The 2024 GOP front runner wants to terminate The Constitution…

It's hilarious to see those on the right argue that privacy is enshrined in the Constitution as they have always argued it isn't to negate the right to an abortion.

 

Imagine not realizing the salaries and wages part pays the people running the shelters and pantries.

Imagine not realizing those buildings that feed and house cost money/have expenses.

The "missions" part 9f a church budget 8s generally what they church gives to OTHER missions. (overseas generally).

 

Lol. Yeah. Your wife would probably be fine with some dude dropping his towel in her locker room and thinks its the same thing as women being in the locker room.

That's the defense here?

 

I have never once made that argument. Not once.

I have argued that an unborn human should have the rights of a born human. Life. Liberty. Etc.

 

Conservatives revulsed by men in women’s showers. Ergo, it must be defended.

 

Transgender Derangement Syndrome, the other TDS is real.

 

Actually. It was real. In Charlotte.
No derangement needed. City council literally opened the doors to men showering with women and no remedy for the patron or business 9wner.

 

The constitutional right to privacy (if it exists) limits government action. That would preclude the government from infringing upon one's privacy rights (however that's defined) - not dictate how private clubs or businesses lay out their bathrooms or locker rooms. If someone's wife doesn't like the way a given gym is set up, she can certainly choose a different gym that aligns with what she is comfortable with. To the extent we're talking about government buildings, true privacy would mean having one's own space and not having to get naked or use the bathroom in front of people of either sex or gender. I've certainly seen places that have a single person bathroom, for example, where only one person can go in at a time. Just like we have in our homes. I'm not trying to dismiss your practical concern here because it's real. I just don't see how the government allowing places to set their own rules amounts to a violation of the constitutional right of privacy. I also don't see how it has anything to do with an attack on the constitution or democracy.

 

That doesn’t make it anti-democracy. I don’t like it when people litter. That has nothing to do with democracy either.

again, the word democracy has a meaning. And the definition of “anti-democracy” is not “stuff I don’t like.”

 

How does your post address the point? Oh it doesn’t. You made a nonsensical statement, it was pointed out and your response is that?

 

While I do not necessarily agree with what Charlotte did, it was the city's response to an overly broad state law requiring persons to use the restrooms of their birth gender. First the law applied to restrooms not showers and secondly and my guess is that you do not approve of the procedure, should persons have had surgery and completely pass as members of the gender with which the identify be required to use restrooms or show facilities of the gender of their birth? Just my opinion, I think that both the city and the state laws were unnecessary and poorly drafted.

 

While I generally enjoy showering with women my remedy if I were so inclined would be not to take a shower.

 

The gyms were not allowed to deny men's entry into women's locker rooms. That was the issue. Women had no such choice because the ordinance handcuffed the gym owner

 

I addressed that.

 

The remedy is dudes with packages shower in the mens room.

 

I always find it fascinating how the concern is only on one direction of trans people. You aren't screaming about "women showering in the men's locker room." And that you completely ignored any concerns that the transgendered people had (such as the high rate of assault against them).

Regardless, it is neither a constitutional violation nor is it a threat to democracy. It is a policy difference. The likes of which you solve at a ballot box. The problem is that many Republicans have become so afraid of losing policy disputes at the ballot box that they are willing to throw democracy overboard. That is the topic here.

 

Charlotte's ordinance did include showers. It was not just a bathroom bill. It lacked limits for such things. It required a women (for instance) to file and prove a complaint that the man did anything that violated other laws. Forget that most women dont want men in their locker rooms. They now had to file a complaint that something additional had happened.

Both sides got into a tennis match of overreactions which led to the national issue.

 

“or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”
trump.

a group of conservatives refer to themselves as constitutionalists. Curious what their feedback is on this trump desire for “termination” of the laws the constitution sets up for our country.

 

You mentioned "[t]he largest city in my state violating women's rights to privacy by allowing men to shower in women's locker rooms." I didn't follow that law closely and think I misunderstood your post to mean that the government was violating womens' rights to privacy just by allowing men to be there - as opposed to taking that decision away from gym owners entirely. I think that's a legitimate question.

We have seen lots of cases where we have to weigh the rights of business owners with the rights of those being protected by anti-discrimination laws (e.g., restaurants, hotels, and bakers). In this example, I'm not sure that women would have Constitutional standing under the right to privacy (if that exists going forward) to strike down anti-discrimination laws. Hypothetically, if a straight woman does not want to share a locker room with lesbians, could she successfully challenge a law that requires gyms to let lesbians in lockerooms? Obviously, sexual orientation is somewhat different, but I'm just asking this from a legal standpoint.

 

Sexual orientation is different though.
A lesbian is a woman. She likely isnt advertising her orientation.

A hairy dude packing heat is a different thing altogether.