North Carolina Overturns LGBT-Discrimination Bans

[This account no longer in use.]

This 'slippery slope' argument doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned, people can't marry children, because children don't understand the consequences of marriage and can't give consent. People can't marry animals, because animals can't give consent.

[afleitch]

What I am trying to figure out is how far does "Not judging and giving people their expression rights" go?

We are at a point right now where liberals say we are terrible people unless we agree that men who say they identify as women should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

Are we on track to say, "If that person wants to have sex with children, we shouldn't judge..." ?? I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn? That's what I'm asking.

Why does that pre-occupy you? And that's a serious question.

[Reaganfan]

Why does that pre-occupy you? And that's a serious question.

These things pre-occupy me because I don't want America to become a lawless society. I keep getting the impression that liberals don't want any laws at all. They want to dismantle institutions because they believe society "holds people back", and they want to enforce their leftist viewpoints, even if it takes away people's individual rights.

Liberals seem to believe in freedom of speech, unless it's anything they disagree with. Then it's dubbed "hate speech" and they force silence.

Liberals seem to preach freedom and respect for rights under the Constitution, unless it's Religious freedoms, which they deem "discriminatory", so then they want to stop it.

Am I wrong?

[SteveRogers]

Why does that pre-occupy you? And that's a serious question.

These things pre-occupy me because I don't want America to become a lawless society. I keep getting the impression that liberals don't want any laws at all. They want to dismantle institutions because they believe society "holds people back", and they want to enforce their leftist viewpoints, even if it takes away people's individual rights.

Liberals seem to believe in freedom of speech, unless it's anything they disagree with. Then it's dubbed "hate speech" and they force silence.

Liberals seem to preach freedom and respect for rights under the Constitution, unless it's Religious freedoms, which they deem "discriminatory", so then they want to stop it.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

[/]

Why does that pre-occupy you? And that's a serious question.

These things pre-occupy me because I don't want America to become a lawless society. I keep getting the impression that liberals don't want any laws at all. They want to dismantle institutions because they believe society "holds people back", and they want to enforce their leftist viewpoints, even if it takes away people's individual rights.

Liberals seem to believe in freedom of speech, unless it's anything they disagree with. Then it's dubbed "hate speech" and they force silence.

Liberals seem to preach freedom and respect for rights under the Constitution, unless it's Religious freedoms, which they deem "discriminatory", so then they want to stop it.

Am I wrong?

We on the left love dismantling government institutions.

[Blair]

What I am trying to figure out is how far does "Not judging and giving people their expression rights" go?

We are at a point right now where liberals say we are terrible people unless we agree that men who say they identify as women should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

Are we on track to say, "If that person wants to have sex with children, we shouldn't judge..." ?? I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn? That's what I'm asking.

There is no line in the sand, liberals won't be happy until men are marrying dogs

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What I am trying to figure out is how far does "Not judging and giving people their expression rights" go?

We are at a point right now where liberals say we are terrible people unless we agree that men who say they identify as women should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

Are we on track to say, "If that person wants to have sex with children, we shouldn't judge..." ?? I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn? That's what I'm asking.

There is no line in the sand, liberals won't be happy until men are marrying dogs

Some conservatives already think men are marrying bitches.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

What I am trying to figure out is how far does "Not judging and giving people their expression rights" go?

We are at a point right now where liberals say we are terrible people unless we agree that men who say they identify as women should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

Are we on track to say, "If that person wants to have sex with children, we shouldn't judge..." ?? I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn? That's what I'm asking.

There is no line in the sand, liberals won't be happy until men are marrying dogs

moderate heroes maybe. real liberals won't be happy until all women are marrying each other and forcing their harems of male slaves to marry dogs for their own amusement

[afleitch]

Why does that pre-occupy you? And that's a serious question.

These things pre-occupy me because I don't want America to become a lawless society. I keep getting the impression that liberals don't want any laws at all. They want to dismantle institutions because they believe society "holds people back", and they want to enforce their leftist viewpoints, even if it takes away people's individual rights.

Liberals seem to believe in freedom of speech, unless it's anything they disagree with. Then it's dubbed "hate speech" and they force silence.

Liberals seem to preach freedom and respect for rights under the Constitution, unless it's Religious freedoms, which they deem "discriminatory", so then they want to stop it.

Am I wrong?

I was asking why your mind wandered to the idea of people having sex with children.

[Badger]

What I am trying to figure out is how far does "Not judging and giving people their expression rights" go?

We are at a point right now where liberals say we are terrible people unless we agree that men who say they identify as women should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

Are we on track to say, "If that person wants to have sex with children, we shouldn't judge..." ?? I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn? That's what I'm asking.

Congratulations. That is officially in the top 50 most idiotic comments in Atlas history. And that's saying a lot.

If you really can't figure out why, you should probably see a neurologist. Seriously.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that a transgender high school student who was born as a female can sue his school board on discrimination grounds because it banned him from the boys’ bathroom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

North Carolina is now clearly in violation of Title IX.

Nope. Court got it wrong again. The student was born a girl, she should use the girls restrooms. This trans stuff is nonsense. There are 2 genders in the human species. Male and female. Why can't these judges use common sense. North Carolina is right.

[Bojack Horseman]

I still think Title IX doesn't apply here, and I doubt that a court would rule that it does. Title IX deals with sex, not gender identity, and it would take a bill passed in Congress to change it.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that a transgender high school student who was born as a female can sue his school board on discrimination grounds because it banned him from the boys’ bathroom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

North Carolina is now clearly in violation of Title IX.

Nope. Court got it wrong again. The student was born a girl, she should use the girls restrooms. This trans stuff is nonsense. There are 2 genders in the human species. Male and female. Why can't these judges use common sense. North Carolina is right.

Ah, it's the old "I don't like thinking about transgenderism, so I'll just pretend it doesn't exist."

(My current position on the whole bathroom/locker room thing is to only allow new sex bathroom usage after surgery, but provide unisex facilities before that point. I'll accept whatever enforcement mechanisms are needed to enforce that sort of restriction; I just don't trust the human race enough to go by a "honor code".)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'Enforcement mechanisms' tend to be absolutely repugnant, invasive, and, frankly, profoundly creepy to most people, though.

[Virginiá]

Nope. Court got it wrong again. The student was born a girl, she should use the girls restrooms. This trans stuff is nonsense. There are 2 genders in the human species. Male and female.

It's almost like you've never heard of the brain and/or mind. Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't a judge a book by its cover" ? What do you know about the science behind this?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do liberals want a lawless society, or do they want an authoritarian regime that represses free speech?  I can never tell.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Do liberals want a lawless society, or do they want an authoritarian regime that represses free speech?  I can never tell.

Assuming the worst, what liberal democrats want is 1) ultimate sexual freedom, 2) mandatory confiscation of guns, 3) weakening of the first amendment.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Nope. Court got it wrong again. The student was born a girl, she should use the girls restrooms. This trans stuff is nonsense. There are 2 genders in the human species. Male and female.

It's almost like you've never heard of the brain and/or mind.

well, you see, it's difficult for someone who has neither to comprehend the idea