North Carolina Overturns LGBT-Discrimination Bans

[SteveRogers]

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.

Jesus, I don't think I've ever heard even the looniest, most bigoted social conservatives ever call for legislation declaring who is and is not allowed to grow a beard.

[SteveRogers]

So in that case, how can we accommodate transgender people humanely and respectfully, while still addressing situations like this: http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534 / http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

Would mandating that public buildings designate unisex restrooms be acceptable? I'm not being sarcastic here, and I'm actually asking this as a legitimate question. Is there a middle ground we can find?

Everything that that second guy did is already very very illegal. No new laws required.

[SteveRogers]

So the Obama justice department found a way this violates the civil rights act: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/05/04/justice_department_tells_north_carolina_hb2_violates_federal_law.html?client=ms-android-verizon#

Of course, NC could just ignore them and take whatever hit in federal funds there may or may not be.

Serious question. If this violates 50 year old Federal Law, how come this hasn't been done in the last 50 years? In other words, if 1964 allowed Gay Marriage, how come there weren't gay weddings in 1965? Why wait 50 years?

This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

I know but what I mean is...where did all of sudden all these hidden rules in Federal law come from? How come these weren't discussed in 1965 or 1975 or 1988 or 1999. How come it's all right now?

If the 14th amendment desegregated schools in 1868, why did it take 90 years?

Anti-discrimination laws are written as broad tools for a reason. The drafters of legislation like the Civil Rights Act know that they cannot foresee all of the silly forms of insidious discrimination that might arise in the future. For instance, no one was passing ridiculous bathroom laws until just now, so of course nobody tried applying Title VII to such laws before now.

The broader answer to your question of course is that we, as a society, have learned a lot over the decades and now realize that it was always wrong to treat LGBT people as harmful elements to be ostracized from society.

[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.