Which part of the state? The AG's office is a state agency and so is the Treasury Dept and their policies were known to be threatened prior to any other suit. The AG cannot defend the policies as being threatened by an unconstitutional legislation at the same time defending the constitutionality of that same legislation. The AG's office and as a result the AG himself was the first "client" to be impacted. If the AG cannot defend himself and his department there is something very wrong with the view. Also the oath for the NC Bar and to hold public office require the defense of the US Constitution first and the State Constitution second, which would place this legislation in a questionable defense position for any attorney in the state. http://www.ncbar.gov/PDFs/oath.pdf http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_11.pdf § 11-7. Oath or affirmation to support Constitutions; all officers to take. Every member of the General Assembly and every person elected or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State shall, before taking office or entering upon the execution of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath: "I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God." (1781, c. 342, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194; 1985, c. 756, s. 5.)
Really? You are that ignorant? Yes, there is evidence that someone COULD be hit from 3 feet away with 25 rounds being fired. The NC test for a CCW does that because there has to be much less than 25 misses, from longer ranges, with a less accurate weapon. Thus the odds are greater for one being so struck.
Just to ease your worried mind, transgender people comprise 0.03 % of the US population, and so, the probability of sharing a restroom with a trans person, would be extremely slim. I have lived all over the United States in cities where I have actually seen a few transgendered people, (certainly more than here in the South) and have never shared a restroom with them. I think your argument concerning straight men dressing up as women to perpetrate crimes against women in restrooms may be culled from questionable news sources, since restrooms are definitely not the favored environment of assault, as people tend not to loiter around restrooms for too long, thereby presenting a criminal with fewer opportunities. Looking at the research, it does appear that transgendered people are at more risk for being attacked for just being different, which I cannot condone. I also feel that every time you go out into public with strangers, whether you realize it or not, you are taking a personal risk, regardless of whether you are in a public restroom, in a movie theater, or waiting in line to buy some ice cream, as recent unfortunate events would illustrate. Now, I know as humans, we like our "scary bogeymen" to be instantly "identifiable", to fit a certain narrative trope, but how many times have you watched the news reporting the "latest grisly discovery", and the "shocked neighbors", will without fail, tell the interviewing reporter, that "except for the 10 bodies found in his upright freezer", the fellow living next door, was a "good neighbor" who "regularly mowed his lawn", and seemed "pretty normal", if not a " little bit on the quiet side"? Lol. So, Jennifer my point is this: Don't let fear rule your life.
So you changed from COULD to WOULD, is that it? So, using your level of proof, that means none could prove they WOULD be attacked if transgender people were allowed access.
I'll have to check, but I'm fairly certain there's lots of evidence showing that the size, shape, position, and distance directly affect accuracy. Is that your point? But, alas, we're no so far off point that it hardly matters.
Yes, that is the point of the law: to create fear and suspicion in people, and to use it for political gain. Both sides do it all the time. One thing to keep in mind is that many of our elected officials are LAWYERS, and whether they are right or left in their politics, they are extremely skilled at manipulating public perception over the facts. Oh, that reminds me of a joke: (but first my apology to any lawyers out there) Why do they bury lawyers 10 feet in the ground? Because deep down, they're nice!
And there you hit it wayne. There is no proof that people WON'T be attacked if Charlotte had the law been upheld either. You and ricks want to specify proof for your argument but don't like it when proof is specified for an argument you don't like. Jennifer can't give you what you want because you both know damn well it doesn't and can't exist.
There is NEVER a way to predict the future, but it is clear there is no PROBABILITY of any increase in the number of people being assaulted if the Charlotte ordinance were enacted. You are the ONLY one wanting that level of evidence as some type of distraction. There has been NO evidence to support an INCREASE in attacks IF the ordinance were enacted. None have tried to claim the ordinance would prevent ANY attack from happening, just that it would not cause MORE attacks to occur than would normally be expected. The key word is increased because there is evidence of attacks happening without that type of ordinance being in place. All you need to do is have a basic understanding of logic to be able to understand why your attempt to deflect is spurious.
Oh dang, while ago we needed facts and evidence. All you need is logic? Same double standard as you usually use in most debates on here wayne.
It can exist, and quite easily ((for simplicity's sake I'll ignore the cause/effect link): Study a community that has enacted a similar anti-discrimination ordinance. Record the number of bathroom assaults in the year before the ordinance was enacted. Record the number of bathroom assaults in the year after the ordinance was enacted. Did the rate of bathroom assaults increase? Simple math can provide a Yes or No answer. The simple fact is, in the 200+ locales have enacted, there was no statistical increase in the number of bathroom attacks.
You need the logic to understand the facts and evidence, which you clearly do not because you cannot tell the difference between your deflection attempt and the discussion.
Already it has begun . . . from the alert WRAL just sent me: Pharmaceutical company reevaluating NC expansion in light of HB2 — Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, which announced plans for a $25 million expansion in North Carolina on March 16, said they are reevaluating the decision in light of House Bill 2, calling it "unjust legislation" in a statement. Read more at http://www.wral.com/#28PvA3q63IRoYc6v.99
No, since it also seems to threatened some of the millions of dollars in Federal funds for schools too.
Companies reconsidering North Carolina over LGBT rights I think the error for most people in North Carolina is they are fixated on "Bathrooms" my concerns and most industries is that this was just a cover to discriminate against all in the LGBT community not just Trans folks.
Another hyped up writer with few facts to represent the headlines. Lionsgate, really. Their gonna shoot the film in CANADA, instead of NC? What America loving folks they are. There are 49 more states. They went where they wanted.
Another writer with facts, not beliefs, to support the headlines. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory met with gay-rights advocates bearing a letter signed by more than 100 corporate executives urging him to repeal the nation's first state law limiting the bathroom options for transgender people.
