NC Legislature setting up possible move to the SEC?

[Dwillhog66]

LOL, and here I thought it was breaking the law that made you a criminal

The fact you find that funny is a sign you are not a criminal or are a terrible one.
As an example to help your ignorance, a pedophile who abducts children will make absolutely certain the vehicle they use has no issues such as brake lights, blinkers not operating and they will obey the street laws to a T. They are very careful to use the law to not expose themselves in any way. Anything that gives them an edge in protecting themselves.
Many criminals are far more versed in laws than police officers.

[nchogg]

I fail to see the bigotry in recognizing the gender of a person based on the gender listed on their birth certificate. They could be called old fashioned or socially conservative, but bigoted just doesn't apply here.

Makes sense to me! I hope NC does pass the law because the ACC and NCAA need to stay out of individual state government.

[Sourpuss]

The NCAA holds sporting events in China and Cuba, yet has a problem with North Carolina.

Let that sink in.

[bennyl08]

maybe they can join the AAC

Maybe they can join the 21st century.

[bennyl08]

I agree for the most part. If nobody is uncomfortable with it then there isnt a problem. However, if someone is making others uncomfortable then it deserves being looked at.

What is allowed to make somebody uncomfortable?

Is the elderly man breaking the law for standing too long at the urinal? What if it makes me uncomfortable how long he has been there? In reality, he's old and it's harder to pee. Nothing he can really do about it and I'd just be a jerk for making a big deal about it.

Now, I say "really" because there is something he could do about it. He could force himself to stop and leave after a minute or so and try again later. He could force himself to take up a stall to go pee. However, he shouldn't have to do any of that.

Now, if he's obviously trying to get a look at me when I'm at a urinal, then there are already laws against that.

Similar issues for a transexual. It's already against the law to be a pervert in a public bathroom. So, the only thing that would be making people uncomfortable is how somebody looks. Lets talk worst case scenario which is actually a small fraction of transgenders and lets look at the draq queen who inspired the look or Ursula in the little mermaid (true story). People who are uncomfortable with transgendered are not going to comfortable around that person no matter what bathroom they use, male or female.

While I'm not a small government conservative, I do want the government to be as small as it can be while performing the duties that it should be doing. For example, I think it is well within the government's jurisdiction to make sure that bathrooms for the public are accessible for everyone. However, requiring companies to make their bathrooms unisex or requiring them to open a third is too intrusive to me. So, what are we as a society to do?

For most transgendered, they would cause more discomfort by using the restroom of their sex as assigned at birth than they would using their current gender (regardless of their sex) as they would be mostly indistinguishable unless another patron was breaking the law. For other transgendered, they make people who are uncomfortable with the very concept feel discomfort no matter where they use the bathroom, but they have a right to use the restroom and government doesn't have a right to force there to be three or force a place to use unisex. In such an instance, the private company would have the ability to build a third restroom, make their restrooms single and unisex, or they'd have to get over it. It would be akin to a person with piercings and dreadlocks. They may make some people uncomfortable, but those people will just have to get over it.

Lastly, what about the actual prospect of crime? The pervert who uses this to be more of a pervert? First, what is stopping anybody from being a pervert now? If you are a business owner, are you going to stop what looks like an ugly woman from using the woman's restroom because you think they might be a man? If you are at a restaurant, how carefully do you watch who uses the restroom and how likely are you to personally stop somebody from entering a restroom? Bathroom incidents come from reports inside the bathroom to begin with. In no way does this increase the risk of something bad happening inside a restroom more than it already would have.

Secondly, what about the pervy kid wanting to see the other sex in the bathroom. First, the amount of cool points that kid would receive would be dwarfed by the backlash. If you think millenials are PC, the kids in grade school today are taking that cultural trend even farther. Even fraternities are finally starting to understand that consent is cool. Peeking on women when there is an expectation of privacy today is like being a homosexual was 50 years ago. Sexual conduct without consent today is met with the scorn that homosexuality used to be. Quite the reversal of what is acceptable to society and not. So, peer pressure strongly would discourage that from kids today, but what about the kid who doesn't care about that at all? Well, there are lesbians and gay men in HS/Jr high already not to mention bisexuals and that's been true for all of time. So, we are left with, if the person is breaking the law, they are breaking the law. Are you going to put lesbians in the men's locker room? Gay men in the woman's? Bisexuals? No. You treat people to treat everybody else as people too. If somebody is transexual, you make reasonable accommodations and nothing more. If they are harassing the women, they get in trouble. If they are harassed by the boys, the harassers get in trouble. Best you can do is punish the harassers to the point they won't do it again and put people in the best position to not be harassed while still being able to be themselves.

[PorkSoda]

I fail to see the bigotry in recognizing the gender of a person based on the gender listed on their birth certificate. They could be called old fashioned or socially conservative, but bigoted just doesn't apply here.

Definition of bigot
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[Großer Kriegschwein]

Should be moved to general sports or better yet the frickin Trash Can.

This garbage is politics and has nothing to do with Razorback football and elicits garbage political posts of how people feel about political issues.

[Dwillhog66]

Definition of bigot
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This is the definition that applies to this argument



:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[HF#1]

In what world do they think they can force UNC or NC State to withdrawl from a conference? They would all be looking for new jobs the next election. Politically they would be done.

NC may have the dumbest legislature in the country.

[PorkSoda]

Should be moved to general sports or better yet the frickin Trash Can.

This garbage is politics and has nothing to do with Razorback football and elicits garbage political posts of how people feel about political issues.

mods must be asleep

[a0ashle]

What is allowed to make somebody uncomfortable?

Is the elderly man breaking the law for standing too long at the urinal? What if it makes me uncomfortable how long he has been there? In reality, he's old and it's harder to pee. Nothing he can really do about it and I'd just be a jerk for making a big deal about it.

Now, I say "really" because there is something he could do about it. He could force himself to stop and leave after a minute or so and try again later. He could force himself to take up a stall to go pee. However, he shouldn't have to do any of that.

Now, if he's obviously trying to get a look at me when I'm at a urinal, then there are already laws against that.

Similar issues for a transexual. It's already against the law to be a pervert in a public bathroom. So, the only thing that would be making people uncomfortable is how somebody looks. Lets talk worst case scenario which is actually a small fraction of transgenders and lets look at the draq queen who inspired the look or Ursula in the little mermaid (true story). People who are uncomfortable with transgendered are not going to comfortable around that person no matter what bathroom they use, male or female.

While I'm not a small government conservative, I do want the government to be as small as it can be while performing the duties that it should be doing. For example, I think it is well within the government's jurisdiction to make sure that bathrooms for the public are accessible for everyone. However, requiring companies to make their bathrooms unisex or requiring them to open a third is too intrusive to me. So, what are we as a society to do?

For most transgendered, they would cause more discomfort by using the restroom of their sex as assigned at birth than they would using their current gender (regardless of their sex) as they would be mostly indistinguishable unless another patron was breaking the law. For other transgendered, they make people who are uncomfortable with the very concept feel discomfort no matter where they use the bathroom, but they have a right to use the restroom and government doesn't have a right to force there to be three or force a place to use unisex. In such an instance, the private company would have the ability to build a third restroom, make their restrooms single and unisex, or they'd have to get over it. It would be akin to a person with piercings and dreadlocks. They may make some people uncomfortable, but those people will just have to get over it.

Lastly, what about the actual prospect of crime? The pervert who uses this to be more of a pervert? First, what is stopping anybody from being a pervert now? If you are a business owner, are you going to stop what looks like an ugly woman from using the woman's restroom because you think they might be a man? If you are at a restaurant, how carefully do you watch who uses the restroom and how likely are you to personally stop somebody from entering a restroom? Bathroom incidents come from reports inside the bathroom to begin with. In no way does this increase the risk of something bad happening inside a restroom more than it already would have.

Secondly, what about the pervy kid wanting to see the other sex in the bathroom. First, the amount of cool points that kid would receive would be dwarfed by the backlash. If you think millenials are PC, the kids in grade school today are taking that cultural trend even farther. Even fraternities are finally starting to understand that consent is cool. Peeking on women when there is an expectation of privacy today is like being a homosexual was 50 years ago. Sexual conduct without consent today is met with the scorn that homosexuality used to be. Quite the reversal of what is acceptable to society and not. So, peer pressure strongly would discourage that from kids today, but what about the kid who doesn't care about that at all? Well, there are lesbians and gay men in HS/Jr high already not to mention bisexuals and that's been true for all of time. So, we are left with, if the person is breaking the law, they are breaking the law. Are you going to put lesbians in the men's locker room? Gay men in the woman's? Bisexuals? No. You treat people to treat everybody else as people too. If somebody is transexual, you make reasonable accommodations and nothing more. If they are harassing the women, they get in trouble. If they are harassed by the boys, the harassers get in trouble. Best you can do is punish the harassers to the point they won't do it again and put people in the best position to not be harassed while still being able to be themselves.

Nailed it +1

[bennyl08]

Nailed it +1

Well, minus the 50 or so typos give or take, but thanks.

[PorkRinds]

What is allowed to make somebody uncomfortable?

Is the elderly man breaking the law for standing too long at the urinal? What if it makes me uncomfortable how long he has been there? In reality, he's old and it's harder to pee. Nothing he can really do about it and I'd just be a jerk for making a big deal about it.

Now, I say "really" because there is something he could do about it. He could force himself to stop and leave after a minute or so and try again later. He could force himself to take up a stall to go pee. However, he shouldn't have to do any of that.

Now, if he's obviously trying to get a look at me when I'm at a urinal, then there are already laws against that.

Similar issues for a transexual. It's already against the law to be a pervert in a public bathroom. So, the only thing that would be making people uncomfortable is how somebody looks. Lets talk worst case scenario which is actually a small fraction of transgenders and lets look at the draq queen who inspired the look or Ursula in the little mermaid (true story). People who are uncomfortable with transgendered are not going to comfortable around that person no matter what bathroom they use, male or female.

While I'm not a small government conservative, I do want the government to be as small as it can be while performing the duties that it should be doing. For example, I think it is well within the government's jurisdiction to make sure that bathrooms for the public are accessible for everyone. However, requiring companies to make their bathrooms unisex or requiring them to open a third is too intrusive to me. So, what are we as a society to do?

For most transgendered, they would cause more discomfort by using the restroom of their sex as assigned at birth than they would using their current gender (regardless of their sex) as they would be mostly indistinguishable unless another patron was breaking the law. For other transgendered, they make people who are uncomfortable with the very concept feel discomfort no matter where they use the bathroom, but they have a right to use the restroom and government doesn't have a right to force there to be three or force a place to use unisex. In such an instance, the private company would have the ability to build a third restroom, make their restrooms single and unisex, or they'd have to get over it. It would be akin to a person with piercings and dreadlocks. They may make some people uncomfortable, but those people will just have to get over it.

Lastly, what about the actual prospect of crime? The pervert who uses this to be more of a pervert? First, what is stopping anybody from being a pervert now? If you are a business owner, are you going to stop what looks like an ugly woman from using the woman's restroom because you think they might be a man? If you are at a restaurant, how carefully do you watch who uses the restroom and how likely are you to personally stop somebody from entering a restroom? Bathroom incidents come from reports inside the bathroom to begin with. In no way does this increase the risk of something bad happening inside a restroom more than it already would have.

Secondly, what about the pervy kid wanting to see the other sex in the bathroom. First, the amount of cool points that kid would receive would be dwarfed by the backlash. If you think millenials are PC, the kids in grade school today are taking that cultural trend even farther. Even fraternities are finally starting to understand that consent is cool. Peeking on women when there is an expectation of privacy today is like being a homosexual was 50 years ago. Sexual conduct without consent today is met with the scorn that homosexuality used to be. Quite the reversal of what is acceptable to society and not. So, peer pressure strongly would discourage that from kids today, but what about the kid who doesn't care about that at all? Well, there are lesbians and gay men in HS/Jr high already not to mention bisexuals and that's been true for all of time. So, we are left with, if the person is breaking the law, they are breaking the law. Are you going to put lesbians in the men's locker room? Gay men in the woman's? Bisexuals? No. You treat people to treat everybody else as people too. If somebody is transexual, you make reasonable accommodations and nothing more. If they are harassing the women, they get in trouble. If they are harassed by the boys, the harassers get in trouble. Best you can do is punish the harassers to the point they won't do it again and put people in the best position to not be harassed while still being able to be themselves.

Should end the argument. But it won't because it's so icky to have to pee close to a trans person.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I still say beat the hell out of the perverts. It works.

[bennyl08]

I still say beat the hell out of the perverts. It works.

Yeah, but the media would champion the perverts as martyrs.

"Conservative trying to protect his family from being spied on was beaten up today trying to spy on everybody else. 5th time this week alone."

[(notOM)Rebel123]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/11/more-republican-politicians-than-trans-people-have-been-arrested-for-sex-acts-in-bathrooms/

Citing patheos.com? oh my.....bless your heart.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Yeah, but the media would champion the perverts as martyrs.

"Conservative trying to protect his family from being spied on was beaten up today trying to spy on everybody else. 5th time this week alone."

I didn't expect that. A guy that prides himself on providing statistics making chit up. Whooda thought?

[PorkSoda]

Citing patheos.com? oh my.....bless your heart.

lol, the article cites its sources.

you are free to respond in kind (aka with sources) if you refute the claim.

target has had their bathroom policy for a while now.  surely you can show amble evidence to justify your fears?

[(notOM)Rebel123]

lol, the article cites its sources.

you are free to respond in kind (aka with sources) if you refute the claim.

I'm sure the article must be true, you read it on the internet.

[PorkSoda]

I'm sure the article must be true, you read it on the internet.

you are welcome to google each of the 3 names listed and find the news stories associated with them if you are that interested.

or you can prove than more than 3 people have dressed up as the opposite sex in order to gain access to the opposite sex bathroom in order to assault someone

if you can accomplish that, then you can explain how the NC law would have prevented it from happening.

[hobhog]

mods must be asleep

[(notOM)Rebel123]

you are welcome to google each of the 3 names listed and find the news stories associated with them if you are that interested.

or you can prove than more than 3 people have dressed up as the opposite sex in order to gain access to the opposite sex bathroom in order to assault someone

if you can accomplish that, then you can explain how the NC law would have prevented it from happening.

If you think it is acceptable for grown men to use the restroom with young girls, then
nothing I could possibly say or post will change that mindset.

But here's just a couple of what you find on Google search.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/transgender-woman-arrested-idaho-changing-room-incident/


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/

[PorkSoda]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/

fair enough, I guess republican legislators aren't the only perverts out there.

however all these people broke the law and were arrested.

none were able to avoid prosecution by claiming to be transgender or other such nonsense.

its still illegal whether you are straight gay or transgender.

and this stuff was happening before bathroom laws even became a debate.

my only point has been that establishments should make their own policies based on the risk factors specific to them rather than have the state make blanket laws one way of the other, especially when they are basically unenforceable. 

[hobhog]

mods must be asleep

[PorkRinds]

If you think it is acceptable for grown men to use the restroom with young girls, then
nothing I could possibly say or post will change that mindset.

But here's just a couple of what you find on Google search.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/transgender-woman-arrested-idaho-changing-room-incident/


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/

So you chastise him for citing a specific website and then post breitbart? That's laughable. Most on that list aren't even transgender.

[gchamblee]

People are so terrified of being labeled a racist or a bigot they will pretend that gender is a choice.

[Birminghog]

NC may have the dumbest legislature in the country.

Oh, no, HF. I can assure you, Alabama is No. 1! 

[factchecker]

Oh, no, HF. I can assure you, Alabama is No. 1! 

Isn't Tuberville running for office?

[bennyl08]

People are so terrified of being labeled a racist or a bigot they will pretend that gender is a choice.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

[Inhogswetrust]

Makes sense to me! I hope NC does pass the law because the ACC and NCAA need to stay out of individual state government.

Thye do stay out of state governments. But like any law their might be other consequences. The NCAA and conferences can or not can do business in any state or not. The state doesn't control them and they don't control what the states laws are. They can however have rules that defy individual state laws.

[98hogs]

The NCAA holds sporting events in China and Cuba, yet has a problem with North Carolina.

Let that sink in.

+ a Million

[a0ashle]

People are so terrified of being labeled a racist or a bigot they will pretend that gender is a choice.

Gender != Sex, sex is about your physical, Pen-is or [CENSORED]. Those things don't decide what you wear, society puts that on you and it's called Gender.

[Grizzlyfan]

see that is the crux of the issue.  bathroom policy should fall to the establishment not the state.

The NC law, for instance, only applies to government operated restrooms.  Not private business.

[BearsBisonsBoars]

I'm pretty sure more republican lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in bathrooms than transgender people.

Key word here is "arrested".

[LZH]

I'm 100% all for it.....

[Birminghog]

Isn't Tuberville running for office?

My point exactly. The legislature is a joke, the governor resigned this week after admitting to using state funds in financial support of his mistress, and the two most likely candidates for governor right now are Tuberville and someone whose first name is Twinkle and who is owned by Alabama Power. Nearly makes one yearn for a Charles Barkley candidacy. Nearly.

I have lived and worked in Alabama nearly 30 years. The people of Alabama have been good to me. I grieve for the future of this state if it keeps going in its present direction. Alabama deserves much better than it is getting. That being said, generally, we all get the government we elect.

Go Hogs.  :razorback:

[Razorbax]

So you chastise him for citing a specific website and then post breitbart? That's laughable. Most on that list aren't even transgender.

Must have missed out on the fun....here are 2 more I just found.
http://www.postregister.com/articles/news-daily-email-todays-headlines/2016/07/12/transgender-woman-arrested-voyeurism-target
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

As for them not being transgender.....some probably are not. However, you can bet thy do not always identify them as transgender. Politics is always in play.

Lastly, Apologies for the name calling....I crossed the line and wanted you to know I will take a breath and count to 10 in the future before posting a reply on this board.

[PorkSoda]

The NC law, for instance, only applies to government operated restrooms.  Not private business.

does it?  I didn't realize that.  if its the government is only talking about policy in their buildings, then that is their prerogative.  I was under the impression that they were attempting to force it on everyone.

[PorkSoda]

Oh, no, HF. I can assure you, Alabama is No. 1! 

they did recently approve a christian police force in alabama.  Hello western taliban.

[gchamblee]

Gender != Sex, sex is about your physical, Pen-is or [CENSORED]. Those things don't decide what you wear, society puts that on you and it's called Gender.

Thank you, I just learned something. So this allows a male to identify as a female and by all social standards this male is to be treated as a female? It sounds like people who are confused by this, much like myself, are confusing gender as sex.

[bennyl08]

Thank you, I just learned something. So this allows a male to identify as a female and by all social standards this male is to be treated as a female? It sounds like people who are confused by this, much like myself, are confusing gender as sex.

Sex is the plumbing, gender is the societal norms.

Although, there's debate among the use of gender even among the SJW's. Namely, it largely engrains the societal constructs that it isn't manly male-like to be caring or show emotions or that it isn't female-like to be aggressive or competitive, etc...

[gchamblee]

Sex is the plumbing, gender is the societal norms.

Although, there's debate among the use of gender even among the SJW's. Namely, it largely engrains the societal constructs that it isn't manly male-like to be caring or show emotions or that it isn't female-like to be aggressive or competitive, etc...

Im old fashioned and find it difficult to understand how society has arrived at some of the positions we currently sit in.

[PORKULATOR]

So you chastise him for citing a specific website and then post breitbart? That's laughable. Most on that list aren't even transgender.

breitbart is Alternative Truthing at its core.

[PorkSoda]

Im old fashioned and find it difficult to understand how society has arrived at some of the positions we currently sit in.

we live in a strange world, and freedom allows for some unexpected developments.  like people that don't like how they are born and are free to change their identity as they see fit.  nobody is born with tatoos, but many people get them, and they usually reflect concepts the person identifies with.  many people are born into christian families and grow up to be atheists or vice versa.  gender roles are just that. roles.  and like tatoos, some people what their physical appearance to reflect their chosen identity.

[PorkSoda]

So you chastise him for citing a specific website and then post breitbart? That's laughable. Most on that list aren't even transgender.

it is kind of funny, but I didn't specify transgender.  the common theme seems to be that people aren't scared of transgenders per se, but that perverts will claim to be transgender to skirt the law.  the problem is that, the NC law doesn't actually fix that.  and being a pervert in or out of either bathroom is already against the law.  so the reality is, the law is just a show of power.  ie political posturing, or whatever you want to call it.  and it does that at the expense of transgendered people who otherwise haven't broken any laws nor intend to.

[bennyl08]

Im old fashioned and find it difficult to understand how society has arrived at some of the positions we currently sit in.

For most things I find it pretty easy to understand how we arrive at different positions. Doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can understand where they are coming from.

For LGBT, it's something that much of society agrees is an issue that a person shouldn't have to hide or change to be a part of the rest of society in the same way that race, country of origin, religion, etc... have been viewed in the past. It is something that doesn't hurt others and is a great benefit to the people.

Against LGBT, it is something that the country and much of western society has previously repressed and gone against. It isn't what most people do; it's different. If we're being honest, that the root of the reason as greed and the pursuit of of property isn't met with nearly the same scorn. However, along with the religious reasons presented, they see it as an erosion of the traditional family unit which they believe is harmful to the country and society. It isn't just live and let live to them because they believe it will lead to things like more crime and poverty.

Those concerns originate from a lack of facts, which is a basic element of humanity. We fear the unknown. The young liberal san franciscan disparages christians because they don't truly know many. They will remember and focus on the interactions that are negative and will see in the media a negative persona and ignore the positive. The rural christian from nebraska will see homosexuals as hostile to her beliefs, will only see the young, promiscuous image of the lgbt community which is not more promiscuous than young straight people and ignore that homosexuals will settle down and experience a love for an individual same as straight couples or that many strive to be good christians themselves.

[gchamblee]

For most things I find it pretty easy to understand how we arrive at different positions. Doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can understand where they are coming from.

For LGBT, it's something that much of society agrees is an issue that a person shouldn't have to hide or change to be a part of the rest of society in the same way that race, country of origin, religion, etc... have been viewed in the past. It is something that doesn't hurt others and is a great benefit to the people.

Against LGBT, it is something that the country and much of western society has previously repressed and gone against. It isn't what most people do; it's different. If we're being honest, that the root of the reason as greed and the pursuit of of property isn't met with nearly the same scorn. However, along with the religious reasons presented, they see it as an erosion of the traditional family unit which they believe is harmful to the country and society. It isn't just live and let live to them because they believe it will lead to things like more crime and poverty.

Those concerns originate from a lack of facts, which is a basic element of humanity. We fear the unknown. The young liberal san franciscan disparages christians because they don't truly know many. They will remember and focus on the interactions that are negative and will see in the media a negative persona and ignore the positive. The rural christian from nebraska will see homosexuals as hostile to her beliefs, will only see the young, promiscuous image of the lgbt community which is not more promiscuous than young straight people and ignore that homosexuals will settle down and experience a love for an individual same as straight couples or that many strive to be good christians themselves.

I dont have a problem with any groups until I feel that the law starts propping them up. If society were so acceptant of a group of people, the law wouldnt need to prop them up. However, I also agree that the law is needed to protect the oppressed. It just feels like opression has become a very loose term socially and legally.

[PorkSoda]

I dont have a problem with any groups until I feel that the law starts propping them up. If society were so acceptant of a group of people, the law wouldnt need to prop them up. However, I also agree that the law is needed to protect the oppressed. It just feels like opression has become a very loose term socially and legally.

I do think we are experiencing some growing pains in relation to the civil rights movement.  Back in day there was serious opposition to civil rights and it took a lot of political force to get the ball rolling.  we are reaching (or have reached) the point where the civil rights movement is stronger than the forces that resist it.  this creates a different and reversed dynamic.  this creates two new issues.  one that the ball is rolling faster and faster and eventually could become uncontrollable. and two, it the process of doing so risks harming the diversity and equality that it originally sought. 

the pendulum in a clock works by balancing kinetic and potential forces.  If the pendulum swings too far one way or the other it will break the clock.  as we move forward, we need to be careful not to push too strong one way or the other, but to find a balance where the forces at work find a productive balance.

(Que benny to roast me for the analogy not being scientifically accurate)

[bennyl08]

I do think we are experiencing some growing pains in relation to the civil rights movement.  Back in day there was serious opposition to civil rights and it took a lot of political force to get the ball rolling.  we are reaching (or have reached) the point where the civil rights movement is stronger than the forces that resist it.  this creates a different and reversed dynamic.  this creates two new issues.  one that the ball is rolling faster and faster and eventually could become uncontrollable. and two, it the process of doing so risks harming the diversity and equality that it originally sought. 

the pendulum in a clock works by balancing kinetic and potential forces.  If the pendulum swings too far one way or the other it will break the clock.  as we move forward, we need to be careful not to push too strong one way or the other, but to find a balance where the forces at work find a productive balance.

(Que benny to roast me for the analogy not being scientifically accurate)

Fine, then I'll roast your for spelling queue 'que'. Don't be throwing them espanish words around here. We speak 'murican! 

[bennyl08]

I dont have a problem with any groups until I feel that the law starts propping them up. If society were so acceptant of a group of people, the law wouldnt need to prop them up. However, I also agree that the law is needed to protect the oppressed. It just feels like opression has become a very loose term socially and legally.

I can't speak to your views personally, but I've a lot of people view equality as propping up one group more than another. Case in point how saying happy holidays is somehow an attack on christmas, when in reality, it is businesses pandering to a more multi-cultural shopping base and thus no longer pandering to one group of shoppers over all the others. Whether a business says happy holidays or merry christmas isn't a law, but it represents the idea. For example, marriage equality and towns like Fayetteville, AR and Charlotte, NC enacting anti-discrimination laws are viewed as many (again, no intent to claim you are one of them as I have no idea) as propping up the LGBT above others when it doesn't. It prevents a gay man from not renting out a house to an otherwise qualified straight woman same as it prevents a straight woman from discriminating against gay men in renting out a house.