Still waiting on those legal rulings, Bobby, otherwise this is your general reminder that you thought this topic was irrelevant.
I'll take this as you admitting you are defeated, thanks for doing your best, one day that might amount to something.
Not that this back and forth isn't interesting and productive, but I'm just curious about something: Who made this whole thing (trans toilets/showers) an issue? Was there an incident or something? Which political party made the first move? Just curious because I have no idea and have heard people blaming both sides for making this an issue.
It was originally pushed by liberal politicians that get significant funding from LGBT groups. Once gay marriage became the law of the land and they won their legitimate civil rights cause they needed something to keep the funds flowing. They knew without it people would stop giving so they pushed bad legislation in many parts of the country including Houston and there was a backlash of people on the other side pushing for bad legislation such as in North Carolina. The ONLY reason this is an issue is because a special interest group needs a way to keep their funding and this is the best they could come up with. It was a non-issue beforehand.
I'd say there was no issue, or maybe a 1000 issues. It has probably always been important to the trans community because of their vulnerability to discrimination especially around bathrooms. So, you could say they started it, or you could say trans-phobes started it by discriminating against and sometimes abusing trans people trying to use the bathroom. But, as a political issue, my interpretation is that it started here in Houston with HERO, and not because of trans or gay marriage, but because of fracking and minimum wage. Liberal cities all over the country, frustrated by their more conservative state governments, decided to go it alone and pass laws to regulate things normally handled at the state level. So we got things like equal rights ordinances, plastic bag bans, local minimum wage requirements. It started in blue states, but when it came to red states like Texas and municipalities like Denton wanted to ban fracking in town, or Houston wanted to enforce civil rights, and perhaps most dangerously cities were talking about minimum wage in business-friendly Republican states, state leadership decided they needed to roll back municipal power. Then HERO came along with a convenient handle -- explicit protection for the civil rights of trans and specific access to bathrooms. Republicans knew they could get even democratic voters to support a rollback of municipal regulatory power if they make the debate center on the very personal issue of vulnerability in the bathroom. And, it worked so brilliantly in Houston, they figured they'd duplicate the model elsewhere. It's not an accident that the North Carolina law that dictates bathroom access simultaneously limits the things cities can pass ordinances about. I don't think the legislators even care about bathroom access. They want to make sure cities aren't allowed to add costs to businesses with higher minimum wages or more regulation. But they sure did get their constituents up in a tizzy about creepers. So, wait wait, back up, what about Mayor Parker and all these other liberal mayors passing these civil rights ordinances? Where do they get off? Just like Republicans doing what they do -- protect businesses -- I think this is liberals doing what they do -- regulating. I think they're overstepping trying to regulate at the municipal level instead of fighting for changes at the state-level. But face it, they had an opportunity with city government and no opportunity, at least in Texas, at the state level. So they took what they could get. Regarding HERO, it's easy to second-guess in retrospect, but I think Parker misread the political environment and got spanked. Perhaps she thought she needed to get the ordinance passed before the noose of state power tightened, but it was actually too late. Texas will not abide cities adding new costs to businesses. In that interpretation then, who started it? It seems to me that nobody started it. It's just the push and pull of politics that happened to catch trans in the crossfire.
Conservatives saw the civil rights legislation that was being passed in cities around the country and attacked it as a bathroom issue. It has very little to do with bathrooms until conservatives started running commercials with little girls getting attacked in bathrooms. That was their avenue of attack.
Well there's a significant amount of spin there, but at least he's correct about who started pushing the bad legislation first. I don't expect complete accuracy. Baby steps.
Hmmm... Bobby: Money-grubbing liberal politicians started it. Cometswin: Civil rights-hating conservatives started it. Yeah, I guess that's a framework for a consensus if I ever saw one.
No, that's not what he said, he rightly pointed out that it was started by liberal politicians pushing bad legislation, of course he spun it by trying to play it up as "civil rights legislation" instead of "really stupid legislation that was unnecessary and would do nothing but cause problems to solve a non-issue" but given the source, what do you expect? He then put the "blame" on those who pushed back against that garbage legislation but it was clear he acknowledged those liberal politicians "started it" No one really expects him to say the full truth, that the liberal politicians were pushing the legislation at the behest of LGBTQMBBQLMNOPLOL special interest groups that fund to their campaigns and that they were putting pressure on those politicians to do so because they were struggling with their own funding without gay marriage being an issue for them to get people to donate to those special interest groups.....but for him, it was pretty honest. You really should work on reading comprehension.
The person with no integrity always attacking the integrity of others. How does that work? A sociopath's playbook.
Are you so dense you really do not see it??? Are you so naive that you see everything in terms of discrimination?? Your naivety makes me think you are MUCH younger than I previously thought. Sigh, I guess people like you, Northside and Sweet Lou will continue to play the part of Don Quixote jousting at that imaginary prejudice windmill. Maybe one day you will finally kill it!!!!:grin: rotflmao People like you are completely clueless.
Don Quixote didn't have a federal appeals court ruling, and a Supreme Court with a dead Scalia, and a reigning Kennedy.
Civil Rights legislation is sort of enacted to address discrimination but people like me that don't believe in Bible prophecies are obviously on a different level of critical thinking than people like you!!!1!! A couple more for good measure. !!!!!!!
Why has the president attacked schools around the nation with a decree threatening to pull federal funding if those schools don't enforce the new bathroom and locker-room code? <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lt. Governor Dan Forest Responds to the President's Bathroom Policy Directive <a href="https://t.co/WQLB91Y62G">https://t.co/WQLB91Y62G</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ncpol?src=hash">#ncpol</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/hb2?src=hash">#hb2</a></p>— Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (@LtGovDanForest) <a href="https://twitter.com/LtGovDanForest/status/731143104208601088">May 13, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
