom surgery due to its inadequacies), so he obviously belongs with fellow vagina owners.



4. Gender isn't biological, its psychological.



Good luck convincing your fellow conservatives to spend tax money on a 3rd restroom in every public building.



1. And? This generation is capable of the same thing.

2. Non sequitur.

3. Fallacy of relative privation.

4. So you have no problem with us being beaten, raped, and/or killed? To say nothing of the fact that you want men in a women's locker room, all the while, screaming and hollering against transwomen in the same room? You make no sense whatsoever.

Allow me to say that you all keep committing Strawman Fallacies.

I never have supported locker room idea.

I'm done with this. People keep misinterpreting my posts, and I see that the only way to preserve common sense, is to drive a rift between it and leftism.

Ok, Now I'm off...

Please, by all means, point out the specific strawmen you feel I've built, and why they're strawmen. I pride myself on being intellectually honest, and dislike the idea of having made a fallacious argument.

[Grenartia]

They are converted, of course. We didn't make exceptions for existing buildings with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Desegregation decreased the number of restrooms needed, not increased. And actually..we did make exceptions. For instance historical buildings need not be wheel chair accessible.

I wonder, if it would be possible to recommission the old "colored" restrooms, and update them with amenities equivalent to the other restrooms.

[Shonburg]

No, wrong. That's further segregating the transgenders and creating an "us/them" relationship. They need to use the restroom that conforms with their gender identity, or we need unisex bathrooms. Those options allow discrimination to disappear, and allow the transgender community the rights they deserve.

1.I'd rather let the larger group (Actual women) have rights.

2.And on the basis of "not hurting their feelings"...

3.1944: young men were storming the beaches of Normandy, selflessly sacrificing everything for their country.

4.2016: young people need a 'safe place' so as not to have their feelings hurt.

5.This whole debate is a first world problem. 6. TG's should just move on and use the room which matches their 'plumbing'.

1. I'm insulted by your use of the term "actual women", I'm as much a woman as any of them. Secondly, allowing women to use the women's restroom is not denying women rights, as that is a clear contradiction.

2. Abuse, assault, and discrimination are not simply "hurt feelings".

3. So? I served in the Peace Corps and would gladly join up if there was ever a threat like Nazi Germany again. Oh wait...the military won't accept me, a healthy and able bodied person willing to fight for my country, because of what is between my legs.

4. See #2

5. Fallacy of relative privation. Just because someone is starving in Somalia doesn't make my struggle go away.

6. Ah yes, because when I'm out at a party in my best dress, highheels, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, high-heels, painted nails, jewelry, carrying a purse, and are clearly possessing of breasts, I should use the men's bathroom.

[Ifreann]

I still am trying to understand how this bill would work considering the number of females who use the men's room when the line to the women's room is too long.

They'll just have to hold it in or face jail.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

1.I'd rather let the larger group (Actual women) have rights.

2.And on the basis of "not hurting their feelings"...

3.1944: young men were storming the beaches of Normandy, selflessly sacrificing everything for their country.

4.2016: young people need a 'safe place' so as not to have their feelings hurt.

5.This whole debate is a first world problem. 6. TG's should just move on and use the room which matches their 'plumbing'.

1. I'm insulted by your use of the term "actual women", I'm as much a woman as any of them. Secondly, allowing women to use the women's restroom is not denying women rights, as that is a clear contradiction.

2. Abuse, assault, and discrimination are not simply "hurt feelings".

3. So? I served in the Peace Corps and would gladly join up if there was ever a threat like Nazi Germany again. Oh wait...the military won't accept me, a healthy and able bodied person willing to fight for my country, because of what is between my legs.

4. See #2

5. Fallacy of relative privation. Just because someone is starving in Somalia doesn't make my struggle go away.

6. Ah yes, because when I'm out at a party in my best dress, highheels, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, high-heels, painted nails, jewelry, carrying a purse, and are clearly possessing of breasts, I should use the men's bathroom.

3. Same. I kinda wanted to be a Navy pilot. Whatever. I'm either going to go into Law or Law Enforcement, depending on if I really feel like scrapping up cash for law school.

[Shonburg]

1. I'm insulted by your use of the term "actual women", I'm as much a woman as any of them. Secondly, allowing women to use the women's restroom is not denying women rights, as that is a clear contradiction.

2. Abuse, assault, and discrimination are not simply "hurt feelings".

3. So? I served in the Peace Corps and would gladly join up if there was ever a threat like Nazi Germany again. Oh wait...the military won't accept me, a healthy and able bodied person willing to fight for my country, because of what is between my legs.

4. See #2

5. Fallacy of relative privation. Just because someone is starving in Somalia doesn't make my struggle go away.

6. Ah yes, because when I'm out at a party in my best dress, highheels, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, high-heels, painted nails, jewelry, carrying a purse, and are clearly possessing of breasts, I should use the men's bathroom.

3. Same. I kinda wanted to be a Navy pilot. Whatever. I'm either going to go into Law or Law Enforcement, depending on if I really feel like scrapping up cash for law school.

For the Army at least, their policy on postop trans people prevents them from service due to "genital mutilation"

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

3. Same. I kinda wanted to be a Navy pilot. Whatever. I'm either going to go into Law or Law Enforcement, depending on if I really feel like scrapping up cash for law school.

For the Army at least, their policy on postop trans people prevents them from service due to "genital mutilation"

3. That goes for all services. Furthermore, pre/non-ops are turned down due to being "Mentally Ill," so no hope for me really. Even if I did get in and wasn't immediately discharged I'd have to wear a male uniform. So, if I want to "Serve and Protect," its gonna have to be in blue.

[Shonburg]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-governor-pat-mccrory-congress-should-step-in-on-bathrooms/ar-BBtdyuY?li=BBnbfcL

So it seems Governor McRory is lashing out everywhere but the source of the problem now.

To quote him:

McCrory said the Left started this fight, and have proved effective opponents.

He met recently with the president of the nation’s largest LGBT group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and came away calling him “Machiavellian.”

[Ifreann]

For the Army at least, their policy on postop trans people prevents them from service due to "genital mutilation"

3. That goes for all services. Furthermore, pre/non-ops are turned down due to being "Mentally Ill," so no hope for me really. Even if I did get in and wasn't immediately discharged I'd have to wear a male uniform. So, if I want to "Serve and Protect," its gonna have to be in blue.

Have you considered becoming a superhero?

[Galloism]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-governor-pat-mccrory-congress-should-step-in-on-bathrooms/ar-BBtdyuY?li=BBnbfcL

So it seems Governor McRory is lashing out everywhere but the source of the problem now.

To quote him:

McCrory said the Left started this fight, and have proved effective opponents.

He met recently with the president of the nation’s largest LGBT group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and came away calling him “Machiavellian.”

He's afraid of mirrors.

If he says "LGBT" three times into a mirror, a FtM transwoman will jump out of the mirror and start kissing him and then stick around to watch him pee.

[Shonburg]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-governor-pat-mccrory-congress-should-step-in-on-bathrooms/ar-BBtdyuY?li=BBnbfcL

So it seems Governor McRory is lashing out everywhere but the source of the problem now.

To quote him:

He's afraid of mirrors.

If he says "LGBT" three times into a mirror, a FtM transwoman will jump out of the mirror and start kissing him and then stick around to watch him pee.

Or is afraid he'll like it.

[Ifreann]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-governor-pat-mccrory-congress-should-step-in-on-bathrooms/ar-BBtdyuY?li=BBnbfcL

So it seems Governor McRory is lashing out everywhere but the source of the problem now.

To quote him:

He's afraid of mirrors.

If he says "LGBT" three times into a mirror, a FtM transwoman will jump out of the mirror and start kissing him and then stick around to watch him pee.

After a lot of soul searching, Bloody Mary has come to realise that he always has been a man deep inside, and would like us to use male pronouns, and call him Bloody Alan.

[Shonburg]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

Furthermore, the bill states;

For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘gender identity’’ shall have the meaning given it in section 249 of title 18 of the United States Code.

Which is;

(4) the term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics;

[The New Falkland Islands]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

He represents my district! IN6! That scumbag!

[The New Falkland Islands]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

He defines gender identity through 18 USC 249 Section (c) Line (4) as: (4) The term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics...

[Gauthier]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

State Nullification: Because it worked so well before

[Shonburg]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

He defines gender identity through 18 USC 249 Section (c) Line (4) as: (4) The term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics...

Added

[Shonburg]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-lawmaker-files-bill-to-counter-obamas-bathroom-directive/ar-BBtdsyO?li=BBnbfcL

So Rep. Luke Messer (R-Ind.) has taken it upon himself to defend NC by filing a bill that would prevent title 9 from applying to state and local policy on restrooms.

Here is the link to the bill http://messer.house.gov/sites/messer.house.gov/files/PUBLIC%20School%20Act%205.18.16.pdf (And IMO it seems like a pretty shoddy piece of work.)

State Nullification: Because it worked so well before

Yep. Totally. Never an issue.