Recent content by Gh34

Then if it was just about charlotte, they would have simply repealed the charlotte bill only instead of embellishing all these other details to the bill.

Doesn't change that this didn't exist decades ago and is a new issue. When even the pro-republican wsj writes that it features the elements regarding the minimum wage, then the burden is on you.

Except for the fact that is a new law in its entirety and didn't exist decades ago, so this law is the change.

If it was 99%, there wouldn't be any controversy in the first place. Then you should publish an article about it explaining your reasoning, because many people don't agree with your interpretation.

Because it's not a simple repeal of the charlotte law, it's something else, so don't be surprised if people disagree with it for other reasons. Some people don't want government property to be managed like that.

You can't claim it's purely about 'freedom', when you impose the specific restrictions on state buildings too, of course you'll have people opposing it, who don't agree with those restrictions on buildings. That's not what the wsj and lawyers are saying about the bill.

And there are people who oppose the state doing that, so you admit it's more than just the private sector. Why didn't you answer the minimum wage link?

Because this is a new issue, if 'conservative' means to conserve past traditions, laws like this were not part of past traditions, these are new laws.

It requires it for state buildings, and it was never mandated for state buildings before. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/04/20/north-carolina-bathroom-law-also-limits-minimum-wage-hikes/

This issue is all from modern times, it was unheard of a century ago, and it was implemented on a statewide basis relevant to state buildings. If they just wanted to repeal the charlotte law, they could've done so, but this was not a simple repeal, it includes many other elements.

The bill tacks on a bunch of different elements like laws limiting minimum wage, etc. too. The fact is that this law is not a simple repeal of the charlotte law, the idea of requiring those born of either sex to enter the bathroom of their birth is now mandated to state buildings, and it wasn't...

If he/she is a trans-to-another sex you could make the legal argument that the individual is no longer the gender of the id, before the law, if he/she tried to sue you, and then he/she would be deposed revealing the history, and the case would basically be thrown out, that's why a case like that...

Also, you're assuming most bathrooms are kept under lock and key or are actively monitored, they aren't. So if a fake trans man walked into a woman's bathroom, he could give an excuse to enter initially by pretending to be a transman, even without having an id.

If a pervert had a fake id that marked him as a woman but looked like a man, you would be legally forced to let him into the woman's bathroom under the new law too, whereas before you could tell him no simply based on looks.

Again, you won't be able to do that without carding them a la alcohol, so you mean to say that businesses will check ids every single time someone wants to enter a bathroom? Practically, that is unfeasible.