- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
Random Tumblr posts
- Thread starter x.eight.six.systems
- Start date
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
I'll never understand this. Gender neutral bathrooms are the greatest things ever. They're usually way cleaner than the gendered bathrooms and single occupancy. Most woman I know don't even want to navigate the pools of used tampons and old menstrual blood that are the women's bathrooms.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
The bill made it illegal to have gender-neutral/unisex bathrooms, though.
(This kind of is a pretty shitty bill.)
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
Yea that actually does sound like they're just being bigoted pricks.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
actually after looking it up i think i'm wrong about the illegal gender neutral bathrooms thing
but that being said, they're definitely being bigoted pricks regardless
edit: especially because the bill came with a provision that said individual cities or whatever can't pass their own nondiscrimination bills - so even left-leaning cities can't actually change it. it's really pretty shitty no matter how you look at it
soliloquyR
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
I commend every janitor ever.
Doesn't matter. This law is gonna be hard as fuck to enforce. They're not gonna have some federal agent at every door checking everyone's birth certificate or privates.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That's only one thing they've tried to spin it as only being about.
It actually not only does away with any protections whatsoever LGBT people had by law previously, but makes it illegal to pass any new protections.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
Let's not hyperventilate. I've gone over it a couple of times, and this is what I got:
2.1 provides that the law supersedes any existing laws on the local level.
2.2 provides that counties can't make bidding on contracts conditional on hiring quotas, or requirements or prohibitions on providing goods, services, or accommodations, except as state law requires.
2.3 provides that the same goes for cities.
3.1 says that state law rules, and local governments don't get to add regulations to employers on matters of discrimination (which is a state-law matter).
3.2 precludes bringing tort claims based on discrimination. That's handled under the Human Relations Commission.
3.3 repeats this for goods, services, and public accommodations. Local governments can't impose extra regulations on top of state-imposed ones.
Here it is, folks. Outside of the restrooms thing, the only things it's doing are carefully amending the existing laws to place matters of discrimination in contract and places of accommodation under state jurisdiction, and compelling discrimination claims to go to arbitration through NC's Human Relations Commission instead of trial court.
I'm not sure why you need city and county protections on top of state protections against discrimination.
2.1 provides that the law supersedes any existing laws on the local level.
2.2 provides that counties can't make bidding on contracts conditional on hiring quotas, or requirements or prohibitions on providing goods, services, or accommodations, except as state law requires.
2.3 provides that the same goes for cities.
3.1 says that state law rules, and local governments don't get to add regulations to employers on matters of discrimination (which is a state-law matter).
3.2 precludes bringing tort claims based on discrimination. That's handled under the Human Relations Commission.
3.3 repeats this for goods, services, and public accommodations. Local governments can't impose extra regulations on top of state-imposed ones.
Here it is, folks. Outside of the restrooms thing, the only things it's doing are carefully amending the existing laws to place matters of discrimination in contract and places of accommodation under state jurisdiction, and compelling discrimination claims to go to arbitration through NC's Human Relations Commission instead of trial court.
I'm not sure why you need city and county protections on top of state protections against discrimination.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It supersedes by doing away with them entirely. All protections for LGBT people have been eliminated.
Those were the only protections. They now no longer exist.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
Let's be specific. Are you saying that they are not a protected class under North Carolina law, or are you saying that they actually have fewer protections under law than non-LGBT people? Do they have fewer protections under law than I would have, for instance?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
HB 2 is also unconstitutional—not maybe unconstitutional, or unconstitutional-before-the-right-judge, but in total contravention of established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the court dealt with a very similar law in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, when it invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances. As the court explained in Romer, the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singl[ing] out a certain class of citizens” and “impos[ing] a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Just like the law invalidated in Romer, HB 2 “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities.
They are not a protected class under North Carolina law. I don't believe they ever were, but any of the ordinances passed by cities and other such entities are now also obliterated. It has changed the listed protected classes to: "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex[.]" To the extent any other law purports to extend that, such law has been superseded.
They have fewer protections in the specific sense that it is no longer lawful for any city or county unit of government to pass any ordinances protecting them.
Singling out a specific class as being effectively unprotectable was found unconstitutional as early as the '80s (Romer v. Evans). That involved a state constitutional provision, but I don't see how a state law would fare better, especially considering that the '80s were not a particularly good time for LGBT protections in general.
Thus, LGBT citizens are uniquely in a position where unlike any other citizens, they cannot lobby their local governments for protections any other class of citizens could be protected by should a city choose to do so. There is no basis other than irrational hostility for this singling out and therefore it would not pass even rational basis review, the lowest level of judicial scrutiny of discriminatory statutes.
This article goes into how North Carolina's HB 2 is similar to the law struck down in Romer (which was in 1996 and not 1986 as I said).
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...ina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html
It isn't even a close call.
They are not a protected class under North Carolina law. I don't believe they ever were, but any of the ordinances passed by cities and other such entities are now also obliterated. It has changed the listed protected classes to: "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex[.]" To the extent any other law purports to extend that, such law has been superseded.
They have fewer protections in the specific sense that it is no longer lawful for any city or county unit of government to pass any ordinances protecting them.
Singling out a specific class as being effectively unprotectable was found unconstitutional as early as the '80s (Romer v. Evans). That involved a state constitutional provision, but I don't see how a state law would fare better, especially considering that the '80s were not a particularly good time for LGBT protections in general.
Thus, LGBT citizens are uniquely in a position where unlike any other citizens, they cannot lobby their local governments for protections any other class of citizens could be protected by should a city choose to do so. There is no basis other than irrational hostility for this singling out and therefore it would not pass even rational basis review, the lowest level of judicial scrutiny of discriminatory statutes.
This article goes into how North Carolina's HB 2 is similar to the law struck down in Romer (which was in 1996 and not 1986 as I said).
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...ina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html
It isn't even a close call.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
This will be autistic as fuck but it'd funny to see what other words tumblr has ruined compiled like a list of sorts.
For me they've ruined "gross". That word will always be linked to me with puke and other stuff like that, not "omg some vaguely sexist comment on Youtube!!!".
For me they've ruined "gross". That word will always be linked to me with puke and other stuff like that, not "omg some vaguely sexist comment on Youtube!!!".
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
R
RM 810
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Trigger's the main one for me, which sucks cause I come across people with actual triggers a lot due to powerlevel stuff, and everytime someone tells me about an insignificant seeming trigger they have I have to remind myself that the word exists outside of tumblr
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Fucked up as it is, it's going to be hilarious when the first TERF gets someone demanding to see their nads because they think she's a tranny.
Tell me you'd believe this was a natural born woman if you saw her going into a bathroom.
That is a genuine XX woman.
Tell me you'd believe this was a natural born woman if you saw her going into a bathroom.
That is a genuine XX woman.
soliloquyR
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
This is the alternate universe where Stefonknee Wolscht stayed with his family.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
List of tumblr-ruined words:
Problematic
Gross
Representation
Trigger
Problematic
Gross
Representation
Trigger