Ever since North Carolina passed House Bill 2, we've been treated to celebrities voicing their displeasure with the law, municipalities threatening to cease all business with the state of NC (even when none existed previously), businesses denouncing the state and other assorted noise condemning the action. As usual, there's plenty of heaping piles of hypocrisy around - there are plenty of cases like the link where a company that refuses to do business in North Carolina is happy to work in middle eastern countries.
But that's not my issue.
No, the real problem as I see it is simple. The real problem with HB2 has been completely and utterly ignored. I've seen folks on "my" side of many issues make the claim that the actions in NC are much like what the gun grabbers do: They've passed a law based on what someone *might* do, much like gun grabbers pass laws about guns.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is anything in the past sentence after "law."
The real issue, as I see it, is that the state of North Carolina has passed a law that addressed, well, nothing. Anything that might happen that HB2 would prevent are already illegal - does it matter what plumbing the person in the stall next to you has if they're peering over the top of the stall at your junk? Is someone intent on kidnapping a child for whatever sick purposes they have in mind going to give a hairy rat's patoot that they aren't allowed in that particular bathroom?
It's a completely useless law that doesn't change a damn thing and only adds to a growing pile of unnecessary litigation. Period. Full stop. No matter what your views might happen to be on trans-gendered people, homosexuals, whatever, HB2 is just plain government overreaching. It's no different than the flag-burning amendment crap that was all the rage back in the late '80s. Look, if someone wants to burn a flag, that's their right (assuming, of course, that it's *their* flag to begin with). I don't like it, but guess what? The First Amendment is never so useful as it is protecting the speech we don't like.
Here's the thing: If a person of [opposite gender] walks into your restroom, if they go into a stall to do their business (or to a urinal if so plumbed), what in blue blazes does it matter? If they're staring at your junk, that's actionable. We don't need another law taking up space to prevent them from walking in. We have laws that cover stalking, being a pervert, etc. Use the damn laws that are already on the books. Don't just start flinging new ones around.
But then again, no one ever made a name for themselves proposing that we simply prosecute the breaking of existing laws...
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
https://www.facebook.com/scott.whitmire/posts/10154061845374534?pnref=story
Thank you for the statement, I've been saying the exact same thing. The sign "Ladies room" is just like the sign that says "No guns allowed" Its doesn't stop anyone, and those who want to cause mayhem are more than happy to walk right past it. Freedom isn't safety, and the state cannot guarantee anyones safety, and if anyone understands that it should be the gunnies.
Of course people will find examples of something horrible happening, but the trick is, humanity as a whole sucks. Look at congress for examples, theres plenty.
It sickens me how people who should be on our side view us because of hypocrisy like this.
I agree that the law is unnecessary, badly written even if it were necessary, and antithetical to the conservative/libertarian small government philosophy. Not that this justifies the law, but let us not forget that HB2 was a response to the city of Charlotte first legislating the opposite. Of course the correct, response would be to do nothing and mock Charlotte for attempting to upend millennia of custom through government coercion, but politicians only have one tool and every problem looks like a nail to them.
It was a necessary law because it defines the boundaries of the rule of law. Before this law, like with most every other state in the country, there was no law saying that it was illegal for a man to go into a woman's bathroom. Charlotte realized this and made their move. The state was not happy with that so they passed a law that clearly defined what the restrictions would be.
Gotta strongly disagree with you here.
What evidence is there when a woman claims that a man in the restroom was peering over or under the stall? What evidence when she claims he was leering at her in the dressing room?
It's a classic he-said/she-said situation. When the women's rooms are for women and the men's rooms are for men, the assumption is that if a man is in the wrong one (and doesn't leave immediately as soon as he's informed of his mistake) he's there for nefarious purposes and the woman is telling the truth when she claims he was leering at her or peeking under or over the stall.
But when it's perfectly legal for the man to be in there, who gets the benefit of the doubt? When the man denies he was doing any such thing and claims he's just another person who identifies as female using he restroom, how do you stop it?
I can tell you how I would if it were My wife or daughter claiming the guy was leering at her in the restroom, but then I'D be the one in jail rather than the pervert hanging out in the restroom and invading the privacy of my loved ones.
Nope...you're dead wrong about this one.
Wrong. Previously, if someone saw a man heading into a woman's bathroom, they could be stopped. Now, an actual assault has to happen before anyone can do anything. Someone stopping a man from going into a woman's bathroom, changing room, etc., is liable to legal prosecution under the laws that require that we be "gender inclusive." And NC's law was passed because of a city law that required the idiocy of gender inclusiveness.
It's called "state's rights."
We are dealing with that here. The town is going to pass a "gender inclusive" law. This law requires all public entities to allow the use of facilities according to a person's declared feelings, not their recorded gender. Churches are considered public entities because they don't restrict their charity to their own denominations. So if an usher spots a man heading into a woman's bathroom they can't do anything until an actual assault or other behavior occurs. It also puts churches in the position of having to allow a boy to play Mary, etc. And if you don't think things are already planned for churches by the gay gestapo then you are out of your mind.
Wrong. Previously, if someone saw a man heading into a woman's bathroom, they could be stopped. Now, an actual assault has to happen before anyone can do anything. Someone stopping a man from going into a woman's bathroom, changing room, etc., is liable to legal prosecution under the laws that require that we be "gender inclusive." And NC's law was passed because of a city law that required the idiocy of gender inclusiveness.
It's called "state's rights."
We are dealing with that here. The town is going to pass a "gender inclusive" law. This law requires all public entities to allow the use of facilities according to a person's declared feelings, not their recorded gender. Churches are considered public entities because they don't restrict their charity to their own denominations. So if an usher spots a man heading into a woman's bathroom they can't do anything until an actual assault or other behavior occurs. It also puts churches in the position of having to allow a boy to play Mary, etc. And if you don't think things are already planned for churches by the gay gestapo then you are out of your mind.
I have no dog in this fight, but I am trying to understand why if they don't live in NC anyone gives a rat's ass. In the modern internet first world, do we suddenly get to decide what is right or wrong any where on the planet? I could care less if Bruce Springsteen doesn't play in South Africa, North Carolina or downtown Bowling Green, KY because he is offended by something or someone.
Just stay off my lawn and we'll get along just fine.
Gerry
I don't know about elsewhere, but the line at the Ladies in the Superdome is usually so long that many women opt to walk into the Mens and use a stall. There is a long history of bathroom disparity of there not being enough stalls in the Ladies toilets to handle the demand.
Peripatetic Engineer,
Men will stand shoulder to shoulder and use a urinal. Women not so much. In our local theater there are 10 more toilets in every women's restroom then there are urinals and toilets in the men's room and it still backs up.
Gerry
Sailorcurt,
Problem is, it's *still* a "he said/she said" thing. Before, it was she said he came into the women's room and did something, and it was her word against his that he did something. Now, it's she said he came into the women's room and did something, and it's her word against his that he came into the women's room and did something.
That's not an improvement, at least not in my book. Especially when we give the government more power. Remember, this is the same government that tells us how much water our toilets can use and what kind of light bulbs we can buy...
Believe me, I understand. I have a beautiful 12-year old daughter. If some pervert follows her into the women's room, there's going to be trouble, period.
But I don't need a law saying he can't go in there on the books.
I don't want to give the government leeway to make *any* unnecessary laws, and that's what this is. Remember, this can cut both ways - what happens when the Fed decides that, much like gay marriage, the bathroom usage question is one of such utmost importance that they have to stick their camel's nose under *that* particular tent?
We have far too damn many laws as it is. Allowing the government to pile on more unnecessary laws, even when we agree with the spirit, is only encouraging them to pile on even more. And eventually, they're going to start piling on laws that we don't agree with...
It was passed as a reaction to a Charlotte city ordinance.
As a reaction to.
Like most laws.
Also, and this gets missed a lot, the bathroom thing is 1) only for gooberment owned property and 2) only one of several things that was passed in the law.
And like most things, it's much ado about nothing. If you are transgendered and look the part of the gender you are using the bathroom of, no one is going to demand to see your birth certificate. If not, most of the time you are going to get a strange look but if you behave yourself no one is going to give you a hard time about it unless they are just jerks. Which was the case before the law was passed.
Useless law? Yep, just like most of them, and shouldn't have ever seen the light of day...but makes a really good point about the concept of limited government.
In case it has to be said, I am female. I have, on more than one occasion, walked into a women's bathroom and found a bonafide male washing his hands at the sinks. Every time so far he's been in there for a legitimate reason. Most recently it was a father who'd been out with his handicapped daughter, daughter had thought she could manage the bathroom by herself, got into trouble and yelled for help. Dad did what he had to do. He doesn't deserve to be harassed or even in legal trouble for doing so.
Larry, unfortunately far too many people aren't so polite as to mind their own business. I personally know 3 women, who are absolutely female, who've been hassled for using the bathroom that matches their plumbing because they have a more masculine appearance. And just recently there was a case that made the news (and not local to me) where a woman was stopped by a man when she went to use the women's room while waiting in the local emergency room. BEFORE she went into the room, so there was no question of what she was doing while in the room. So unfortunately its just not that simple.
Personally I agree. Bathroom signs are as powerful as "no gun" signs. I had a laugh just recently at a FB meme. It said "if you think no gun signs are useless because murderers don't obey them, but you think bathroom signs will stop rapists, you might be (specific political bent)". And that pretty well sums it up doesn't it?
Jay, the federal government is saying it is a civil right to be allowed to use whichever bathroom you want and that is wherein is my problem. It is a violation of a private party's rights when the gov't. pushes such on them and calls it a civil right that outweighs the rights they have relative to their own personal property and by who and how it is used. If I own a department store and have restrooms for men and women and rules as to who can use them, then so be it - only men in the mens' and only women in the womens' if that is how I want it. Where you pee or crap is not a civil right but whom you allow into a bathroom you own certainly is your right as a property owner and the government has absolutely no authority to impinge upon those rights.
Post a Comment