Returning power to the states is a terrible idea

On more cultural difference, somehting that shocked me, embarrassed me. In New England one doesn't lock the door, friends, marginal folk even, don't knock they just enter and say "HI". It's cultural. Strange but it just is. Borne again from a cold environment? Perhaps.

In NW Florida this would get you shot.

Law flows from culture....

Now square this: here in Vermont carrying a gun, hidden, is a right. No permit necessary.

Cheers

 

It's not about bathrooms, it's about control for the libs. One of my favorite ways to sum up liberals is,

Liberals don't care what you do, just as long as it's mandatory.

Or, what they don't wan't mandated, they want banned.

 

Ah yes... Leftists love the use of force. After all, it's the only way they can ever get anyone to do what they mandate. Winning over people to their cult with rational ideas exchanged through civil adult like debates is not an option.

 

Because anyone actually believes a single word a leftist says under guise of "in teh interest of civilians safety"

Seriously, that's a funny one

 

You make no case for not returning power to the states. Why do the states all need to be the same? And if they are all the same, why have different states at all? The whole idea behind state rights and local governments taking the lead in most matters, is the idea that those closest to their constituents are best able to pass laws to benefit them. What does someone in DC know about the needs of oysterman in southern Louisiana, or net work developer in Boston, or a cattle rancher in Montana? Do you really think these three all have the same needs, wants and priorities?

 

OP yes and no. Every state is different. When something must be applied universally, then so be it. But whenever possible let the states decide. There is no black and white coverage.

OP, I'm sure you have your panties in a twist not being able to force feed your homosexual / transgender agenda to the entire US. But people just don't want to accept that a mentally ill man with a penis is a woman and 2 hairy homosexuals can be husband and wife.

 

Thing 1: Louisiana is allowed to do that. If they're doing it because they disagree with California that's a pretty stupid reason but, there is no constitutional ban on stupidity. California is allowed to regulate as well. But, the rules that apply in both states are the same. Regulate away right up to the point that your regulations are found to deny people their rights.

Thing 2: So, someone dressed as a lady walks into a restroom. Unless you peek, how do you know? The moment you peek and deny access based solely on gender, you've violated that person's constitutional rights.

Going into a restroom for the purposes of voyeurism, molesting, sexual abuse or similar purposes (including a quickie with your ...partner) is illegal. These laws serve no public purpose that is not already being served but DO discriminate against people based solely on their gender.

 

No, I didn't. I said denying a person access to use the facilities because of their gender is unconstitutional.

I'm sure there must be some places that have had laws about this for years but I can't seem to find any. As close as I can get is that the person can be charged with trespassing if they are asked to leave and do not.

In any case, these ordinances will be found unconstitutional and they will rely on Obergefell v. Hodges for the precedent.

 

Nobody is denying trannies access to the washroom. We are just saying that they should use the facilities that correspond with their anatomies. If you have a penis, use the men's room. Vagina, the women's. It's not that hard.

People don't have the "right" to use the opposite sex's washroom.

 

What you really mean is that people really are a lot alike. Geography and weather vary, but needs are basically the same.

Consistency in commerce is important, but are the difference really as deep as you imply? Or, are they artificially maintained.

We do not really know.

What if the peoples of states began communicating at a level and in a way that they have not EVER?

What if they discussed all of the hot issues and came to agreement upon the most controversial, then directed their state legislatures to act accordingly?

 

Yeah, here's the thing....

They kinda do.

Obergfell v Hodges kinda says that. Says the 14th is the rule here. Can't discriminate because of gender.

Now here's tonight's task...

Find and post state or local laws that specifically forbid a person from using the restroom designated for the other gender.

 

So...if a man wants to join the WNBA, they have to let him in too, because otherwise it's "discrimination based on sex"?

 

Wow. You we have these things called "private organizations" and "private organizations" get to choose their members. that's why they're called "clubs."

Now off to get those bathroom laws. We're depending on you!

 

So...if the bathroom is located in a private business (say, a restaurant), it is now OK to discriminate? The proprietor can now compel trannies to use the appropriate bathrooms? What about the washrooms in a mall? The mall is open to the public but it itself is technically privately owned.

 

Also, if it's true that private clubs can choose their membership freely, then why are there women who clamor to want to get into an all men's club? Furthermore, does this mean that a private club can now discriminate against anybody for any reason they want? Like if they say they don't want Negros in their club, and this is fine with you?

 

For the most part "gender specific" facilities are a suggestion and custom as opposed to being enshrined in law.

And the inference is clear from Obergfell. Laws denying access to public facilities based solely on gender are unconstitutional.

AND unnecessary.

We already have laws that make doing anything other than using the facilities illegal.

 

You can try but I'd try to beat the indecent exposure charges first. Yeah, you can go to the ladies room but if you walk around in there with your shlong sticking out then you're going to be arrested. In fact, if you do the same thing in the men's room you'll probably be arrested.

 

No, the restaurant cannot compel. The restaurant can ask the person to leave and if they refuse, have the police cite them for trespassing. If they don't leave after that, they can be arrested. Same thing at the mall, the office building down the street, the grocery store, the stadium, the golf course, and any other private place you can think of for your next question.

 

Why did you underline the word "question"? Are you implying that what I am asking is too dumb to be qualified as a "real" question?

 

The government cannot compel a private organization to admit members not of their choosing. Are there places where Women, African Americans, Jews, and others are still not admitted. Of course there are. Welcome to 2017. My agreement with this is unimportant. It is their right to discriminate. Even people who refuse to sell wedding cakes or take pictures for gay weddings are within their rights as the federal government cannot interfere with commerce within a state.

It is their right. It is my right and obligation to shine a big ugly flashlight on those places and make people uncomfortable with this particular exercise of their rights.

 

No, that would be you inferring it.