LGBTs Get Backlash: North Carolinians Began Collecting Damages for NCAA Pulling Out: Oops!

[Silhouette]

Silhouette is right

$8000 bucks will bring the NCAA to its knees. That will teach them a lesson about not hating gays

That's ONE GUY of THOUSANDS likely affected fiscally by the NCAA's fiscal-terrorism and attempt to usurp the sovereignty of North Carolina. Multiply, idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

The weird thing he thinks is that people shower together in public places. The last time I had to disrobe and shower in front of a woman I wasn't sleeping with was boot camp.(and in boot camp you had so little time to shower, looking wasn't in the time budget )

Yes, you're so macho. I can see why those women were attracted to you. ?

 

[Silhouette]

1. Make the argument that access to opposite gender bathrooms can be limited? Well, I don't actually know if it should be, but one might argue it is a question of privacy. That's complicated by bathrooms with only stalls, of course. 2. Another argument might be one of safety; are sexual misconduct or rape more likely in a bathroom situation with mixed sexes?

3. I don't know if the arguments for bathroom separation will end up holding up in court. I don't consider the issue the same as same sex marriage, though.

4. Do you think that the opposite is true, that a woman who identifies as a man should not be allowed into the men's room because she doesn't have a penis?

1. You know the question isn't limited JUST to bathroom stalls. It's showers, locker rooms, dorms, sports teams...etc. You're a lawyer (at least I strongly suspect you are). You know about precedent. Shame!

2. "Gee, are rapes more likely in closed intimate hygiene areas where strange men are allowed to get naked with the naked women there? Hmm...maybe, maybe not." How fundamentally dishonest you are.

3. You DO know if they'll hold up in court or not. And you know the word is "NOT". You may not consider the issue the same as same sex marriage, but once the PREMISE of behaviors not being the same as race is exposed, Loving v Virginia will not be applicable to Obergefell; which on another thread I explained in detail, was the 100% ripping away of who determines who may marry from the states and directly into the five person majority on the USSC. In full violation of US v Windsor, avering 56 times that states have the power to determine marriage (2013), just three short years ago.

4. No, the opposite isn't true. Women are the weaker sex. A little girl pretending she is a guy, of her own free will walking into the lion's den is her own stupid choice. But a big male with lipstick on, of which Pop pointed out many "transgender" guys still are sexually attracted to females, walking into a women's shower situation is a situation where the weaker sex cannot escape his power. A lesbian is on an even footing more or less with other women. It's the question of a rapist being reliably (as a rule) bigger and physically stronger than his victim. And, males are unarguably 10 times more sexually charged with testosterone than women. That's why like 95% of all rapes are done by men to either other men or women or children.

 

[Montrovant]

1. Make the argument that access to opposite gender bathrooms can be limited? Well, I don't actually know if it should be, but one might argue it is a question of privacy. That's complicated by bathrooms with only stalls, of course. 2. Another argument might be one of safety; are sexual misconduct or rape more likely in a bathroom situation with mixed sexes?

3. I don't know if the arguments for bathroom separation will end up holding up in court. I don't consider the issue the same as same sex marriage, though.

4. Do you think that the opposite is true, that a woman who identifies as a man should not be allowed into the men's room because she doesn't have a penis?

1. You know the question isn't limited JUST to bathroom stalls. It's showers, locker rooms, dorms, sports teams...etc. You're a lawyer (at least I strongly suspect you are). You know about precedent. Shame!

2. "Gee, are rapes more likely in closed intimate hygiene areas where strange men are allowed to get naked with the naked women there? Hmm...maybe, maybe not." How fundamentally dishonest you are.

3. You DO know if they'll hold up in court or not. And you know the word is "NOT". You may not consider the issue the same as same sex marriage, but once the PREMISE of behaviors not being the same as race is exposed, Loving v Virginia will not be applicable to Obergefell; which on another thread I explained in detail, was the 100% ripping away of who determines who may marry from the states and directly into the five person majority on the USSC. In full violation of US v Windsor, avering 56 times that states have the power to determine marriage (2013), just three short years ago.

4. No, the opposite isn't true. Women are the weaker sex. A little girl pretending she is a guy, of her own free will walking into the lion's den is her own stupid choice. But a big male with lipstick on, of which Pop pointed out many "transgender" guys still are sexually attracted to females, walking into a women's shower situation is a situation where the weaker sex cannot escape his power. A lesbian is on an even footing more or less with other women. It's the question of a rapist being reliably (as a rule) bigger and physically stronger than his victim. And, males are unarguably 10 times more sexually charged with testosterone than women. That's why like 95% of all rapes are done by men to either other men or women or children.

1. I am a complete layman when it comes to the law. I also consider the question different in regards to showers, locker rooms, dorms, sports teams, and bathrooms.

2. It might seem obvious that co-ed bathrooms lead to more rape and sexual assault, but are there any actual statistics to back that up and be used in court?

3. I certainly do not know the things you think you know. No one but you has ever tried to claim that behaviors are the same as race. You have explained your wild imaginings in detail many times. They continue to not be true or have any impact on the US legal system. You also continue to ignore that the states only have the power to determine marriage if they don't violate constitutional protections.

4. The question wasn't for you. It was also questioning whether having a penis is always the main factor, as the poster implied.

 

[Crixus]

And when a ball starts to roll...roll on it shall... (From: NCAA Boycotts NC Over Bathroom Law )

I guess conservatives are finding out their beloved free market can come back to bite them occasionally.

Or, conversely, if conservatives in North Carolina (the state, properly) had oral or written contracts with the NCAA for games being played there for NC's financial enjoyment, the court system will come back to bite the NCAA.

The NCAA cannot commit fiscal-terrorism against North Carolina because that states' sovereign and duly elected representatives of the People of NC are acting to protect women and girls from sexual harassment (being forced by "law" to undress in front of deranged men behind doors marked "women")

This will be taken to Law.

Fiscal terrorism is exactly what it is. It is a conspiracy by a group, using financial punishment as a club, to force women and girls to disrobe in front of men in their showers, locker rooms and bathrooms; whether or not they agree to.

*******

I'm going to guess that the NCAA has protected its right to change tournament venues in whatever legal paperwork may be involved here.

I'm going to guess those rights didn't include "as punishment for North Carolina protecting North Carolina's women and girls from sexual harassment in their showers and bathrooms."

This will be taken to Law, as I said.
***********

Ruh-roh! It's already starting!: This is not the only dude who will lose money if NCAA pulls out of NC:

The day after the announcement, athletic director at East Carolina University, Jeff Compher, spoke out about this decision, saying he is disappointed and that ECU Athletics has already invested close to $8,000 in preparation for the tournament...."Today, I haven't had a follow up question, but in a voicemail message from a representative from the NCAA, they did say they would help us defray any costs that we had incurred, so I hope to have some additional conversations with the NCAA in the next couple days just to see the extent to which they will help us in those costs," Compher says....He also says he's hopeful for a quick resolution and that the games are brought back in the future. ECU's athletic director responds to NCAA pulling games out of North Carolina

Aw heck. Just skip the voicemail conversations and have some lawyers pay them a personal visit to ask how much $$ they're willing to shell out to people in North Carolina already out a ton of cash via preparing for the various (golf, football, basketball...etc.) meets that had been scheduled.

Near as I can tell, you cannot renege on a contract, or fiscally punish individuals here and there because a state passed a law you don't like.

and they can all thank Gavin Grim and her freakish need to pretend she has a penis. Thank you Gavin.

 

[Silhouette]

1. I am a complete layman when it comes to the law. I also consider the question different in regards to showers, locker rooms, dorms, sports teams, and bathrooms....2. It might seem obvious that co-ed bathrooms lead to more rape and sexual assault, but are there any actual statistics to back that up and be used in court?...3. I certainly do not know the things you think you know. No one but you has ever tried to claim that behaviors are the same as race. You have explained your wild imaginings in detail many times. They continue to not be true or have any impact on the US legal system. You also continue to ignore that the states only have the power to determine marriage if they don't violate constitutional protections....4. The question wasn't for you. It was also questioning whether having a penis is always the main factor, as the poster implied.

1. But the question ISN'T different with respect to ANY facility marked "women" once a male convinces a court "he is actually female". You know that. Once again, fundamentally dishonest.

2. So your contention is that putting a dingo farm next to a nursery is not necessarily a bad idea because "nothing bad has happened yet". However, we do have the case of the man in Washington State exposing himself to women and girls at a pool locker room already. And a case of a boy doing the same in a girl's school locker room under "transgender compassion" "laws" now in "effect".

3. Behaviors are absolutely not the same as race. Otherwise in the interest of equality, we'd have to put vomit urns on tables in restaurants as a matter of law so that bulimics weren't being discriminated against for their "eating orientation". Human behaviors and their aberrations are nearly without limit. Surely you can see a problem with logistics once the precedent "behavior=race" is set? No? Go take a course in logical deduction and get back to me.

4. Nevertheless, you didn't address how a bigger more powerful, and sexually charged testosterone male is a much greater threat to women's showers and locker rooms than a smaller, more diminutive female is in a male locker room. She's playing with fire in my opinion; but it's her choice. In the women's showers we find their choice suddenly taken away..

 

[Montrovant]

1. I am a complete layman when it comes to the law. I also consider the question different in regards to showers, locker rooms, dorms, sports teams, and bathrooms....2. It might seem obvious that co-ed bathrooms lead to more rape and sexual assault, but are there any actual statistics to back that up and be used in court?...3. I certainly do not know the things you think you know. No one but you has ever tried to claim that behaviors are the same as race. You have explained your wild imaginings in detail many times. They continue to not be true or have any impact on the US legal system. You also continue to ignore that the states only have the power to determine marriage if they don't violate constitutional protections....4. The question wasn't for you. It was also questioning whether having a penis is always the main factor, as the poster implied.

1. But the question ISN'T different with respect to ANY facility marked "women" once a male convinces a court "he is actually female". You know that. Once again, fundamentally dishonest.

2. So your contention is that putting a dingo farm next to a nursery is not necessarily a bad idea because "nothing bad has happened yet". However, we do have the case of the man in Washington State exposing himself to women and girls at a pool locker room already. And a case of a boy doing the same in a girl's school locker room under "transgender compassion" "laws" now in "effect".

3. Behaviors are absolutely not the same as race. Otherwise in the interest of equality, we'd have to put vomit urns on tables in restaurants as a matter of law so that bulimics weren't being discriminated against for their "eating orientation". Human behaviors and their aberrations are nearly without limit. Surely you can see a problem with logistics once the precedent "behavior=race" is set? No? Go take a course in logical deduction and get back to me.

4. Nevertheless, you didn't address how a bigger more powerful, and sexually charged testosterone male is a much greater threat to women's showers and locker rooms than a smaller, more diminutive female is in a male locker room. She's playing with fire in my opinion; but it's her choice. In the women's showers we find their choice suddenly taken away..

1. The question is different. A bathroom may still allow for a kind of privacy that a shower may not. Having women on a men's sports team may not work simply because of physical differences. There is also the question of why gender separation is acceptable. If it has to do with the genitals of the people involved, then what a person self-identifies as would be irrelevant.

2. My contention is that transgender people are not necessarily more dangerous to people of the opposite physical gender. How transgender is defined and determined is also important to the discussion. If there is evidence that laws allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice has lead to an increase in sexual assaults that would be a factor in court I would assume.

3. I agree that behaviors are not the same as race. So has every person I've ever seen comment on the subject. You constantly talk about people conflating the two, but no one actually does. It is another of your straw men. Further, just because something is a behavior does not mean it does not get constitutional protection. Religious belief might be defined as a behavior, as would free speech, carrying a firearm, or peacably assembling.

4. Yes, men set on sexual assault would tend to be more dangerous to women than vice versa.

 

[Silhouette]

1. The question is different. A bathroom may still allow for a kind of privacy that a shower may not. Having women on a men's sports team may not work simply because of physical differences. There is also the question of why gender separation is acceptable. If it has to do with the genitals of the people involved, then what a person self-identifies as would be irrelevant....2. My contention is that transgender people are not necessarily more dangerous to people of the opposite physical gender. How transgender is defined and determined is also important to the discussion. If there is evidence that laws allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice has lead to an increase in sexual assaults that would be a factor in court I would assume....3. I agree that behaviors are not the same as race. So has every person I've ever seen comment on the subject. You constantly talk about people conflating the two, but no one actually does. It is another of your straw men. Further, just because something is a behavior does not mean it does not get constitutional protection. Religious belief might be defined as a behavior, as would free speech, carrying a firearm, or peacably assembling....4. Yes, men set on sexual assault would tend to be more dangerous to women than vice versa.

1. Not in the court's eyes. Of course this is the shoehorn and you know it is. I maintain you are being purposefully deceitful. In order to gain legal access to a women's restroom, a man would have to convince a court that "a man pretending to be female is as legal-equal to "female". Otherwise, he ain't getting in. And THAT is the issue that will propel all other areas of access.

2. "Transgender people"? You mean "any man who self-diagnoses that he is a woman born in a man's body", right? Because right now, that is the "medical" gold standard for that definition. Which then any man of any qualification or none at all could then report to be. Because there are all sorts of stages of 'coming to that awareness' reported, aren't there? From just putting on a pair of panty hose under his jeans to wearing lipstick, to the full chop shop, or even just "feeling like a girl".. Kind of hard to nail down that slippery eel isn't it? And because it's hard to nail down, a man who has ill intentions on women in compromising situations like oh, say, naked in a shower or locker room alone with him, couldn't really be evicted. And any woman encountering him there on his word that "he's a woman trapped in a man's body" would find herself choosing between self protection and getting her ass sued into next year for "bigotry and discrimination". And, you want a "trial period" where "enough evidence could amass there is a problem" before a court would step in to place limits. What I read here is "shoehorn and establishing use" which as you know is very difficult to retract once it is legally in place. God you're deceitful. Have I mentioned that before?

3. Unless "LGBT" has declared itself an official religion, which I've said numerous times it should because when the shoe fits...it is a cult, a loose collection of shifting sexually aberrant behaviors that want recognition as "a concrete class". If one loose, shifting set of behaviors can gain "class status", then they all can. I assume you've heard of the 14th Amendment? Jesus you're shifty.

4. OK, so you admit I have at least one point you agree on: that men entering women's showers etc. would be predictably more dangerous to women than vice versa. Please go back and read your own point #2 where you contend that "transgender people" "are not necessarily more dangerous to people of the opposite physical gender". Like having it both ways a lot do you? So the only way you could walk both sides of the fence on this point is if people with a penis, testicles and normal male DNA 'are not actually men in some cases". Which...good luck in court

 

[Montrovant]

1. The question is different. A bathroom may still allow for a kind of privacy that a shower may not. Having women on a men's sports team may not work simply because of physical differences. There is also the question of why gender separation is acceptable. If it has to do with the genitals of the people involved, then what a person self-identifies as would be irrelevant....2. My contention is that transgender people are not necessarily more dangerous to people of the opposite physical gender. How transgender is defined and determined is also important to the discussion. If there is evidence that laws allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice has lead to an increase in sexual assaults that would be a factor in court I would assume....3. I agree that behaviors are not the same as race. So has every person I've ever seen comment on the subject. You constantly talk about people conflating the two, but no one actually does. It is another of your straw men. Further, just because something is a behavior does not mean it does not get constitutional protection. Religious belief might be defined as a behavior, as would free speech, carrying a firearm, or peacably assembling....4. Yes, men set on sexual assault would tend to be more dangerous to women than vice versa.

1. Not in the court's eyes. Of course this is the shoehorn and you know it is. I maintain you are being purposefully deceitful. In order to gain legal access to a women's restroom, a man would have to convince a court that "a man pretending to be female is as legal-equal to "female". Otherwise, he ain't getting in. And THAT is the issue that will propel all other areas of access.

2. "Transgender people"? You mean "any man who self-diagnoses that he is a woman born in a man's body", right? Because right now, that is the "medical" gold standard for that definition. Which then any man of any qualification or none at all could then report to be. Because there are all sorts of stages of 'coming to that awareness' reported, aren't there? From just putting on a pair of panty hose under his jeans to wearing lipstick, to the full chop shop, or even just "feeling like a girl".. Kind of hard to nail down that slippery eel isn't it? And because it's hard to nail down, a man who has ill intentions on women in compromising situations like oh, say, naked in a shower or locker room alone with him, couldn't really be evicted. And any woman encountering him there on his word that "he's a woman trapped in a man's body" would find herself choosing between self protection and getting her ass sued into next year for "bigotry and discrimination". And, you want a "trial period" where "enough evidence could amass there is a problem" before a court would step in to place limits. What I read here is "shoehorn and establishing use" which as you know is very difficult to retract once it is legally in place. God you're deceitful. Have I mentioned that before?

3. Unless "LGBT" has declared itself an official religion, which I've said numerous times it should because when the shoe fits...it is a cult, a loose collection of shifting sexually aberrant behaviors that want recognition as "a concrete class". If one loose, shifting set of behaviors can gain "class status", then they all can. I assume you've heard of the 14th Amendment? Jesus you're shifty.

4. OK, so you admit I have at least one point you agree on: that men entering women's showers etc. would be predictably more dangerous to women than vice versa. Please go back and read your own point #2 where you contend that "transgender people" "are not necessarily more dangerous to people of the opposite physical gender". Like having it both ways a lot do you? So the only way you could walk both sides of the fence on this point is if people with a penis, testicles and normal male DNA 'are not actually men in some cases". Which...good luck in court

1. Again, that depends on why legal separation of the facilities is acceptable.

2. Medical gold standard? What are you talking about?
I already said that the courts might want to define transgendered specifically.
I tend to agree with keeping showers separated by physical sex rather than self-identified gender.
What you read is rarely what is actually said. It isn't that I'm deceitful, it's that you like to make things up to argue against.

3. LBGT is obviously not a religion, nor has anyone claimed it to be. Yet again, you are creating something to argue against.

4. I said that men who were planning to commit sexual assault would be more dangerous to women than vice versa. That doesn't mean that all men are planning to commit sexual assault. It also doesn't mean that all transgender people are planning to commit sexual assault. In other words, are transgender people likely to commit sexual assault on people of the gender they identify with? The comment wasn't about whether someone who was born a man but identifies as a woman will be stronger than most women of about the same size.

Got any other arguments you want to make up and argue against? Maybe I shouldn't bother replying, you can just make up arguments and pretend I make them.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I've got plenty of other debating to do on this topic.

 

[Silhouette]

I already said that the courts might want to define transgendered specifically.

Ya think? Maybe it might be a good idea to understand what is asking for "rights" before they grant them. Good call Monty. I wish the infamous 5 Justices were as smart as you. Maybe instead of focusing on blind PC emotional issues straight out of the chute (read Obergefell, it's like a daytime soap opera script), the Justices should have asked Obergefell "what exactly is gay, if you're lusting after an effeminate man's wares?" "or you're a lesbian lusting after another woman who dresses, talks, walks and acts like a man all the way down to the strapon she's wearing during sex"? But of course the court was too polite to actually delve into the facts in order to establish a premise upon which to base further discussions. Much easier in mixed company to erroneously assign a static race type status to misunderstood gray area behaviors than to ...you know...talk about what makes them tick.

What makes you think the Court will do anything but regurgitate the bullshit con the APA fed them the first time around the block? Maybe they'll find that a man wanting his dick chopped off is crazy. But it wouldn't be politically correct or in lockstep with what the LGBT cult demands they do and say.

But maybe you have a point. Maybe they should THIS TIME get to the bottom of what's standing before them before they totally fuck this one up too, to the demise of both women and children, instead of just children like they did when they took away either their mother or father for life in Obergefell..

 

[Silhouette]

The ACC attempts also to usurp democracy and sovereign rule in North Carolina using fiscal terrorism:

The Atlantic Coast Conference has pulled this year's football title game from Charlotte amid the ongoing firestorm over North Carolina's House Bill 2, the latest sports-related blow stemming from the controversial law.

The ACC game, which was to be played Dec. 3 at Bank of America Stadium, had been expected to draw tens of thousands of fans and pour millions of dollars into Charlotte's economy...."The ACC Council of Presidents reaffirmed our collective commitment to uphold the values of equality, diversity, inclusion and non-discrimination," read a statement issued after a meeting of the ACC presidents at Clemson University. "We believe North Carolina House Bill 2 is inconsistent with these values." ACC Follows NCAA's Lead and Pulls Championship Games From North Carolina

What about the rights of women to not be forced to disrobe in front of men in their private hygiene areas!!!???? They are discriminating against women and girls being able to fend off a real and proximate form of sexual harassment and is destroying their right to privacy. This is a real step into the dark ages for women and girls everywhere. It's so far back of a step that it's literally going back to the days of cave men.

 

[Montrovant]

The ACC attempts also to usurp democracy and sovereign rule in North Carolina using fiscal terrorism:

The Atlantic Coast Conference has pulled this year's football title game from Charlotte amid the ongoing firestorm over North Carolina's House Bill 2, the latest sports-related blow stemming from the controversial law.

The ACC game, which was to be played Dec. 3 at Bank of America Stadium, had been expected to draw tens of thousands of fans and pour millions of dollars into Charlotte's economy...."The ACC Council of Presidents reaffirmed our collective commitment to uphold the values of equality, diversity, inclusion and non-discrimination," read a statement issued after a meeting of the ACC presidents at Clemson University. "We believe North Carolina House Bill 2 is inconsistent with these values." ACC Follows NCAA's Lead and Pulls Championship Games From North Carolina

What about the rights of women to not be forced to disrobe in front of men in their private hygiene areas!!!???? They are discriminating against women and girls being able to fend off a real and proximate form of sexual harassment and is destroying their right to privacy. This is a real step into the dark ages for women and girls everywhere. It's so far back of a step that it's literally going back to the days of cave men.

Back to the days of cave men when men entered women's bathroom?

You might want to rethink your use of the word literally.

 

[Silhouette]

Back to the days of cave men when men entered women's bathroom?

You might want to rethink your use of the word literally.

Back in the days where any deranged male could do as he pleased in the presence of any female and nobody could do a friggin' thing about it. Today the "club" over the women & girls' heads is "threat of a lawsuit for bigotry"..

 

[Montrovant]

Back to the days of cave men when men entered women's bathroom?

You might want to rethink your use of the word literally.

Back in the days where any deranged male could do as he pleased in the presence of any female and nobody could do a friggin' thing about it. Today the "club" over the women & girls' heads is "threat of a lawsuit for bigotry"..

Do you think that men can "do as they please" in the presence of any female? Do you think there are no laws to deal with all kinds of behavior already?

Keeping men, including transgender, out of women's bathrooms may be a legitimate goal. Your hyperbole is not.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think that men can "do as they please" in the presence of any female? Do you think there are no laws to deal with all kinds of behavior already?

Keeping men, including transgender, out of women's bathrooms may be a legitimate goal. Your hyperbole is not.

Behind closed doors, "legally" naked where the woman is afraid of calling the police for fear of a lawsuit? You bet. There are laws preventing dingo owners from having their pets eating babies too. Doesn't mean that if you let a dingo loose in a nursery, the infants are all safe.

LGBTQ has lost any vestige of common sense. So since the inmates no longer have a grasp on sanity, the courts have to step in and insert common sense where the PC-warriors have a gaping vacuum.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you think that men can "do as they please" in the presence of any female? Do you think there are no laws to deal with all kinds of behavior already?

Keeping men, including transgender, out of women's bathrooms may be a legitimate goal. Your hyperbole is not.

Behind closed doors, "legally" naked where the woman is afraid of calling the police for fear of a lawsuit? You bet. There are laws preventing dingo owners from having their pets eating babies too. Doesn't mean that if you let a dingo loose in a nursery, the infants are all safe.

LGBTQ has lost any vestige of common sense. So since the inmates no longer have a grasp on sanity, the courts have to step in and insert common sense where the PC-warriors have a gaping vacuum.

Again with the dingos. Did this grow out of your 'child raised by wolves' schtick from earlier?

You said back in the day when deranged men could do as they please and no one could do a thing about it. Trying to say that is the way it is today is nothing but hyperbole.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Great comeback.

NOT.

 

[initforme]

Why is north Carolina fighting this? Just let it go and conduct your own business.to heck with the NCAA. Let them go somewhere else.

 

[Silhouette]

You're being serious?