Okay, I may have exaggerated. XD Sorry. :P Fact is though, the NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl when the law didn't pass in the state legislature and that's why it went to a vote of the people. If anything, it goes to prove my point about a small group of people (elected officials) being on the wrong side of history and hence misrepresenting the actual citizens. I seriously doubt any of these laws would have even been considered had any of them made a ballot.

And no, but the situation is a little different when we are talking about human rights. We aren't discussing china patterns here. We are 50 different states under one Constitution and when one of the 50 decides it doesn't want to abide by that Constitution and provide the Liberties guaranteed therein, then the rules change and anything goes, whether it be by corporate bullying as in this case, or even military, as in the 1960s when the National Guard was used to enforce integration.

Rather amusing how that article completely downplays the significance of the bill (and its real effects on transgendered people) in pursuit of promoting its Libertarian point of view.


Perhaps not, but there was a significant amount of opposition within the State of Arizona to get MLK Day recognized.

http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/20120112martin-luther-king-holiday-dilemma.html

The irony of hoping that an organization as horrible as the the NCAA will act against this law is not lost on me, but I'm not sure I see what the Citizens United holding has to do with anything.
Well, they are but they aren't. The Supreme Court is still doing its thing, but with 8 justices. If they happen to disagree on something enough to the point that no majority opinion can be written, they can issue a plurality decision which provides no clear precedent for the future.

And in doing so, they misgender all transgender women. If they were truly referring to transgender men, then the bill (and similar bills) would not make sense, as it would have the opposite effect, requiring those men to use the women's bathroom.
The case would have to make it up through lower courts first. One of the earliest Supreme Court rulings (back in the 18th century, I believe) was that the Supreme Court could only handle appeals.

Speaking of 'anything goes', apparently some of the trans community have been abiding by the law... while handing out cards like [url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeehnO0W4AAgEuS.jpg:large]this[/url] to the people who are wondering why, say, there is a burly dude using the lady's.
There is also that. Mind, I am hoping that we won't have to wait that long for this shit to get fixed.

Out of curiosity, do you have the source for that image?

Do explain to me how the U.S. Constitution requires that States provide citizens with the ability to sue private employers for discrimination.

I'm curious since the Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrain government, not private organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#Constitutional_basis

Federal anti-discrmination laws apply to businesses engaging in interstate commerce, but this North Carolina law does not challenge federal law. This is a State matter.

Again, not defending this law.

*sigh* Political ignorance at its worst. Libertarians were pushing for LGBT rights long before it was cool, long before Democrats started pandering to the demographic.

But no, you're right: They must be the bad guys for thinking that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to provide services.

Sarcasm aside, read this article at Reason from the same writer. I'll post a quote in case you're feeling lazy or pressed for time:

My intent was not to flame you. I apologize if my tone was too harsh.

And you're right: We'd probably get along just fine. I frequently talk politics with a coworker who is a staunch Democrat, but we respect each other despite our differences of opinion and also talk about our personal lives, families, etc.

I didn't mean you flamed me, only that it usually turns into that.

I think I'm just spent and want away from politics for a while regardless of who I'm talking about it with. I hate election years. :P

Small update: looks like the list of businesses that are in opposition to the law is getting lengthy.

Also, remember how the law revoked a fuckload of ant-discrimination ordinances? Yeah, turns out that some of our cities and counties had laws in place to prevent discrimination based on veteran status; after this law, those protections are now gone. Head, meet desk.

Here is one article about a rally in Raleigh on Thursday.
https://medium.com/@alittlelilypad/in-raleigh-tired-but-determined-a3a9693a5599#.cydiltwts

That reminds me, I have one nit to pick with the news coverage of the situation: there were also a fair number of Democrats who supported this shit; I get that the speaker didn't want to focus on that in a rally, but saying 'we walked out' to imply the entire party walked out is a bit disingenuous.

The correct solution here is for people to stop caring about which restroom people use. But unless you've got a penis and want to make use of a urinal, there's not really any particular reason why you need to be using the men's room.

Well, other than avoiding those batshit insane women that will mace any guy they deem to be dangerous without any consideration being paid to whether or not he is dangerous.