House Bill 2 - North Carolina

[Prudence]

Lets remember that we need to separate our religious belief from logic on this topic as the government has to be run without church or any religion influence as per the constitution. So lets not bring any religion in this, it should not be used to make laws, because of the many problems it can cause.

No, but I can still voice personal opinion based on that. And I have literally said a dozen times that I am separating personal opinion from this.

I have literally thousands of people who would call you out on that.

They can be used to say that you're pretty sure someone is, but the presence of the chemicals, which are all naturally occurring, cannot definitively say that someone was born that way, or identifies as such.

 

[Richie B.]

@Prudence than saying transgender isn't a thing cant be talked about at all since that is a part of your religion something you got from your religion and scientist mostly agree that transgender is a thing just like being gay and so on.

You are going to just have faith that people are being honest that they truly mean they are transgender.

 

[Prudence]

@Prudence than saying transgender isn't a thing cant be talked about at all since that is a part of your religion something you got from your religion and scientist mostly agree that transgender is a thing just like being gay and so on.

You are going to just have faith that people are being honest that they truly mean they are transgender.

I'd counter that this is a thread I started, and you can't really set rules on what I can and can't express. My personal opinion has been labeled as just that, my personal opinion. Thank you.

 

[Lucy Lou]

So question. Are you going to be checking people's birth certificates to see if a person is actually male or female? or requiring blood tests in order to open a bathroom?

Because at my school, our bathrooms don't even have doors. The stalls do, but not the doors that go into the bathroom.

The legality either way is stupid as the law itself is unenforceable.

 

[Proleptic]

@Benvenu7 I am not offended, though I just want to point out that I specifically said that this law should not be a thing. ^.^ You assumption that separation of church and state prevents religion from being a part of the voting process is, in my opinion, entirely incorrect. The separation laws were created in order to prevent laws specifically excluding members of a religion from something. There is most definitely employment of religion, particularly Christianity, in politics. If there were not, there would not be laws such as gay marriage prevention, as the "logical" basis for that is founded on the idea of preserving the "original" idea of marriage, which in the belief of many people is something between a man and a woman. It is something many people believe to be founded in the Bible, when in actuality marriages were occurring without interference from the Bible since ancient times, as a simple conjoining of two people or even groups. This shows that, most likely, the marriage that people try to uphold is something that they base off of religion. That is just my opinion, and sorry if that thought wasn't well-articulated. Moving on slightly, I would just like to point out again that while I am in favor of the ideas set forth by this law, due largely to my religious conflict, the reasons that I would advocate for the law's existence, assuming the employment bits were removed, is due to the fact that the majority of the population is in accordance with it. So yeah. I do agree with some things in it. That does not mean that I believe if should be instated, and I would really rather that you gained a full understanding of my viewpoint before telling me to keep religion out of this, as I only mentioned religion in the explanation of why I am conflicted. It had nothing to do with the fact that I reject the law's placement.

@Outlander I am not doing anything of the sort. I feel no need to justify my beliefs, I was just sharing because funsies. I specifically said that I don't believe the law should be in place, though my wording may have seemed contrary. To restate here, I would say that I agree with some of the ordinances within the bill, but do not believe that it is sustainable as a law due to the employment issues. I believe that, should those be removed, then the law should have no problems, as it is what the majority of the population would seem to want.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

Are you telling me, that if you were in Public Ed (as I know Outlander is) or yoou were in college (as I think the others may be) and were entirely, or partially, reliant on Student Loans that you would be 100% okay with your education being cut, or your loans being taken away because somewhere a guy can't use the girl's room?

No, I would totally hate that my money was being withheld because my State can't get over the fact some of their citizens want to pee in a different hole.

It really amazes me that on a site where we write about fictitious space monsters using space magic we are hung up on where certain real life humans pee.

 

[Tank]

Lets remember that we need to separate our religious belief from logic on this topic as the government has to be run without church or any religion influence as per the constitution. So lets not bring any religion in this, it should not be used to make laws, because of the many problems it can cause.

False. Just false. The government does not have to be run without religion. The government cannot force religion. Those are two entirely different things.

And to tell a true believer in Christ to separate their religious beliefs from from logic is laughable. A true Christian cannot separate religion from themselves. Maybe for other religions their beliefs are easily discarded or bent to ones will. But with Christianity the member is bent to the Will of God; and asking them to deprecate their religion from logic is asking them to sin against God. According to Christian religious beliefs anything against the Will of God is a sin. But this is all way off topic. My main issue with your post is this:

Telling a group of people (Christians), "Don't bring your religion into this." Is suppressing their rights. And to suppress their right to give other people rights is discrimination. You're basically saying that I don't have the right to free speech because of my identity...which is blatant discrimination and I would say is more serious than someone not being able to use the little boys room.

This is honestly the main reason I prefer a confederate form of government, because Christian, Muslim, LGBT, ect ideals are all hostile to one another. They can't live peaceably under the same laws (the ones we have anyway). And it's still impractical and discriminatory to separate people based on religion and morals but unless everyone in the country has the same morals there is always going to be a minority that is upset.

 

[Breeso]

Hey, I remembee the last time government was not separated from religion in Europe. Yeahhhh, it was a lot of fun, crusades, witch burning and stuff.

 

[Prudence]

Hey, I remembee the last time government was not separated from religion in Europe. Yeahhhh, it was a lot of fun, crusades, witch burning and stuff.

I think what Tank means to say is that religion, for someone who is religious, is going to guide their personal feelings. For some , they vote with their personal feelings as well, and let religion guide their decisions. We're not talking about erecting laws that put one religion over another, instead we're more talking about laws that were influenced by a religion. Though, I'll remind you that the big four over here, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism all condemn homosexuality and transsexuality so its not like this would be putting any of those religions over one another.

 

[Outlander]

I disagree with most of this. I'm completely fine with religious VALUES being used in government, because, even as an agnostic, I think the Bible has some good morals. However, once someone starts using religious doctrine to make legistlature, it has overstepped the boundaries of church and state, essentially doing the opposite of what you described and forcing your religion on the entire nation. This isn't even going into how offensive your remarks about non-christian religions can be construed as, which is another issue entirely.

What @Benvenu7 was trying to say, at least what I believe he was trying to say, is that we should seperate our religious doctrines from the discussion as they don't pertain to actual legislature. If you want to say that your values are directly correlated to your religion, fine. But once you say the legistalure is working off of christian doctrine, then we'll have an issue.

False. Just false. The government does not have to be run without religion. The government cannot force religion. Those are two entirely different things.

And to tell a true believer in Christ to separate their religious beliefs from from logic is laughable. A true Christian cannot separate religion from themselves. Maybe for other religions their beliefs are easily discarded or bent to ones will. But with Christianity the member is bent to the Will of God; and asking them to deprecate their religion from logic is asking them to sin against God. According to Christian religious beliefs anything against the Will of God is a sin. But this is all way off topic. My main issue with your post is this:

Telling a group of people (Christians), "Don't bring your religion into this." Is suppressing their rights. And to suppress their right to give other people rights is discrimination. You're basically saying that I don't have the right to free speech because of my identity...which is blatant discrimination and I would say is more serious than someone not being able to use the little boys room.

This is honestly the main reason I prefer a confederate form of government, because Christian, Muslim, LGBT, ect ideals are all hostile to one another. They can't live peaceably under the same laws (the ones we have anyway). And it's still impractical and discriminatory to separate people based on religion and morals but unless everyone in the country has the same morals there is always going to be a minority that is upset.

 

[Breeso]

Yeah, when you take it that way, it's better. We just have a political party in here that is called Christ-Democratic Movement and it pisses me off when people vote it just because it has "Christ" in the name. Like, check out what's it about to be sure before voting.

 

[Outlander]

Religion should never be used as an excuse to oppress people. My mother is a Christian, and is personally sickened when she hears about people doing that. It makes her feel ashamed to be a Christian.

I think what Tank means to say is that religion, for someone who is religious, is going to guide their personal feelings. For some , they vote with their personal feelings as well, and let religion guide their decisions. We're not talking about erecting laws that put one religion over another, instead we're more talking about laws that were influenced by a religion. Though, I'll remind you that the big four over here, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism all condemn homosexuality and transsexuality so its not like this would be putting any of those religions over one another.

 

[Richie B.]

@Prudence the fact that you claim that the big 4 support putting down gays and trans people is just wrong in ever sense of the word. I hope you have been watching the current Pope because he is going against what you claim the church is supposedly for and he is the head of the church. Besides just because the law is ok by 4 religions does not make it acceptable to all, or even a good law. Seriously it is still putting down trans making it so they cant actually live the way they wish, if they try so hard to become the gender they relate with, but now they can not actually do anything with that such as using the same restroom and so on, than it is oppressing their rights and well just plain wrong.

I am fine with bringing personal stuff just none where it looks down on a group which seems to be what you have brought up, not saying you are actively looking down at anyone but saying that the big four religion agrees with the law does not make the law a good one.

 

[Logan]

Religion has no place in laws or legislature. If you can't separate your religious ideologies from well, reality, then you have no place inside a ruling body of government. You can't decide on anything objectively because your brain is conditioned to operate under a certain MO, ie: within your realm of religious fanaticism (even if you're not a zealot, the blind faith that religion requires is fanaticism) or what your religion dictates as right and wrong.

 

[Prudence]

@Prudence the fact that you claim that the big 4 support putting down gays and trans people is just wrong in ever sense of the word. I hope you have been watching the current Pope because he is going against what you claim the church is supposedly for and he is the head of the church. Besides just because the law is ok by 4 religions does not make it acceptable to all, or even a good law. Seriously it is still putting down trans making it so they cant actually live the way they wish, if they try so hard to become the gender they relate with, but now they can not actually do anything with that such as using the same restroom and so on, than it is oppressing their rights and well just plain wrong.

I am fine with bringing personal stuff just none where it looks down on a group which seems to be what you have brought up, not saying you are actively looking down at anyone but saying that the big four religion agrees with the law does not make the law a good one.

Benny, I'm concerned. Because you didn't actually read what I said. I said that they condemn it, not put it down.

Religion has no place in laws or legislature. If you can't separate your religious ideologies from well, reality, then you have no place inside a ruling body of government. You can't decide on anything objectively because your brain is conditioned to operate under a certain MO, ie: within your realm of religious fanaticism (even if you're not a zealot, the blind faith that religion requires is fanaticism) or what your religion dictates as right and wrong.

I feel you. This entire time I've been saying, every time, that I'm putting my personal and religious opinions aside.

 

[Tank]

I disagree with most of this. I'm completely fine with religious VALUES being used in government, because, even as an agnostic, I think the Bible has some good morals. However, once someone starts using religious doctrine to make legistlature, it has overstepped the boundaries of church and state, essentially doing the opposite of what you described and forcing your religion on the entire nation. This isn't even going into how offensive your remarks about non-christian religions can be construed as, which is another issue entirely.

What @Benvenu7 was trying to say, at least what I believe he was trying to say, is that we should seperate our religious doctrines from the discussion as they don't pertain to actual legislature. If you want to say that your values are directly correlated to your religion, fine. But once you say the legistalure is working off of christian doctrine, then we'll have an issue.

I agree with most of that first paragraph. The issue I have is you shouldn't be able to compromise a religious groups beliefs either when making legislation.

I also didn't think what I said regarding other religions was terribly offensive. I said, "maybe their beliefs are easily discarded or bent to their own will"...not really offensive IMO but maybe that's because I'm used to people saying:

If you can't separate your religious ideologies from well, REALITY, then you have no place inside a ruling body of government.

AND

You can't decide on anything objectively.

@Prudence the fact that you claim that the big 4 support putting down gays and trans people is just wrong in ever sense of the word. I hope you have been watching the current Pope because he is going against what you claim the church is supposedly for and he is the head of the church. Besides just because the law is ok by 4 religions does not make it acceptable to all, or even a good law. Seriously it is still putting down trans making it so they cant actually live the way they wish, if they try so hard to become the gender they relate with, but now they can not actually do anything with that such as using the same restroom and so on, than it is oppressing their rights and well just plain wrong.

I am fine with bringing personal stuff just none where it looks down on a group which seems to be what you have brought up, not saying you are actively looking down at anyone but saying that the big four religion agrees with the law does not make the law a good one.

The Pope is not the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the church. And personally I believe the Pope should spend more time rooting out corruption, indulgences, and sexual harassment than trying to please the LGBT community. But, I don't agree with the Catholic Church for a lot of reasons.

I also want to make sure you realize that by siding with one group (LGBT), you ARE discriminating against another group (Christians, Muslims, Catholics, ect). It's important because I think you believe there is a world in which everyone can have the rights they believe they deserve and everyone will live together in peace. And the unfortunate truth is that it's not possible with the amount of cultural, religious, ect differences there are in this country.

 

[Outlander]

I disagree with several points raised here.

One: Every religion is a belief. Beliefs can be held, but cannot be forced into others. So while doctrine may state being gay is against your religion, it's not up to your religion whether they are given equal rights in this country. And giving someone equal rights not not inversely discriminating against your right to, what, discriminate against them? Thats some very backwards mentality, stating that giving a group of people the same rights goes against your rights because your religious text says they can't.

2. By saying that, you made some frankly terrible implications about other religions, implying that only Christianity is truly faithful to their own doctrine. This is incredibly close minded. Its fine to say your religion is the religion, thats kind of the point, but I have to make a point when you start needlessly bellittling others and their beliefs.

3. I think you should be perfectly able to separate your faith from your duty as a lawmaker, and understand you're making these decisions for a group of people who aren't all Christians. The way I see it, faith is something personal, and while it's fine for you to act in the spirit of faith, forcing it on others is wrong, be it through personal actions or legislature.

I agree with most of that first paragraph. The issue I have is you shouldn't be able to compromise a religious groups beliefs either when making legislation.

I also didn't think what I said regarding other religions was terribly offensive. I said, "maybe their beliefs are easily discarded or bent to their own will"...not really offensive IMO but maybe that's because I'm used to people saying:


AND





The Pope is not the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the church. And personally I believe the Pope should spend more time rooting out corruption, indulgences, and sexual harassment than trying to please the LGBT community. But, I don't agree with the Catholic Church for a lot of reasons.

I also want to make sure you realize that by siding with one group (LGBT), you ARE discriminating against another group (Christians, Muslims, Catholics, ect). It's important because I think you believe there is a world in which everyone can have the rights they believe they deserve and everyone will live together in peace. And the unfortunate truth is that it's not possible with the amount of cultural, religious, ect differences there are in this country.

 

[Velus]

Religion has no place in laws or legislature. If you can't separate your religious ideologies from well, reality, then you have no place inside a ruling body of government. You can't decide on anything objectively because your brain is conditioned to operate under a certain MO, ie: within your realm of religious fanaticism (even if you're not a zealot, the blind faith that religion requires is fanaticism) or what your religion dictates as right and wrong.

What? Do I hear common sense? Oh the cruelty!

 

[Prudence]

Federal Agencies Won't Hold up Money Amid NC LGBT Law Fight
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/federal-agencies-hold-money-amid-nc-lgbt-law-39074556


The state has won a temporary victory.

 

[Outlander]

Federal Agencies Won't Hold up Money Amid NC LGBT Law Fight
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/federal-agencies-hold-money-amid-nc-lgbt-law-39074556


The state has won a temporary victory.

Nothing matters until the bill is upheld or overturned.