America
Is fucking crazy.
PayPal freezes 400-job expansion in North Carolina over bonkers religious freedom law
PayPal has abandoned plans for a new global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina, after the US state passed a "religious freedom" act that allows discrimination against employees on the grounds of gender identity and sexuality. "The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are …
-
-
Tuesday 5th April 2016 23:40 GMT kain preacher
Re: America
The south is.
(Reuters) - Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant on Tuesday signed into law a measure affording wide protections for actions considered discriminatory by gay rights activists.
The far-reaching law allows people with religious objections to deny wedding services to same-sex couples. It also clears the way for employers to cite religion in determining workplace policies on dress code, grooming and bathroom and locker access.
Bryant, a Republican, said in a statement that he signed the law “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government.”
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 00:10 GMT Trixr
Re: America
Isn't it funny that certain Americans are all about their Second Amendment "rights" based on a shonky interpretation of what a "militia" means, but those same Americans somehow forget the Jeffersonian principle of the separation of church and state, embodied in the First Amendment.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 03:17 GMT MondoMan
Re: America
@ Trixr
You might want to read up on the actual texts and historical contexts of those amendments.
For example, reasonable people can disagree on the individual right to possess firearms -- it's not a "shonky" interpretation. Similarly, the principle is preventing *establishment* of a state church, not "separation" of church and state, which is much more extreme.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 08:47 GMT SolidSquid
Re: America
From what I've read, the militia line could be anything from "anyone because they could form a militia if possible" to "actually means the state police force because militias took that role when the country was formed", so it may well be a shonky interpretation of the word militia, but it's irrelevant because the supreme court has already ruled on it and that pretty much sets the standard in stone short of a constitutional amendment.
Similarly they've ruled that the "establishment" of a state church and the state directly linking with any particular church (ie not being kept separate) are equivalent in practice, and the only way around this is to require the state to allow the same links from any religious group which requests it. This has recently been brought up in relation to courts sending people to 12 step programs, which while they claim to be secular still require "submitting to a higher power", which isn't compatible with all religions or religious positions
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 07:41 GMT Frank Oz
Re: America
America tends to be very selective about its observanc eof its Constitution and its Amendments. To my my mind the Amercian Constitution is more a 'statement of good intent' rather than a law that's meant to be followed.
It's been more distinguished by its breaches rather than its effect over the years ... especially in times of stress (like during wars, economic downturns and the like - when it is supposed to be there to protect everyone).
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 00:24 GMT Geoffrey W
Re: America
RE: "The South is (crazy)
Nope, all of it, except for the western edges and the north eastern edges are "Fucking Crazy', and even those bits are a bit flaky too. Its all those guns: They make us so goddamn free we all get light headed and giddy and do stupid shit just because we can. And even though I'm actually British I now consider myself a honorary 'Murkin having lived here 15 years and am gettin' a bit kooky too. I talk to the bears behind the house and they say to me - "You fucking crazy american, leave me alone..." The whole country is mental but you would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to the mother land what brung me up. I fit right in. Sort of...
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 7th April 2016 16:04 GMT BillG
Re: America
The bill requires transgendered people to use the bathroom of their original gender unless they have changed it on their birth certificate...
There's a reason for this. In California, you have straight guys dressing as women so they can walk into the women's rest room and get a quick thrill (hope I haven't given anyone reading this any ideas...).
...banned local LGBT equality ordinances
I've read the bill PDF and I can't find this anywhere.
I do know that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for a "protected class". While discrimination in any form is unconstitutional and hence illegal, you can't pass a law that says discriminating against people of XYZ is more illegal.
This was emphasized in California in LA around 1986. LA passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays. Soon after that, LGBTs, African-Americans, women, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, and more all demanded their own law. It got outrageous when at a rally each minority group accused other minority groups of discrimination against their minority group.
-
Monday 11th April 2016 22:01 GMT DiViDeD
@ BillG Re: Straight men going into womens' rest room.
Sorry, I find that very odd indeed. I mean, what sort of thrill does a straight man get from getting to see women wash their hands or fix their makeup?
Or are all female 'rest rooms' in the US supplied with a single shared shitting pit in the middle of the floor that everyone shares?
maybe you guys should try individual cubicles. Seems to work quite well in the rest of the world.
Seriously, how many cases of straight men dressing as women and going into female toilets does California prosecute in a year? To the nearest 100 would be fine, don't need total accuracy.
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 16:24 GMT Fatman
Re: America
<snip>
The
southBible Belt1 is.(Reuters) - Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant on Tuesday signed into law a measure affording wide protections for actions considered discriminatory by gay rights activists.
</snip>
FTFY!!!
1 So nicknamed because in days past, preachers would attempt to impose their version of morality on people professing a different faith.
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 00:35 GMT WilliamBurke
Re: America
And Russia. And pretty much all of eastern Europe, the Middle East, all of Africa and most of Asia. TBH it's less than 50 years in Blighty (and most other European countries) that orientations other than the default are legal. Outright outlawing of discrimination came much later.
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 05:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: America
This is about 1% of the population attempting to force society to allow male perverts to legally go into female bathrooms whenever they like. I dare anyone to explain how this is not so. I also dare anyone to say they would have no problem with a male pervert entering a bathroom that contains YOUR young daughter.
And in case anyone tries the old wheeze about these perverts being simple ordinary citizens, let's not forget that they are men (and women) who merely claim they are the opposite sex, in total disregard for their actual equipment.
Some may be willing to go along with the absurd assertion that black is white and up is down, but not this boy.
BTW, "transgenders" represent less than .001% of the population, whereas young girls in bathrooms are about 10%. Sounds like a target-rich environment for those very rare perverts who now find themselves the darlings of the Left.
Sickening.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 06:23 GMT Bloodbeastterror
"male perverts"
Big John,
I'm guessing that you're an American and that your nickname doesn't refer to your IQ.
You appear to equate "transgender" with "pervert", which for even a closed-minded non-thinker is a bit of a leap.
In fact, your entire diatribe is so utterly nonsensical that I suspect that you don't actually believe it and that you're just a troll seeking a bit of attention.
I'm right, yes?
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 06:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "male perverts"
Hey, I'll debate you any time.
So, when you see Bruce Jenner (a fully male individual) wearing typically female attire and saying he is a she, what goes thru your head? I bet it's "Gee, I know that's a man, but I have to go along with the crowd and pretend he's really a woman, or else I'll be called nasty names by all my friends!"
Have I got it right?
Oh, and about that "attention" thing. I know I will be buried under a pile of downvotes for speaking my mind. I would prefer to get upvotes, but not at the cost of abandoning my principles and basic powers of reasoning, as you apparently have.
-
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 06:48 GMT caffeine addict
Re: "male perverts"
Imagine that we separated toilets out under a different arbitrary distinction lets say... "intolerant feckers" and "decent human beings". When you were born, a doctor glanced at your external appearance and decided that you were an intolerant fecker. You'd be happy using those toilets for the rest of your life, would you?
/bad example
//worse mood
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 07:34 GMT DavCrav
Re: "male perverts"
"Oh cool. Please explain to me how I got it wrong, friend. Unless you would rather just trash me again, intellectual giant that you are."
It used to be that only straight white men were real people, because men are physically stronger than women, there are more straight men than gay men, and more white people than non-whites in the countries with all the power. Then various countries decided at various times (the US among the last) to allow straight black men to be real people. Then around 1900 or so, straight women were allowed to be real people, and from about 1950ish, gay people were allowed to exist in many countries, and finally be real people, at least in Europe.
Can you see the general trend here? We started with the dominant group of people having all the power, and then slowly ceding it to various marginalized groupings. We only have minor (in terms of population size) groupings left to allow to be real people, and these are homosexuals, trans people (gender and vestite) and the type that must really trouble you with such fixed morality, intersex conditions.
What happens if someone is born looking like a woman but with a Y chromosome? Which bathroom should that person use then?
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 18:31 GMT Cynic_999
Re: "male perverts"
Not sure what all the fuss is about regarding bathrooms. What's so terrible about a man using a woman's public toilet? It's not as if they are going to see any parts of anatomy they don't see in public (unless they look into an occupied stall, which would be just as wrong for a woman to do as a man). IMO it's long past the time that unisex public toilets should be the norm, though he trend seems to be changing from "Men" and "Women" toilet segregation to "Adult" and "Child" segregation.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 09:57 GMT David Webb
@Big John
The entire argument for this legislation was blown away by one tweet...
If you don't want to read a gay news article I'll put it into easy words. The legislation states "sex on birth certificate" so a female transgender who has had the operation to give them a penis and are sporting a nice beard are now legally obliged to share the same toilet as your wife/daughter.
So next time you're in that state and you see Grizzly Adams walking into the girls toilet..........
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 16:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @Big John
David Webb, I don't agree with this Law at all, but I call bullshit on your post.
It does not enforce based on the original sex on your birth certificate. The article clearly says: "The bill requires transgendered people to use the bathroom of their original gender UNLESS THEY HAVE CHANGED IT ON THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE".
In other words, if you transition genders and then update your birth certificate to match, then that's cool. But simply saying that you are a different gender is not enough. Presumably the US has the means to legally change gender on one's birth certificate, otherwise the exception stated in the bill is obviously worthless.
I repeat, I still do NOT support this Law, but your characterisation of that specific part is just plain wrong.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 16:54 GMT EddieLomax
Re: @Big John
" The legislation states "sex on birth certificate" so a female transgender who has had the operation to give them a penis"
How does someone get an operation to give them a penis? How does anyone have an operation to convert a penis into a vagina?
The truth is that they don't, all they get is the surgeon chopping up a working set of genitals to make it cosmetically look like another set, their sex is still the same as it has ever been and until we gain the technology to somehow change DNA, the same as it always will be. Biologically they are now just males or females with crippled genitals.
The irony is that no amount of operations will allow someone to perform another biological role, and the social role does not need medical intervention, there is nothing stopping men for being more feminine or vice versa, society is pretty tolerant. The tragedy is on the people so desperate to cosmetically look like a member of the opposite sex that they end up bending their life to fit, not with good long term consequences.
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 10:44 GMT Penny 14
Re: "male perverts"
As a transwoman I hate to use the mens room I don't feel safe. Up here in Canada people are free to use the washroom of their preferred gender and we don't have a problem with perverts using the wrong one.
I think like a woman and feel like a woman however my body produced the incorrect hormones while I was in the womb and I was born with male genitalia and have a deep voice and facial hair.
I'm a female inside and male outside.
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 14:36 GMT sisk
Re: "male perverts"
_Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine exactly what it is that 'makes someone gay'
Studies have found genes which influence sexuality. So unless your definition of "real" doctors is limited to those who reject rigorous, peer reviewed studies simply because they don't like what it says your statement is completely wrong.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 13:07 GMT kain preacher
Re: "male perverts"
When I go to the bath room I do not have that issue. California (unRuth Civil Rights Act) Has had a law since 1996 allowing Trans folks to use the appropriate bath room. Funny yho9w every seem to forget ab out trans men. If you think a women is uncomfortable with a trans women try a trans man. IE a man that is genetically female but looks and acts like a man. Oh and you think that male perverts were just wanting for a law that allows for trans people to use the right bath room.
Niya. Proud trans woman and activist.
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 20:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "male perverts"
So, OK, "big" john (boy, is that compensation, or not?) I'm nearly six feet tall, dress in jeans, turtlenecks and flannel shirts. I walk into the women's bathroom. Ya gonna stop me and make me show ID to pee? Good f'in luck, 'cause I'm GOING TO IGNORE YOU. And, if you are dumb enough to follow me in and accost me, I will use all my martial arts training and strength to break you enough, in the defense of my body, to prevent you from ever trying that again to anyone. In the interest of rape prevention, of course. AC only because a troll as persistently perverted as you will attempt to dox.
-
-
-
Wednesday 6th April 2016 07:04 GMT x 7
Re: "male perverts"
"So, when you see Bruce Jenner (a fully male individual) wearing typically female attire and saying he is a she, what goes thru your head?"
more appositely, I wonder what his daughters think when he shares the ladies loo with him. Hi Dad come and shag me? Given that they drop their knickers at the whiff of a lens cap, I wouldn't have thought he would have needed to be so extreme
-
-
-
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
