View Full Version : Trans Man Destroys North Carolina’s Anti-LGBT Law in One Brilliant Tweet
Cigar
03-25-2016, 12:48 PM
North Carolina signed into law last Wednesday one of the most flagrant civil rights violations in recent history, a bill specifically designed to forbid cities from passing protections for the LGBT community.
The right-wing hysteria erupted after Charlotte passed an ordinance to protect trans citizens from being bullied and assaulted for using bathrooms that fit their gender. Governor Pat McCrory said the ordinance “defied common sense” in a tweet that belied his obvious disgust with the transgender community.
The bill is already proving to be the most massively unpopular thing McCrory has ever passed. The Republican Governor has started backpedaling, trying to brand the bill as “bipartisan” even though not a single state Democrat voted for it. In fact, they refused to even participate in the vote and walked out of the Senate chamber in a display of public protest against the law....
Perhaps the best response from twitter came from a trans man residing in North Carolina. JP Sheffield fired back, brilliantly exposing who was REALLY defying common sense in one amazing tweet.
http://usuncut.com/resistance/north-carolina-anti-lgbt-bathroom-law/
Oops :laugh:
@PatMcCroryNC (https://twitter.com/PatMcCroryNC) It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife.
10:37 PM - 23 Mar 2016 (https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144)
michiganFats
03-25-2016, 01:52 PM
Wow, how many paragraphs without actually posting the awesome tweet?
Cigar
03-25-2016, 02:04 PM
Wow, how many paragraphs without actually posting the awesome tweet?
... it's Fundamental
@PatMcCroryNC (https://twitter.com/PatMcCroryNC) It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife.
10:37 PM - 23 Mar 2016 (https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144)
Standing Wolf
03-25-2016, 02:21 PM
North Carolina signed into law last Wednesday one of the most flagrant civil rights violations in recent history, a bill specifically designed to forbid cities from passing protections for the LGBT community.
We have seen this kind of thing before: conservative politicians attempting to ensure that no local government administers its own bailiwick and jurisdiction in a way that displeases them. So much for "community standards". So much for "decentralized government".
Cletus
03-25-2016, 02:25 PM
We have seen this kind of thing before: conservative politicians attempting to ensure that no local government administers its own bailiwick and jurisdiction in a way that displeases them. So much for "community standards". So much for "decentralized government".
Interesting take. So, would you favor allowing municipalities to opt out of state concealed carry laws?
Should local communities be allowed to exempt themselves from state law?
hanger4
03-25-2016, 02:38 PM
Wow, how many paragraphs without actually posting the awesome tweet?
It was necessary to set up some strawmen or the twitte was meaning less.
We have seen this kind of thing before: conservative politicians attempting to ensure that no local government administers its own bailiwick and jurisdiction in a way that displeases them. So much for "community standards". So much for "decentralized government".
The hypocrisy is, indeed, breathtaking. Just one of the reasons I am no longer a Republican.
Interesting take. So, would you favor allowing municipalities to opt out of state concealed carry laws?
Should local communities be allowed to exempt themselves from state law?
Should states be able to exempt themselves from Federal law?
Standing Wolf
03-25-2016, 02:41 PM
Interesting take. So, would you favor allowing municipalities to opt out of state concealed carry laws?
Should local communities be allowed to exempt themselves from state law?
Tough (and unwise) to generalize to the extent one would have to do in order to give a Yes or No to either question. As for myself, I would have to know the particulars of what state law was being challenged or ignored by a local body - specifically, what the law required or prohibited - and in what way, exactly, the local community was attempting to do things differently.
Certainly there are cases where by disregarding a state law a local government body might be violating one or more of its own citizen's fundamental rights...and other situations where a local body might actually be providing its citizens with more freedom by acting in such a way.
Peter1469
03-25-2016, 02:44 PM
Fundamental? No.fringe , yes.
Cletus
03-25-2016, 02:46 PM
Should states be able to exempt themselves from Federal law?
Under certain circumstances, yes. Municipalities are not states.
conservatives say that state govt is better because it's closer to the people, but local govt isn't because it's close to the people.
:biglaugh:
HoneyBadger
03-25-2016, 04:07 PM
obvious disgust with the transgender community.
I have no disgust for people who believe they are transgendered. I do have pity for them. I reserve my disgust for people who pander to people with obvious mental illnesses instead of trying to help them.
Safety
03-25-2016, 04:46 PM
Should states be able to exempt themselves from Federal law?
...oops.
pragmatic
03-25-2016, 04:58 PM
North Carolina signed into law last Wednesday one of the most flagrant civil rights violations in recent history, a bill specifically designed to forbid cities from passing protections for the LGBT community.
The right-wing hysteria erupted after Charlotte passed an ordinance to protect trans citizens from being bullied and assaulted for using bathrooms that fit their gender. Governor Pat McCrory said the ordinance “defied common sense” in a tweet that belied his obvious disgust with the transgender community.
The bill is already proving to be the most massively unpopular thing McCrory has ever passed. The Republican Governor has started backpedaling, trying to brand the bill as “bipartisan” even though not a single state Democrat voted for it. In fact, they refused to even participate in the vote and walked out of the Senate chamber in a display of public protest against the law....
Perhaps the best response from twitter came from a trans man residing in North Carolina. JP Sheffield fired back, brilliantly exposing who was REALLY defying common sense in one amazing tweet.
http://usuncut.com/resistance/north-carolina-anti-lgbt-bathroom-law/
Oops :laugh:
@PatMcCroryNC (https://twitter.com/PatMcCroryNC) It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife.
10:37 PM - 23 Mar 2016 (https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144)
The bill is designed to maintain a basic cultural standard that has been in place since the dawn of time.
But to the Left that action translates to the "most grievous civil rights violation in history".
(Over the top pearl clutching melodramatic hyperbole at its finest....!!)
//
Under certain circumstances, yes. Municipalities are not states.
And yet the principle is the same. Smaller government. More personal government.
Except, of course, where Republicans don't like the results.
The bill is designed to maintain a basic cultural standard that has been in place since the dawn of time.
But to the Left that action translates to the "most grievous civil rights violation in history".
(Over the top pearl clutching melodramatic hyperbole at its finest....!!)//
The wording of the law means that a TG guy with a beard will now have to use, by law, the same restroom as the bill originator's wife. Seems like they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through, LOL.
Basic cultural standard, indeed.
Safety
03-25-2016, 05:30 PM
:rofl:
Cletus
03-25-2016, 05:39 PM
And yet the principle is the same. Smaller government. More personal government.
Except, of course, where Republicans don't like the results.
The principle is not the same. States are and have been since the founding of the Republic, sovereign entities. Municipalities are not and never have been recognized as such.
Safety
03-25-2016, 05:41 PM
:biglaugh:
The bill is designed to maintain a basic cultural standard that has been in place since the dawn of time.
But to the Left that action translates to the "most grievous civil rights violation in history".
(Over the top pearl clutching melodramatic hyperbole at its finest....!!)
//
the dawn of time came with bathrooms?
who knew?
The principle is not the same. States are and have been since the founding of the Republic, sovereign entities. Municipalities are not and never have been recognized as such.
lol
the dawn of time came with bathrooms?
who knew?
Didn't you know? God supplied His and Hers outhouses in the GOE.
The principle is not the same. States are and have been since the founding of the Republic, sovereign entities. Municipalities are not and never have been recognized as such.
Patently, obviously and demonstrably false. A Sovereign entity would have a right to secede from the Union, and that question, sir, was settled by a Republican president and a Civil War. States are not Sovereign.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.