North Carolina Overturns LGBT-Discrimination Bans

[This account no longer in use.]

Glad to see the Deep South is staying classy.

[This account no longer in use.]

It's clear that Wolverine is in denial.

[This account no longer in use.]

Wolverine, when Wulfric is the voice of reason here, you are doing something horribly wrong.

[This account no longer in use.]

His 4th item very clearly suggests banning gender reassignment surgery.

[This account no longer in use.]

If you are physically a man, you are a man.  If I decided to say that I am a 140 year old cat, does that make me a 140 year old cat, even though I'm clearly not 140 or a cat??  And, we can't have men in the ladies' room and vice versa.  Great job, NC- and please follow suit, GA!!

I'm assuming that you've never met any transgender people, or LGBT+ people, or humans?

[This account no longer in use.]

Welcome to the forum, IceAgeComing. First off, you should ignore most posts made by ExtremeRepublican, they tend to make as much sense as Da-Jon posts.

[This account no longer in use.]

Unfortunately, this guy will, by law, have to use the bathroom with your girlfriend.

You can just tell that most of these people have never seen a transgender man.

[This account no longer in use.]

Well, this is a silly law. It's even sillier it was passed and signed by the governor. NC is at risk of losing a lot of business now, which is a high price to pay to make sure everyone is using the correct restroom

You failed to define "correct".

Honestly, I don't think there's any coherent way to legislate the [Inks]ing bathroom issue one way or another.

What's the bathroom issue that needs correcting? That is, "one way or another" seems to imply that there's something happening in need of corrective action, but I haven't seen any evidence of this at all.

It's simple: no men in women's bathrooms. No women in men's bathrooms. That shouldn't even be debatable. I don't know how you can see that:



and not agree with me. That sort of thing belongs on Jerry Springer, not in the mainstream. I don't see this as a partisan issue, it's not a right vs left issue, it's a right vs wrong issue.

Wait, so what am I supposed to be looking at here? Yes, it's a transgender girl. I really don't see your point, though, and the rest of your post doesn't make any coherent argument for this overturning, so I don't know what you're going on about.

[This account no longer in use.]

See that's why we want to ban hormone therapy and prohibit sex change operations from being covered by insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. That way those women don't get to grow beards and still have to use the correct restroom.

Good to know you openly support effectively eliminating an entire group of people because you're uncomfortable with their existence.

That's the whole point: to keep things the way they've always been, and to put certain people back in their places.

You make me happy to be a registered Republican

Believe me, I doubt any of the Democrats want Wolverine either.

[This account no longer in use.]

See that's why we want to ban hormone therapy and prohibit sex change operations from being covered by insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. That way those women don't get to grow beards and still have to use the correct restroom.

Good to know you openly support effectively eliminating an entire group of people because you're uncomfortable with their existence.

That's the whole point: to keep things the way they've always been, and to put certain people back in their places.

...I thought you were openly gay? How on earth do you justify something with "that's the way things have always been"?

Based on some other posts I've seen from him here and on AAD, the only type of person Wolverine wants to see in men's restrooms is 15 year-old boys.

OR he's so attracted to transwomen he really really wants so see them when he goes to the men's restroom.

Meanwhile he wants transmen in the female restroom, thats not very gay of him. Does this make him homoflexible?

No, this is what it boils down to, and this is not an unreasonable viewpoint:

You do realize that you could use more or less the exact same arguments to support discrimination against homosexuals?

[This account no longer in use.]

Except for the fact that there is scientific evidence that transgender people are also genetically driven to be transgender.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'll be honest as well. Those are petty, ridiculous reasons.

[This account no longer in use.]

And in any case, Mr. Wolverine, are you seriously saying that some of the great users of this forum should not be allowed to live as themselves and should be allowed to be discriminated against? Because I can name several transgender users here off the top of my head who are much, much more valuable to this forum than you, and it wouldn't be difficult either.

[This account no longer in use.]

Oh, and one more thing, Wolverine. I decided to image search that image you posted a few posts back to figure out wherever the hell you got it from. I found something even more interesting. It's simply an edit of a pro-transgender image, except the words "Gender is" and "Gender is not" are swapped. In other words, either this is a pathetic, lazy attempt at trolling, or you are desperately flailing for evidence to support your petty viewpoints. Either way, I'd rather not legitimize this, so this is the last post I'm making on this matter. Good day.

[This account no longer in use.]

Why would anybody see a solo Ringo Starr concert anyways?

[This account no longer in use.]

No amendment will happen with the Republican majority.

[This account no longer in use.]

What imposition on others is a result of LGBT equality? I'd have to imagine the person being murdered would have a pretty good argument against a theorized right to murder. And that's giving your analogy a million times more thought than it deserves.

Naso just wants a Safe Space where he doesn't have to interact with or be aware of LBGT people.

If that's the case, then he should get as far away from this forum as possible.

[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.